[Senate Hearing 113-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Reed,
Landrieu, Pryor, Cochran, Shelby, Collins, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of Defense
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROBERT HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
COMPTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Good morning and welcome.
The subcommittee meets this morning to receive testimony on
the fiscal year 2014 budget for the Department of Defense
(DOD).
And I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of Defense and
our former colleague, the Honorable Chuck Hagel--thank you for
being here, Chuck--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Dempsey; and Bob Hale, the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense.
We are going to speak today about budgets and, more
importantly, about people. All of the services' secretaries and
chiefs have appeared before the subcommittee this year and have
expressed great concern over the impact of sequestration,
particularly how the size and pace of spending reductions have
the potential to degrade our Nation's defense. Sequester, the
increase in cost of fuel, shortfalls in overseas contingency
operation (OCO) accounts have reduced the Department's
operations and maintenance accounts by nearly $26 billion in
this fiscal year. The Department's recent omnibus reprogramming
that the subcommittee is reviewing could offset about $7.3
billion of the OCO shortfall, but the Army would still have a
$3.5 billion bill for the war in Afghanistan, with limited
flexibility in paying it. I would like to know the options that
are being considered to fill this gap, as well as more detail.
For fiscal year 2014, the President's budget requests
$515.6 billion in base funding, $79.5 billion for OCO.
Secretary Hagel, you initiated a Strategic Management and
Choices Review to examine options for how the Department would
absorb the approximately $52 billion in additional cuts under
sequestration, and I want to hear an update today and I am sure
I will. We cannot solve the budget issues without being smarter
and without making certain that we have spending cuts that are
reasonable.
Two weeks ago, I discussed the Army's track record on
acquisition with Secretary McHugh and General Odierno, an
average of $1 billion spent every year for decades on programs
that were later canceled.
Tomorrow, I am holding a hearing on the tuition assistance
program, again to make sure that the Department's spending is
focused on getting the best bang for the buck.
Next week, I am holding a hearing on the Joint Strike
Fighter so that we can have a clear understanding of where this
very expensive program is headed.
Quite simply, we do not have the funds for business as
usual if we also wish to make investments across the Government
for a competitive, healthy, educated workforce. I know you
agree, and the subcommittee is committed to working with you to
encourage this.
I also want to hear from you on personnel, people. General
Dempsey, you said last year at the National Press Club if we do
not get the people right, the rest of it will not matter. That
says it all from where I am sitting.
This weekend, I attended a freedom salute ceremony for a
National Guard unit in my hometown of Springfield, Illinois.
They just returned from theater gateway operations in Kuwait.
It was a great illustration of why people are so important. In
a little over 9 months, 10 soldiers took care of the needs of
more than 100,000 servicemembers. They also saw a little bit of
everything, redeployments, medical issues, sexual assault
cases, and it was up to them to be leaders in the moment. And
they were. We are so proud of the work that is being done by
all of our military, and today I would like to especially
salute the Guard and Reserve units who have really taken up the
responsibility so admirably.
That leadership is what we need to maintain, but we have
many, many challenges. How do we retain the most skilled
leaders across each of the services when we shrink personnel?
How do we preserve the Guard's tremendous value as an
operational reserve? For instance, the 182nd Airlift Wing in
Peoria is about to receive its sixth--sixth--outstanding unit
award since 9/11. During the last 2 years, supporting
operations in Afghanistan, it has conducted--this National
Guard unit--3,300 combat missions while maintaining an
exceptional 94.7 percent mission capable rating.
The issue of suicide. Last year, we saw deaths by suicide
outstrip the number of troop combat deaths. In 2013, there was
a suicide every 18 hours across our force.
Finally, sexual assault. This issue really threatens to
undermine basic levels of trust in the military between
personnel and trust in commanders to maintain discipline. I
know neither of you take these incidents lightly, but the time
for action is long overdue. We need a commitment to change the
culture.
There was a story that came back with this National Guard
unit that was activated in Kuwait. It was a story of a young
woman who was alleging, as a member of our armed services, that
she was a victim of sexual assault. She was transferred from
her forward operating base (FOB) to another unit before she was
being sent back to the States to testify. The treatment she
received during that transfer was awful. She was placed in a
living arrangement where she literally had to walk through the
men's latrine to get to the women's latrine. This sexual
assault victim really was shattered by the experience. And it
was noteworthy that the prosecutor in the case said that the
first kind person she ran into was from this National Guard
unit who met with her in Kuwait and tried to steady her nerves
as she faced one of the biggest challenges of her life. This
culture has to change.
These concerns cannot be taken to say that we have a broken
force. We don't. We have the best and strongest military in the
world. I am so proud to play a small role here in this
subcommittee to make sure they have what is necessary to be
successful in keeping America safe.
We have many questions. Before I turn it over to Senator
Cochran for opening remarks, I want to sincerely thank both you
as Senator and now Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and Mr.
Hale for your service to our Nation.
Senator Durbin. Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am pleased to
join you in welcoming the distinguished Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review
Department of Defense's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
In the current fiscal environment and the uncertainty of
future funding levels, we need to know the consequences of
sequestration and its impact on the Department of Defense and
ultimately on our national security interests.
Our subcommittee has learned from the service chiefs who
have testified and other Department of Defense officials about
the challenges facing our military today and specifically in
fiscal year 2014.
We thank you for your service and we welcome your
suggestions.
Senator Durbin. At this point, I would like to recognize
Secretary of Defense Hagel for an opening statement. Your
entire written statement will be made a part of the record.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL
Secretary Hagel. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request for the Department of Defense.
I also appreciate this subcommittee's continued support of
our men and women in uniform and our civilian workforce and
their families. As we discuss numbers, budgets, and strategic
priorities, we will not lose sight of these men and women
serving across the globe. As you all know, their well-being
depends on the decisions we make here in Washington.
The President has requested $526.6 billion for the
Department of Defense's fiscal year 2014 base budget and $79.4
billion for overseas contingency operations. My written
statement, Mr. Chairman, as you know, contains details on both
budget requests.
This morning, allow me to very briefly focus on three areas
before I take your questions: First, the continued budget
challenges facing the Department in fiscal year 2013, as a
result of sequestration, as you have noted as well as Senator
Cochran; second, the Department's fiscal year 2014 budget
request; and third, how the Department is preparing for the
future budget uncertainty and the prospect of further reduced
resources as a result of sequestration.
As you all know, the Department has been forced to
implement deep and abrupt cuts in the current fiscal year
because of sequestration. According to the latest guidance from
the Office of Management and Budget, the Department must cut
$37 billion in spending through the remainder of this fiscal
year. With our internal decision to shift the impact of
sequestration away from those serving in harm's way and force
readiness, the cuts fall heavily on DOD's accounts that train
and equip those who will deploy in the future.
The Department is also experiencing higher wartime costs
than expected. As a result of these factors, the Department is
facing a shortfall of more than $30 billion in our operations
and maintenance account for fiscal year 2013. To deal with this
shortfall, the Department has cut back sharply on facilities
maintenance, instituted hiring freezes, cut overhead spending,
reduced important but lower priority programs, directed
furloughs of nearly 700,000 civilian employees, and submitted,
as you have noted, a $9.6 billion reprogramming request to
Congress. And we ask this subcommittee for your assistance in
providing rapid review and approval of this critical
reprogramming request.
Given the scale of this shortfall, the reprogramming and
other steps we have taken to cut non-essential spending are not
enough. While we have protected spending to sustain the war
effort and defend America's vital strategic interests, the
Department's day-to-day activities will be significantly
disrupted for the remainder of this fiscal year. Each of the
military services has begun to significantly reduce training
and maintenance of non-deployable operating forces. As you have
both noted, you have had the Chiefs before this committee, and
they have made some very significant, detailed presentations
and accounted for these cuts.
For example, the Army has stopped rotations at its key
combat training centers for all but deploying units. More than
a dozen combat coded Air Force squadrons either already have or
will soon stop flying, and the Navy has curtailed many
deployments.
To avoid even more significant reductions to military
readiness, I directed furloughs of up to 11 days for most of
the Department's 800,000 civilian personnel. Mr. Chairman, I
made this decision very reluctantly. I made it reluctantly
because I recognize the significant hardship this places on
civilian personnel across our country and especially on their
families. But the current budget environment is requiring
difficult decisions and options.
Now, let me turn to fiscal year 2014. The President's
fiscal year 2014 budget continues to implement the $487 billion
in spending reductions over the next 10 years agreed to in the
Budget Control Act of 2011. If the sequester-related provisions
of the Budget Control Act are not changed, fiscal year 2014's
funding for national defense programs will be subject to an
additional $52 billion reduction in DOD funding. And if there
are no changes, continued sequestrations will result in roughly
$500 billion in additional reductions to defense spending over
the next 10 years.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget replaces
sequestration and gives the Department the time and the
flexibility to plan and implement spending reductions wisely
and responsibly. In particular, this budget enables the
Department to support troops still at war in Afghanistan,
protect readiness, modernize the military's aging weapons
inventory in keeping with the President's strategic guidance,
and sustain a high quality of the All-Volunteer Force that you
noted that was in General Dempsey's speech at the National
Press Club.
This budget also continues the Department's approach of the
last couple of years of targeting growing costs in support
areas like overhead, acquisition, and pay and benefits. Over
the next 5 years, DOD has identified $34 billion in new savings
across these categories. This includes weapons program
restructuring and terminations that will achieve $8.2 billion
in savings, slowdowns in military construction, and reductions
in other lower priority programs.
Our military compensation package preserves DOD's world-
class pay and benefits while putting our military on a more
sustainable path for the future. It includes changes to the
TRICARE program to bring the beneficiaries' cost share closer
to the levels envisioned when the program was first
implemented.
The Department of Defense also must be able to eliminate
excess infrastructure. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request authorizes for one round of base realignment and
closure (BRAC) in 2015. BRAC, as well as recognize, is an
imperfect process, and there are upfront costs. But in the long
term, there are significant savings. The previous rounds of
BRAC are saving $12 billion annually. We cannot justify to
continue funding unnecessary infrastructure when we are
reducing our force structure. Since 2003, DOD has divested more
than 100 foreign bases and operations, and we are on schedule
to close or consolidate over 20 more overseas operations.
Although there are clearly opportunities to achieve
significant savings by improving efficiency, consolidations and
reducing overhead, the scale--the scale--of the current
spending reductions will also require cuts and changes to
military operations. The fiscal year 2014 budget request seeks
to further align budget programs with the President's Defense
Strategic Guidance. While continuing to reduce the size of the
ground forces and retire aging aircraft and ships, this budget
invests in key elements of our defense strategy, including
implementing our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region,
maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile,
increasing investment in cyber capabilities, and sustaining the
growth of special operations forces.
Finally, this budget seeks to preserve a combat-ready force
and sustain the high quality All-Volunteer Force.
Last point. The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects DOD's best
efforts to match ends, ways, and means during a period of very
intense fiscal uncertainty. It is obvious that significant
changes to the Department's topline spending would require
changes to this budget plan.
Consequently, I directed, as you have noted, a Strategic
Choices and Management Review in order to assess the potential
impact of further reductions and plan for those continued
reductions. I have received the initial internal results of
this review, and I am currently reviewing those options and
those choices.
The Department of Defense will continue to find new ways to
operate more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. However,
as I have stated, continued cuts on the scale and the timeline
of sequestration will require significant reductions in
military capabilities and the scope of our activities around
the world.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget sustains our
military strength in an environment of constrained resources,
giving DOD the time and flexibility to make the necessary
reductions and adjustments over a 10-year period. Hard choices,
Mr. Chairman, will have to be made over these next few years.
In the past, many modest reforms to personnel and benefits,
along with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure
acquisition programs, were met with fierce political resistance
and they were never implemented. We are now in a different
fiscal environment. New realities are forcing us to more fully
confront these tough and painful choices, and to make the
reforms necessary to put this Department on a path to sustain
our military strength for the 21st century and meet these new
and complicated threats, we will have to do things differently.
This will require the continued partnership of Congress.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of Defense.
Allow me to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its
continued support of our men and women in uniform and our civilian
workforce. They are doing tremendous work and making great sacrifices,
along with their families, as they have for the more than 11 years our
Nation has been at war. Whether fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the
world's sea lanes, standing vigilant on the Korean peninsula, supplying
our troops around the world, or supporting civil authorities when
natural disasters strike, they are advancing America's interests at
home and abroad. Their dedication and professionalism are the
foundation of our military strength.
As we discuss numbers, budgets, and strategic priorities, we will
not lose sight of these men and women serving across the globe. As you
all know, their well-being depends on the decisions we make here in
Washington.
FISCAL AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT
Today, the Department of Defense faces the significant challenge of
conducting long-term planning and budgeting at a time of considerable
uncertainty--both in terms of the security challenges we face around
the world and the levels of defense spending we can expect here at
home.
Even as the military emerges--and recovers--from more than a decade
of sustained conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, it confronts an array of
complex threats of varying vintage and degrees of risk to the United
States, to include:
--the persistence of violent extremism throughout weak states and
ungoverned spaces in the Middle East and North Africa;
--the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials;
--the rise of new powers competing for influence;
--the risk of regional conflicts which could draw in the United
States; and
--faceless, nameless, silent and destructive cyberattacks.
Meanwhile, the frenetic pace of technological change and the spread
of advanced military technology to state and non-state actors pose an
increasing challenge to America's military.
This is the strategic environment facing the Department of Defense
as it enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. The onset of
these resource constraints has already led to significant and ongoing
belt-tightening in military modernization, force structure, personnel
costs, and overhead expenditures. It has also given us an opportunity
to reshape the military and reform defense institutions to better
reflect 21st century realities, as I outlined in a speech in April at
the National Defense University.
The process began under the leadership of Secretary Gates, who
canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed
overhead costs within the military services and across the defense
enterprise. These efforts reduced the Department's topline by $78
billion over a 5-year period, as detailed in the Department's fiscal
year 2012 budget plan.
The realignment continued under Secretary Panetta, who worked
closely with the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to craft new
defense strategic guidance and a fiscal year 2013 defense budget plan
which reduced the Department's topline by $487 billion over the course
of a decade. Even while restructuring the force to become smaller and
leaner and once again targeting overhead savings, this budget made
important investments in the new strategy--including rebalancing to
Asia and increasing funding for critical capabilities such as cyber,
special operations, global mobility, and unmanned systems.
The President's request of $526.6 billion for the Department of
Defense's base budget for fiscal year 2014 continues to implement the
President's Defense Strategic Guidance and enhances the Department's
efforts at institutional reform. Most critically, it sustains the
quality of the all-volunteer force and the care we provide our
servicemembers and their families, which underpins everything we do as
an organization. The accompanying OCO request for $79.4 billion
provides the resources to continue the responsible drawdown in
Afghanistan and restore equipment damaged or worn out by more than a
decade of war.
DOD's base-budget request for fiscal year 2014 does not reflect the
effects of sequester cuts that would occur if the Budget Control Act
(BCA) is not changed. However, the President's budget includes balanced
deficit reduction proposals that are more than sufficient to allow
Congress to meet BCA goals and then repeal sequester-related
reductions.
CHALLENGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2013
Before discussing the particulars of this budget request, however,
allow me to address the profound budget problems facing the Department
in fiscal year 2013 and beyond as a result of sequester--because they
have significantly disrupted operations for the current fiscal year and
greatly complicated efforts to plan for the future. The Congress and
the Department of Defense have a responsibility to find answers to
these problems together--because we have a shared responsibility to
protect our national security. DOD is going to need the help of
Congress to manage through this uncertainty.
The fiscal year 2013 DOD Appropriations bill enacted by the
Congress in March addressed many urgent problems by allocating DOD
funding more closely in line with the President's budget request,
giving the Department authorities to start new programs, and allowing
us to proceed with important military construction projects.
Nonetheless, the bill still left in place the deep and abrupt cuts
associated with sequester--some $37 billion in spending reductions.
With military pay and benefits exempt from the sequester, and our
internal decision to shift the impact of sequestration away from those
serving in harm's way, the cuts fall heavily on DOD's operations,
maintenance and modernization accounts that we use to train and equip
those who will deploy in the future.
Furthermore, the military is experiencing higher wartime operating
tempos, and higher transportation costs than expected when the budget
request was formulated more than a year ago. As a result of all these
factors, the Department is now facing a shortfall of more than $30
billion in our operation and maintenance (O&M) budget for fiscal year
2013.
The Department has been doing everything possible to reduce this
shortfall while ensuring we can defend the Nation, sustain wartime
operations, and preserve DOD's most critical asset--our world-class
civilian and military personnel. To that end, we have cut back sharply
on facilities maintenance, instituted a hiring freeze, cut overhead and
all non-essential spending, reduced many other important but lower
priority programs, and worked to shift funds from investment to O&M
accounts.
Still, these steps have not been enough to close the shortfall.
While we have protected spending to sustain the war effort and defend
America's vital strategic interests, the Department's day-to-day
activities will be significantly disrupted for the remainder of the
fiscal year. Each of the military services has begun to significantly
reduce training and maintenance of non-deployed operating forces--steps
that are having effects on military readiness.
Specifically:
--The Army has stopped rotations at its key combat training centers
for all but deploying units. By the end of the year, this and
other training cutbacks will leave most non-deployed Army units
at unacceptable readiness levels.
--The Air Force has or will soon stop all flying at more than a dozen
combat coded squadrons. These units will soon no longer be
ready to fight on short notice.
--The Navy has curtailed deployments, including the decision not to
send a second carrier strike group to the gulf.
We have also recently submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming
request to Congress. Most of this reprogramming seeks permission to
move unneeded military personnel funding, and non-executable or lower
priority investment funding, into our O&M accounts that are
experiencing the largest budget shortfalls. We are counting on approval
of this reprogramming to avoid even deeper cuts in readiness and
maintenance, and we ask this subcommittee's assistance in providing
rapid review and approval.
To avoid even more significant reductions to military readiness,
and after extensive review of all options with the DOD's senior
military and civilian leadership on how we address this budget crisis,
I have decided to direct furloughs of up to 11 days for nearly 700,000
of the Department's civilian personnel. I have made this decision very
reluctantly, because I know that the furloughs will adversely impact
DOD operations. I also recognize the significant hardship this places
on our civilian personnel across the country and their families. But
the current budget is requiring difficult decisions and options.
After required notifications, we will begin the furlough period on
July 8 at the rate of one furlough day per week for most personnel. We
plan to continue these furloughs through the end of the current fiscal
year. If our budgetary situation permits us to end furloughs early, I
would strongly prefer to do so. That is a decision I will make later in
the year.
FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST
Let me turn now to fiscal year 2014. If the sequester-related
provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are not changed, fiscal
year 2014 funding for national defense programs will be subject to a
steeply reduced cap, which would cut DOD funding by roughly $52 billion
further. And, if there is no action by the Congress, roughly $500
billion in reductions to defense spending would be required over the
next 10 years covered by the BCA.
As an alternative, the President's budget proposes some $150
billion in additional defense savings (measured in terms of budget
authority) over the next decade when compared with the budget plan
submitted last year. These cuts are part of a balanced package of
deficit reduction. Unlike sequester, these cuts largely occur in the
years beyond fiscal year 2018--which gives the Department time to plan
and implement the reductions wisely, and responsibly, anchored by the
President's defense strategic guidance.
The President's fiscal year 2014 request reflects these changes. It
continues to balance the compelling demands of supporting troops still
at war in Afghanistan, protecting readiness, modernizing the military's
aging weapons inventory in keeping with the President's strategic
guidance, and sustaining the quality of the all-volunteer force.
The requested funding of $79.4 billion for fiscal year 2014 OCO
provides funds to continue the responsible drawdown in Afghanistan and
is lower than the roughly $89 billion enacted for fiscal year 2013. The
topline budget request of $526.6 billion for base-budget funding fiscal
year 2014 is essentially flat compared to the President's request for
fiscal year 2013, and roughly in line with what both the House and
Senate have passed in their fiscal year 2014 budget resolutions.
The following are the major components of the $526.6 billion base
budget request for fiscal year 2014:
--Military pay and benefits (including TRICARE and retirement costs):
$170.2 billion (32 percent of the total base budget);
--Operating costs (including $77.3 billion for civilian pay): $180.1
billion (34 percent);
--Acquisitions and other investments (Procurement, research,
development, test and evaluation, and new facilities
construction): $176.3 billion (33 percent).
The base budget presented today, at its most basic level, consists
of a series of choices that reinforce each of the following
complementary goals:
--making more disciplined use of defense resources;
--implementing the President's defense strategic guidance;
--seeking to sustain the readiness and quality of the all-volunteer
force;
--supporting troops deployed and fighting in Afghanistan.
As I discuss each of these goals, I must note that, unfortunately,
many of the reductions we are being forced to make in fiscal year 2013
as a result of sequester run directly counter to the fiscal year 2014
goals.
1. Making More Disciplined Use of Defense Resources
In developing the fiscal year 2014 budget, the Department
identified about $34 billion in savings over the current Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP), which covers fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year
2018. These savings were used to help pay the costs of implementing the
new defense strategy and to accommodate budget reductions.
These efforts continue the Department's approach of the last
several years to first target growing costs in areas of support,
overhead, acquisition, and pay and benefits, before cutting military
capabilities and force structure.
Reducing Support Costs
In order to maintain balance and readiness, the Department of
Defense must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure. Therefore, the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget requests authorization for one
round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in 2015. While the
commission would meet in 2015, the actual closing of any bases would
involve a multiyear process that would not begin until 2016.
BRAC is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows communities a
role in reuse decisions for the property and provides redevelopment
assistance. BRAC is an imperfect process, and there are up-front costs
for BRAC, and this FYDP adds $2.4 billion to pay them, but in the long-
term there are significant savings. The previous five rounds of BRAC
are now saving a total of $12 billion annually.
We cannot justify funding unnecessary infrastructure when we are
reducing force structure. Since 2003, DOD has divested more than 100
foreign bases and operations and we are on schedule to close or
consolidate over 20 more overseas operations.
We are also taking other important steps to cut back on support
costs. We have begun a study of our Military Treatment Facilities,
including many hospitals and clinics that are currently underutilized.
By the end of this year we will have a plan in place that suggests how
to reduce that underutilization while still providing high-quality
medical care. This restructuring, coupled with a BRAC round and other
changes, would permit us to plan on a cut in our civilian workforce
that will comply with congressional direction.
We are also continuing our successful efforts to hold down military
health system costs. Due primarily to changes in payments to healthcare
providers, our projected costs for fiscal year 2014 are about 4-percent
lower than those costs in fiscal year 2012, a significant turnaround
compared to healthcare trends over the past decade. But costs will soon
start to grow again. Therefore, we continue efforts to slow the growth
of medical care costs through actions such as re-phasing military
construction, making full use of past changes in provider costs, taking
advantage of the slowing of growth in medical costs in the private
sector, and modest changes in user fees and co-pays.
Another important initiative is our effort to improve the
Department's financial management and achieve auditable financial
statements. We need auditable statements, both to improve the quality
of our financial information and to reassure the public, and the
Congress, that we are good stewards of public funds. We have a focused
plan and are making progress. Our next goal is audit-ready budget
statements by September 2014. We are working hard to achieve this goal,
though the current budget turmoil is hampering our efforts
significantly. I strongly support this initiative and will do
everything I can to fulfill this commitment.
These and many other changes led to total savings of about $34
billion in fiscal year 2014-2018, including $5.5 billion in fiscal year
2014. However, we are concerned that these savings from more
disciplined use of resources could be eroded by sequester, as we are
forced to make inefficient choices that drive up costs. Today, for
example, we are being forced to engage in shorter and less efficient
contracts and cuts in unit buy sizes that will increase the unit costs
of weapons.
Restructuring and Terminations of Weapons Programs
In this budget, the Department has shifted priorities within its
modernization portfolios and achieved $8.2 billion in savings from
weapons program terminations and restructuring. For example, by
revising the acquisition strategy for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle
(GCV) program, the Department will save over $2 billion in development
costs. In other cases the Department proposes evolutionary approaches
to develop new capabilities instead of relying on leap-ahead gains in
technology.
For example, the Department:
--Realigned investment funding and restructured the SM-3 IIB
interceptor--a high-risk, high-cost system--to improve the
capabilities of existing missile defense systems, resulting in
savings of about $2.1 billion during the Future Year Defense
Program (FYDP);
--Cancelled the Precision Tracking Space Satellite system--another
high-risk project--saving $1.9 billion during the FYDP; the
Department invested a portion of these savings in technology
upgrades to existing ground-based radars and sensors.
To lessen the potential impact on local communities from the
reductions in defense procurement, the Department is requesting an
additional $36 million in support of the Defense Industry Adjustment
program.
The Department is continuing to take steps to tighten the contract
terms and reduce risk in our largest acquisition program, the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter. The fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $8.4
billion for the Joint Strike Fighter.
Military Pay and Benefits
The costs of military pay and benefits are another significant
driver of spending growth that must be addressed in the current fiscal
environment. In this budget, the Department is submitting a new package
of military compensation proposals that take into consideration
congressional concerns associated with those from fiscal year 2013.
These changes save about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2014 and a total
of $12.8 billion in fiscal year 2014-2018.
This package includes a modest slowing of the growth of military
pay by implementing a 1-percent pay raise for servicemembers in 2014.
The Department is also seeking additional changes to the TRICARE
program in the fiscal year 2014 budget to bring the beneficiary's cost
share closer to the levels envisioned when the program was
implemented--particularly for working age retirees. Today military
retirees contribute less than 11 percent of their total healthcare
costs, compared to an average of 27 percent when TRICARE was first
fully implemented in 1996.
The proposed TRICARE changes include:
--For retirees, increases in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees,
instituting an enrollment fee for TRICARE Standard/Extra, and
increasing Standard/Extra deductibles.
--Implementation of an enrollment fee for new TRICARE-for-Life
beneficiaries, while grandfathering in those who are Medicare-
eligible at enactment.
--Increases in pharmacy co-pays and, where appropriate, mandatory use
of mail order delivery of pharmaceuticals.
--Indexing of fees, deductibles, co-pays and the catastrophic cap to
the growth in the annual retiree cost-of-living adjustment.
Survivors of military members who died on active duty or medically
retired members would be excluded from all TRICARE increases. Even
after the proposed changes in fees, TRICARE will remain a generous
benefit--as it should be.
These adjustments to pay and benefits were among the most carefully
considered and difficult choices in the budget. They were made with the
strong support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senior Enlisted
Leadership, in recognition that in order to sustain these benefits over
the long term without dramatically reducing the size or readiness of
the force, these rising costs need to be brought under control.
2. Implementing and Deepening Our Commitment to the President's Defense
Strategic Guidance
Spending reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be
implemented through improving efficiency and reducing overhead alone.
Cuts and changes to capabilities--force structure and modernization
programs--will also be required. The strategic guidance issued in
January 2012 set the priorities and parameters that informed those
choices, and the fiscal year 2014 budget submission further implements
and deepens program alignment to this strategic guidance.
The new strategy calls for a smaller and leaner force. Last year we
proposed reductions of about 100,000 in military end strength between
fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2017. Most of those reductions occur
in the ground forces and are consistent with a decision not to size
U.S. ground forces to accomplish prolonged stability operations, while
maintaining adequate capability should such activities again be
required. By the end of fiscal year 2014 we will have completed almost
two-thirds of the drawdown of our ground forces, and the drawdown
should be fully complete by fiscal year 2017.
Last year DOD submitted proposals for changes in Air Force and Navy
force structure; some were rejected by Congress. We continue to
believe, however, that these reductions are consistent with our defense
strategy and the need to hold down costs. Therefore, DOD is
resubmitting several proposals from its fiscal year 2013 budget
submission that were not supported by Congress, including the
retirement of seven Aegis cruisers and two amphibious ships at the end
of fiscal year 2014 when funds appropriated for their operation run
out. Despite the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific--a mostly
maritime theater--the high costs of maintaining these older ships
relative to their capabilities argues strongly for their retirement.
The fiscal year 2014 budget continues implementation of the Air
Force total force proposal included in the fiscal year 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act. In response to state and congressional
concerns about proposed reductions to the Air National Guard that DOD
made in the original fiscal year 2013 budget, the Department added back
44 aircraft to the Guard, 30 aircraft to the Air Force Reserve, and is
taking away 31 aircraft from the active Air Force.
These shifts were forced primarily by political realities, not
strategy or analysis. While this active-reserve compromise allows the
Air Force to move forward with prior year retirements and transfers,
and approved mission changes for many reserve units, it does require
the Department to retain excess aircraft capacity. The Department's
position continues to be that retaining excess air capacity in the
reserve component is an unnecessary expenditure of government funds
that detracts from more pressing military priorities outlined in the
defense strategic guidance.
Increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East represents
another key tenet of the new defense strategic guidance. This budget
continues to put a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining
forces--such as submarines, long-range bombers, and carrier strike
groups--that can project power over great distance and carry out a
variety of missions.
As part of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the Department is
expanding the Marine Corps presence in the region, including rotational
deployments of Marine units to Australia. We continue to develop Guam
as a strategic hub, a location where we maintain a rotational bomber
presence among other capabilities. The Department will stage its most
capable forces in the region, including an F-22 squadron at Kadena Air
Force Base in Japan. The Navy has deployed a Littoral Combat Ship to
Singapore and is increasing port visits in the Western Pacific.
Additional enhancements and key capabilities supporting the Asia-
Pacific rebalance in the fiscal year 2014 budget include:
--Protecting investments for new ship construction, enabling the Navy
to procure eight new ships in fiscal year 2014--including two
Virginia-class submarines ($10.9 billion);
--Continuing investments to develop a new penetrating bomber ($379
million);
--Investing in new maritime patrol aircraft ($3.8 billion);
--Continuing investments to maintain and expand undersea dominance,
including increasing the cruise missile capacity of the future
Virginia-class subs and developing new unmanned undersea
vehicles ($223.9 million);
--Continuing to fund development of an unmanned carrier launched UAV
($427 million);
--Adding electronic attack EA-18Gs to offset the loss of retired
Marine Corps EA-6B (Prowler) squadrons ($2.0 billion);
--Investing in a new suite of anti-surface warfare weapons ($160
million);
--Increasing the number of attack submarines forward deployed to Guam
to four ($78 million);
--Funding airfield resiliency measures such as dispersal, rapid
runway repair, and hardening in the Western Pacific ($440
million);
--The Army is investing in upgraded missile defense capabilities in
the region ($40 million); and
--Increasing funding for joint exercises in the PACOM region ($14
million).
Another tenet of the strategy is to support efforts to build
partner capacity through innovative mechanisms based on lessons learned
over the past decade of war. To that end, the fiscal year 2014 request
builds on our section 1206 program by including $75 million in
dedicated funding for the new Global Security Contingency Fund, a
pooled resource between the Department of Defense and Department of
State that supports common efforts to boost the security capacity of
partners in regions like Africa. This represents the first time
dedicated funds have been requested for this new authority.
This new strategy not only recognizes the changing character of the
conflicts in which the U.S. must prevail, but also leverages new
concepts of operation enabled by advances in space, cyberspace, special
operations, global mobility, precision-strike, missile defense, and
other capabilities. By making difficult tradeoffs in lower priority
areas, the fiscal year 2014 budget protects or increases key
investments in these critical capabilities, including:
--Cyberspace Operations.--Including the recruitment and retention of
world-class cyber personnel ($4.7 billion for fiscal year 2014,
an increase of $800 million over fiscal year 2013 enacted
levels).
--Space Operations.--To maintain our superiority in space, the Air
Force continues to modernize the GPS program and is investing
in improved space surveillance capabilities and a new
generation of communications satellites ($10.1 billion).
--Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).--The
Department is investing in both sea-based and extended range,
land-based ISR platforms ($2.5 billion).
--Rapid Global Mobility.--To maintain our ability to rapidly deliver
and sustain our forces around the globe, the Air Force is
upgrading its C-5, C-17, and C-130 transport aircraft--
replacing the oldest aircraft and modernizing the fleet--and
building the new KC-46 aerial refueling tanker ($5.0 billion).
--Missile Defense.--To protect against ballistic missile threats from
Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, the Department is increasing
its fleet of Ground Based Interceptors (GBI), continuing the
conversion of Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense
capability, and procuring additional Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and Patriot PAC-3 missiles
($9.2 billion).
--Special Operations/Counterterrorism.--To ensure our special
operations forces maintain the highest levels of readiness and
to expand the global special operations force network ($7.7
billion).
3. Seeking To Sustain the Readiness and Quality of the All-Volunteer
Force
The high-quality of our all-volunteer force continues to be the
foundation of our military strength. This budget seeks to ensure that
our troops receive the training and equipment they need for military
readiness, and the world-class support programs they and their families
have earned. However, as in other areas of the budget, the steep and
abrupt cuts caused by the fiscal year 2013 sequester has harmed these
programs. The remainder of this discussion outlines the goals of the
fiscal year 2014 budget, but they would be significantly impacted if
sequester-level cuts persist.
Readiness Investments
Even in the face of flat and declining defense toplines, this
budget seeks to press ahead with the transition from a
counterinsurgency-focused force to a force ready and capable of
operating across a full range of operations across the globe. The
service budgets all fund initiatives that seek to return to full-
spectrum training and preparation for missions beyond current
operations in Afghanistan:
--The Army would prepare for a rotational presence in multiple
regions and has begun training in ``decisive action'' scenarios
and is transitioning to training in combined arms conventional
warfare.
--The Marine Corps would return to a sea-going posture, its
traditional role in between major conflicts.
--The Navy would invest in ship maintenance and measures to alleviate
the stress on personnel from prolonged and extended deployments
required by current operations.
--The Air Force would re-focus on high-end capabilities required to
confront the advanced air forces and air defense systems of
other nations.
The Department continues its work to understand and quantify
readiness activities as we seek to maximize our preparedness for real-
world missions. We do not yet know the costs of fixing the readiness of
the force following the 6 months of sequester cuts to training in this
fiscal year. Therefore these costs are not included in the fiscal year
2014 budget.
Family Support Programs
The Department's budget submission makes clear that people are
central to everything we do. While sequester cuts would unfortunately
counter many of these initiatives, especially for our civilian
workforce, the initiatives remain important statements of the intent in
this budget.
The Department continues to support key programs in fiscal year
2014 that support servicemembers and their families, spending $8.5
billion on initiatives that include:
--Transition Assistance and Veteran's Employment Assurance.--The
Department continues to support the Transition Assistance
Program (TAP) to ensure every servicemember receives training,
education, and credentials needed to successfully transition to
the civilian workforce.
--Family Readiness.--The Department continues to ensure that family
support is a high priority by redesigning and boosting family
support in a number of ways.
The Department is also providing support to our people with a
number of other important initiatives, including:
--Behavioral Health.--The Department maintains funding for
psychological health programs and expands those programs that
are most effective, such as Embedded Behavioral Health, to
provide improved access to care, improved continuity of care,
and enhanced behavioral health provider communication.
--Suicide Prevention.--The Department continues to implement
recommendations from the Suicide Prevention Task Force and act
on other findings from think tanks, the National Action
Alliance's National Suicide Prevention Strategy, and DOD and
Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Integrated Mental Health
Strategy (IMHS).
Another area of focus has been Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response. I have no tolerance for sexual assault in the military. This
is a terrible scourge in our military and it must end. It will end. We
will fix it. I have directed a number of initiatives to advance DOD's
efforts to prevent and respond to the crime of sexual assault, along
five lines of effort:
--Accountability
-- I directed DOD's Acting General Counsel to propose to the
Congress changes to Article 60 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) that would eliminate the ability of
a convening authority to change findings in courts-martial,
except for certain minor offenses. These changes would also
require the convening authority to explain in writing any
changes made to court-martial sentences, as well as any
changes to findings involving minor offenses. These
changes, if enacted, would help ensure that our military
justice system works fairly, ensures due process, and is
accountable.
-- I have also directed the Service Chiefs to develop methods to
evaluate military commanders' performance in establishing
command climates of dignity and respect and in
incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim care
principles in their commands. This includes providing
commanders the results of their subordinate's annual
command climate surveys in order to enhance accountability
and improve insight in command climate at every level of
the chain of command.
-- I have named a set of highly respected and experienced experts
to serve on a panel called for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. The panel will
conduct an independent review and assessment of DOD's
systems used to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate
crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses.
It will convene its first meeting no later than July 1. I
have spoken to the panel and asked it to accelerate its
work and provide a final recommendation within 12 months.
--Prevention
-- I have directed the complete and thorough review of
credentials and qualifications for DOD's sexual assault
victim advocates, coordinators, and recruiters.
-- I have directed DOD to improve the effectiveness of Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) programs in
recruiting organizations.
-- I have directed DOD component heads to direct comprehensive
and regular visual inspections of all DOD workplaces to
include military academies to ensure that our facilities
promote an environment of dignity and respect for all
members and are free from materials that create a degrading
or offensive work environment.
--Investigation
-- Consistent with the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
National Defense Authorization Acts, DOD has established
new policies to retain restricted and unrestricted reports
for 50 years, and is developing policy for Special Victim
Capability, which includes standards and training for
prosecutors and investigators.
--Advocacy
-- DOD has implemented a sexual assault crisis intervention line,
the DOD Safe Helpline, to give victims 24/7 global access
to crisis support staff, implemented an expedited transfer
policy for victims requesting transfer to a new unit, and
expanded emergency care and services to DOD civilians
stationed abroad.
-- I have directed the Service Secretaries to implement methods
to improve victim treatment by their peers, coworkers, and
chains of command. Direct victim input will also be
incorporated into these methods.
--Assessment
-- DOD has added sexual assault questions to DOD Command Climate
Surveys and implemented policy to conduct assessments
within 120 days for new commanders and annually thereafter,
consistent with the fiscal year 2013 NDAA.
-- I have begun holding a weekly review and progress meeting on
DOD's various sexual assault directives to ensure that they
are bringing about real change.
I receive weekly updates on the Department's prevention efforts in
regularly scheduled weekly meetings. I also have an individual on my
personal staff that I have tasked to oversee all of these directives
and Department-wide efforts.
Everyone in this department at every level of command will continue
to work together every day to establish an environment of dignity and
respect, where sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned or ignored,
where there is clear accountability placed on all leaders at every
level. The leadership of this department has no higher priority than
the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform, and that
includes ensuring they are free from the threat of sexual harassment
and sexual assault. I will continue as Secretary of Defense to
prioritize the Department's efforts to turn this problem around.
4. Supporting Troops Deployed and Fighting Overseas
The amendment to the fiscal year 2014 President's budget includes
$79.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Military
operations in Afghanistan comprise a significant portion of the OCO
request. Over the course of the year, American forces in Afghanistan
are moving into a support role as Afghan forces take the lead. By
February 2014, half of our troops there will have returned home, and by
December 2014, United States' combat operations in Afghanistan will
have ended. Still, the United States will maintain a commitment to
Afghanistan's sovereignty and security, and we will continue to equip,
train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Forces; support economic
development and governance efforts; and pursue al Qaeda and its
affiliated groups.
Of the total OCO request, $78.1 billion is for activities in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and $1.3 billion is for
finalizing transition activities in Iraq. In support of Operation
Enduring Freedom, OCO funding will support several key efforts,
including:
--Transitioning the mission in Afghanistan from combat to support as
the number of U.S. troops on the ground declines from an
average of 68,000 in fiscal year 2013 to an average of 38,400
in fiscal year 2014;
--Continuing to support the 352,000 strong Afghan National Security
Forces as they prepare to assume full responsibility for
security in Afghanistan by December 2014;
--Sustaining the fight, together with Afghan and Coalition partners,
against al Qaeda and its affiliates who seek to attack the U.S.
and our allies;
--Providing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
support to warfighters and continuing to invest in emerging ISR
capabilities that have proven essential for success in
Afghanistan and around the region;
--Responsibly closing or transferring to Afghan control most
coalition bases by December 2014;
--Returning tens of thousands of cargo containers and pieces of
equipment from Afghanistan to their home stations;
--Replenishing or replacing expended munitions and ammunition as well
as combat-damaged equipment, including helicopters, ground
vehicles, and unmanned aerial systems; and
--Supporting the portion of temporary Army and Marine Corps end
strength that currently supports OEF, but that will not be
required under the new defense strategy.
Although the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will decline
substantially over the course of fiscal year 2014, military operations
in support of the transition to full Afghan responsibility will
continue at a high pace, and certain costs will grow or remain the
same. For example, as we reduce our footprint, ISR and contractor
support requirements will temporarily increase in areas where U.S.
troops are departing. Transportation and retrograde costs will increase
substantially as we ship tens of thousands of cargo containers and
pieces of equipment back home. Funding needed to train and equip the
ANSF will temporarily increase from the fiscal year 2013 amount in
order to ensure that Afghan forces are ready to take over full
responsibility for security throughout the country by the end of 2014.
There will be increased costs to repair and replace equipment and
munitions as the Department resets the force over the next few years.
Finally, OCO funding supports a significant portion of our military
presence around the Middle East--the bases, ships, and ISR platforms
outside Afghanistan from which DOD supports OEF and other important
missions.
The OCO funding request also supports follow-on costs related to
the war in Iraq, including the repair and replacement of equipment and
munitions damage or expended in the war and the operations and
activities, including site closure, of the Office of Security
Cooperation--Iraq. Of the total request of $79.4 billion, $1.3 billion
supports these activities.
The OCO request also seeks to cancel prior-year unobligated
balances for activities that are in excess of need, in favor of urgent
wartime priorities.
the way ahead: strategic choices and management review
The fiscal year 2014 budget is a reflection of DOD's best efforts
to match ends, ways, and means during a period of intense fiscal
uncertainty. It is a balanced plan that would address some of the
Department's structural costs and internal budget imbalances while
implementing the President's defense strategic guidance and keeping
faith with our men and women in uniform and their families.
It is obvious that significant changes to the Department's topline
spending would require changes to this budget plan. The Department must
be prepared for any additional reductions to the defense budget that
might result from Congress and the Administration agreeing on a deficit
reduction plan, and it must be prepared in the event that sequester-
level cuts persist for another year or over the long term.
Consequently, earlier this year I directed a Strategic Choices and
Management Review (SCMR) in order to assess the potential impact of
further reductions up to the level of full sequester. The purpose of
the SCMR is to reassess the basic assumptions that drive the
Department's investment and force structure decisions and to search for
additional management efficiencies.
It is designed to help understand the challenges, articulate the
risks, and look for opportunities for reform and efficiencies presented
by resource constraints. Everything is on the table during this
review--roles and missions, planning, business practices, force
structure, personnel and compensation, acquisition and modernization
investments, how we operate, and how we measure and maintain readiness.
I have received the initial internal results of the SCMR and am
reviewing them now. The results will inform our planning for fiscal
year 2014 as well as our fiscal year 2015 budget request, and will they
be the foundation for the Quadrennial Defense Review due to Congress in
February 2014.
It is already clear to me that achieving significant additional
budget savings without unacceptable risk to national security will
require not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and
practices but, if necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that better
reflect 21st century realities. And that will require the partnership
of Congress.
The fiscal year 2014 budget and the ones before it have made hard
choices. In many cases, modest reforms to personnel and benefits, along
with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure acquisition
programs, met fierce political resistance and were not implemented.
We are now in a different fiscal environment dealing with new
realities that will force us to more fully confront these tough and
painful choices, and to make the reforms we need to put this Department
on a path to sustain our military strength for the 21st century. But in
order to do that we will need flexibility, time, and some budget
certainty.
We will also need to fund the military capabilities that are
necessary for the complex security threats of the 21st century. I
believe the President's budget does that. With the partnership of
Congress, the Defense Department can continue to find new ways to
operate more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. However,
multiple reviews and analyses show that additional major cuts--
especially those on the scale and timeline of sequestration--would
require dramatic reductions in core military capabilities or the scope
of our activities around the world.
As the executive and legislative branches of government, we have a
shared responsibility to ensure that we protect national security and
America's strategic interests. Doing so requires that we make every
decision on the basis of enduring national interests and make sure
every policy is worthy of the service and sacrifice of our
servicemembers and their families.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
General Dempsey, as you can see we have quite a turnout
here this morning, and I welcome you now to give your
testimony. Your full written statement will be made part of the
record. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Dempsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman
Cochran, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for
this opportunity to discuss the budget proposal for fiscal year
2014.
This hearing comes during a period of extraordinary
uncertainty. Risks to our Nation's security are increasing
while the resources for and the readiness of our force is
decreasing. The will to win of our service men and women
remains undaunted, but the means to prepare to win are becoming
more uncertain by the day.
This budget was purpose built to keep our Nation immune
from coercion. It is a responsible investment in an unriveled
joint force that is ready with options for a dangerous and
unpredictable future. It supports our forward deployed
operations, upholds funding for emerging capabilities such as
cyber, and it resources the conventional and nuclear forces
that have proven so essential to our defense.
Most importantly, it protects our investments in the true
decisive advantage we enjoy, and that is our people. It treats
being the best led, best trained, and best equipped military as
the non-negotiable imperative. It also makes sure that our
wounded warriors and their families receive world-class care,
family and medical services that are worthy of their service to
our Nation.
There are some things this budget does not do. It does not
reflect the full sequestration amount. Rather, it imposes less
reduction and it gives us more time to implement new cuts. The
consequences of full sequestration and its attendant risks to
our national security will gain clarity in the weeks ahead. As
you may know, the Senate has asked us to provide our assessment
of the impact on the joint force by the 1st of July.
Nor does this budget account for the costs of restoring
lost readiness. We do not yet know the full cost to recover
from the readiness shortfalls we are experiencing this fiscal
year. As expected, we continue to curtail or cancel training
and exercises across all the services and for units that are
not preparing to deploy. As a result, we are less ready every
day for an unforeseen crisis or a contingency operation. In
effect, we are foreclosing on options.
It is also more expensive to become ready than it is to
stay ready. This means the cost to recover our lost readiness
will inevitably compete in the next few years with those costs
for building the joint force that we think we need for 2020.
As our military power becomes or could become less
sustainable, it will become less credible. We risk breaking
commitments or losing the confidence of our partners and
allies, our defense industrial base, and our men and women in
uniform and their families.
Now, this outcome is not inevitable. Working together, we
can uphold the readiness and the health of the force at an
affordable cost. To do this, we need the certainty of a
predictable funding stream, that is, a reliable topline. We
also need the time to implement tradeoffs in force structure,
modernization, compensation, and readiness, and we need the
full flexibility to keep the force in balance.
We simply cannot afford to postpone essential reforms to
compensation and healthcare. Both should be allowed to grow
more gradually.
We should stop pouring money into excess facilities and
unwanted weapons.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Real institutional reform is the only way to avoid
repeating the mistakes of past drawdowns. We have an
opportunity and actually, I would suggest, an obligation to do
this and to account for any future budget in order to restore
confidence. We have it within us to stay strong as a global
leader and as a reliable partner.
Thank you, members of this committee, for all you have done
in the past to support our military. We are counting on you to
continue to do so. And I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Martin E. Dempsey
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished committee
members, it is my privilege to update you on the state of the U.S.
Armed Forces and to comment on the President's budget proposal for
fiscal year 2014.
This year's posture testimony comes in the context of extraordinary
uncertainty. Our Nation is going through an historic fiscal correction
to restore the economic foundation of our power. As resources decline,
risks to our national security interests rise. A more competitive
security environment compounds these risks, increasing the probability
and consequences of aggression.
This context calls out for our leadership. We can and must find it
within ourselves to stay strong as a global leader and reliable
partner. We must restore lost readiness and continue to make
responsible investments in our Nation's defense.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION TO THE JOINT FORCE
A year ago, I established four priorities to help guide our Joint
Force through this period of uncertainty. Our way forward must be
rooted in a renewed commitment to the Profession of Arms. This means
preserving an uncommon profession that is without equal in both its
competence and its character. Along the way, we must keep faith with
our Military Family. This means honoring the commitments we have made
to our servicemembers and their families. They deserve the future they
sacrificed so much to secure.
These two priorities serve as a source of strength for the Joint
Force as we achieve our national objectives in current conflicts. This
means achieving our campaign objectives in Afghanistan while
confronting aggression toward America and its allies in all its forms,
wherever and whenever it arises. It also means helping to secure the
flow of commerce in the global commons, building the capacity of our
partners, providing humanitarian assistance, and maintaining a credible
nuclear deterrent.
These three priorities enable us to understand and develop the
Joint Force of 2020. Our ability to build the force we will need
tomorrow depends on the decisions we make today. This is a defining
period in a defining year. Ensuring our future military is unrivaled
and sustainable requires the right mix between current capacity and new
capabilities. We must recapitalize current equipment where possible and
modernize capabilities that preserve our decisive advantages.
JOINT FORCE OPERATIONS
One thing has been certain over the last year--the Joint Force
stood strong and responded to the Nation's call. After more than a
decade of continual deployments and tough fighting, I remain humbled by
the resilience and determination of our warriors.
In the past year, our service men and women have simultaneously
fought, transitioned, and redeployed from Afghanistan. Never before
have we retrograded so much combat power and equipment while continuing
combat operations. Our forces performed superbly, transitioning to
Afghan security lead in areas comprising over 85 percent of the
population. In the process, we redeployed over 30,000 U.S. troops,
closed over 600 bases, and preserved Coalition cohesion. We were
challenged by ``insider attacks,'' but responded the way professional
militaries do. We assessed and adapted. We reaffirmed our partnerships
and moved forward jointly with more stringent force protection and
vetting procedures.
Transition continues. In the weeks ahead, the Afghanistan National
Security Forces will assume operational lead across all of Afghanistan.
This milestone represents an important achievement on the Lisbon
roadmap, reaffirmed at the Chicago Summit in 2012. At the same time,
the International Security Assistance Force will transition primarily
to training and advising. We are also working with NATO and the Afghan
government on options for an enduring presence beyond 2014 to reinforce
Afghan security and maintain pressure on transnational terrorists.
When I testified last year, the effects of the November 2011 border
incident with Pakistan were still fresh, and tensions were as high as
any time since the Osama bin Laden raid. Measured, but steady civilian-
military engagement with Pakistani leadership led to the reopening of
the Ground Lines of Communication in July 2012. We are gradually
rebuilding our relationship--as reflected in the recent signing of a
tripartite border document to standardize complementary cross-border
operations--and will continue to do so with Pakistan's new leadership
following its historic election last month.
The Joint Force has been vigilant well beyond South Asia and around
the world. We continue to help deter aggression and counter the
increasingly bold provocations from North Korea and Iran. We are
supporting Syria's neighbors in their efforts to contain spillover
violence while providing assistance to help with refugees. And, we are
ready with options if military force is called for--and can be used
effectively--to secure U.S. national interests in Syria without making
the situation worse.
Along with our interagency partners, we are also postured to
detect, deter, and defeat cyber-attacks against government and critical
infrastructure targets. We are part of interagency and multinational
efforts to counter transnational crime. And, we remain relentless in
our pursuit of al-Qa'ida and other violent extremist organizations,
directly and through our partners. This includes al-Qa'ida-Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen and, working with French and African
partners, al-Qa'ida in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM).
Finally, in the context of a ``new normal''--where the diffusion of
power fuels insecurity and unrest--we continue to support reform across
the Middle East and North Africa through military-to-military
exercises, exchanges, and security assistance. We are also adjusting
global force posture to reflect these risks in the context of our
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.
OUR JOINT FORCE TODAY
We have an experienced, combat-tested force. Never has our Nation
sustained such a lengthy period of war solely through the service of an
All-Volunteer military, which proudly celebrates its 40-year
anniversary July 1, 2013. Our warriors' will to win is undaunted, but
the means to prepare to win are becoming uncertain. Military readiness
is at risk due to the convergence of several budget factors. These same
factors compound risk to the wellness of the Joint Force and our
Military Family. As I testified in April, we need the help of our
elected leaders to gain budget certainty, time, and flexibility.
Few have borne more of war's burden than our Military Family. For
12 relentless years, our service men and women have answered our
Nation's call with unsurpassed courage and skill. Many have fallen or
been grievously wounded in the service of our Country. We honor them
most by caring for their families and for those who have come home with
wounds seen and unseen.
We are unfailing in our praise for the sacrifices of our warriors
in battle. But for so many of our veterans, returning home is a new
type of frontline in their struggle. We cannot cut corners on their
healthcare. We must continue to invest in world-class treatments for
mental health issues, traumatic brain injury, and combat stress. Stigma
and barriers to seeking mental health services must be reduced.
Suicide is a tragic consequence for far too many. As a Nation, we
have a shared responsibility to address this urgent issue with the same
devotion we have shown to protecting the lives of our forces while in
combat. The Department is working closely with our interagency partners
and the White House to increase our understanding of the factors
leading to suicide and how to best leverage care networks to keep our
veterans alive.
The risks inherent to military service must not include the risk of
sexual assault. We cannot allow sexual assault to undermine the
cohesion, discipline, and trust that gives us strength. Therefore,
working closely with the Secretary of Defense and Congress, we are
examining the best ways to leverage additional education, training, and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We are exploring every option,
and we are open to every idea, that will help eliminate this crime from
our ranks. As I testified last week, we are acting swiftly and
deliberately to accelerate institutional change--to better protect
victims, to prevent and respond to predatory and high-risk behaviors,
and to ensure a professional work environment while at the same time
preserving the right of the accused. We will not shrink from our legal
and moral obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
Future success relies on opening our ranks to all of America's
talent. The Joint Chiefs and I have supported the expansion of service
opportunities for women. This decision better aligns our policies with
our experience in war, and it serves to strengthen the Joint Force.
Consistent with the law, we also extended some benefits to the same-sex
domestic partners of servicemembers. We are implementing both
initiatives deliberately across all Services to ensure we uphold
essential standards, guard against potential risks, and avoid creating
new inequities for other members of the Joint Force.
Keeping faith with our Military Family will take a mutual
commitment from fellow veterans and a grateful Nation. The next few
years will define how we, as a Nation, view the 9/11 generation of
veterans. America's future All-Volunteer force is watching.
They are also watching as we inflict risk on ourselves. With $487
billion in planned reductions already reflected in the Department's
fiscal year 2013 budget, sequestration's additional cuts jeopardize
readiness not only this year, but also for many years to come. We
cannot fail to resource the war we are still fighting. At the same
time, we cannot compromise on readiness in the face of an uncertain and
dangerous future. Our Joint Force must begin to reconnect with family
while resetting and refitting war-torn equipment. It must retrain on
the full-spectrum skills that have atrophied while developing new
skills required for emerging threats. There are no shortcuts to a
strong national defense.
When budget uncertainty is combined with the mechanism and
magnitude of sequestration, the consequences lead to a security gap--
vulnerability against future threats to our national security
interests. And, as our military power becomes less sustainable, it
becomes less credible. We risk breaking commitments to our partners and
allies, our defense industrial base, and our men and women in uniform
and their families.
This outcome is not inevitable. We can maintain the readiness and
health of the force at an affordable cost, although this gets
increasingly harder to do as uncertainty persists. But we need help
from our elected leaders to keep the force in balance and avert the
strategic errors of past drawdowns. To this end, the Joint Chiefs and I
continue to request your support for certainty, time, and flexibility.
Most importantly, we need long-term budget certainty--a steady,
predictable funding stream. While the passage of the fiscal year 2013
Appropriations Act provided relief from the continuing resolution,
uncertainty over the fiscal year 2014 topline budget and the full
effects of fiscal year 2013 sequestration remains. Last month, we
submitted an amendment to the fiscal year 2014 President's budget that
includes $79.4 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO) to
support Operation ENDURING FREEDOM--mostly in Afghanistan--as well as
finalizing the transition in Iraq. We also submitted a reprogramming
request designed to offset our most critical fiscal year 2013
shortfalls, especially in wartime funding. We appreciate your expedited
review and support of both requests, which will bring important near-
term budget certainty and help reduce our most urgent OCO shortfalls.
Additionally, we need the time to deliberately evaluate trade-offs
in force structure, modernization, compensation, and readiness to keep
the Force in balance. We do not yet know the full fiscal year 2013
impact in these areas as we make key decisions about fiscal year 2014
and beyond. Finally, we continue to seek the full flexibility to keep
the force in balance. Budget reductions of this magnitude require more
than just transfer authority and follow-on reprogramming authority.
Everything must be on the table--military and civilian force
reductions; basing and facilities; pay and compensation; and the mix
among active, Reserve, and National Guard units.
There are no easy solutions, and no way to avoid sacrifices and
risks as we work together to make the hard choices. But the fiscal year
2014 budget proposal helps us rebalance and strengthen readiness
through these hard but necessary choices. It enables us to lower
manpower costs, reduce unneeded infrastructure, and shed ineffective
acquisition programs while maintaining support for the responsible
drawdown of our military presence in Afghanistan. It provides an
equitable and practical 2014 military pay raise of 1 percent while
protecting important education, counseling, and wounded warrior
programs. Proposed infrastructure reductions include a request for BRAC
authorization in fiscal year 2015, although any closures would take
multiple years and not begin until 2016. We simply cannot afford to
keep infrastructure and weapons we do not need without getting the
reforms we do need.
A JOINT FORCE FOR 2020
The budget decisions we are making now will indicate whether we
view our future Joint Force as an investment or an expense.
America is unmatched in its ability to employ power in defense of
national interests, but we have little margin for error. An unforeseen
crisis, or a contingency operation, could generate requirements that
exceed the capacity of our immediately available forces. We are able to
deter threats, assure partners, and defeat adversaries when we do so
from a position of strength. We remain strong--and our Nation is
secure--because we treat being the best led, trained, and equipped
force as a non-negotiable imperative.
The secret to sustaining our strength with this or any future
budget is simple--preserve investment in readiness, prioritize
investment in people, and protect investment in decisive capabilities.
Now, several months since the Joint Chiefs expressed deep concern about
a readiness crisis, we continue to curtail or cancel training and
exercises across all Services for units not about to deploy. The costs
of recovering lost readiness are going up by the day. Inevitably,
recovery in the years to come will compete with the costs of building
Joint Force 2020.
It is our people that make us the most capable military in the
world. They are our best hedge against threats to our homeland and
interests abroad. By 2020, we will require even greater technical
talent in our ranks. But developing technological skill must occur in
concert with leader and character development. We must resist the
temptation to scale back on education, including languages and cultural
knowledge. Military service must continue to be our Nation's preeminent
leadership experience. It is more important than ever to get the most
from the potential and performance of every servicemember.
Investing in people is not just about their development and
readiness. It is also about the commitment we make to their families.
Unsustainable costs and smaller budgets mean we must examine every
warrior and family support program to make sure we are getting the best
return on our investment.
We need to reform pay and compensation to reduce costs while making
sure we recruit and retain the best America has to offer. We must also
balance our commitment to provide quality, accessible healthcare with
better management and essential reform to get escalating costs under
control. The fiscal year 2014 budget would help control rising
healthcare costs by initiating a restructuring of medical facilities to
make them more efficient, without sacrificing quality or continuity of
care, and by proposing fee adjustments that exempt disabled retirees,
survivors of servicemembers who died on active duty, and their family
members. The Department of Defense is also working with Veterans
Affairs to find efficiencies across healthcare systems.
As we work to get the people right, we must also sustain our
investment in decisive capabilities. The fiscal year 2014 budget
continues to fund long-term capabilities that sustain our edge against
resourceful and innovative enemies, while maintaining critical
investments in science and technology, and research and development
programs.
Emerging capabilities, once on the margins, must move to the
forefront and be fully integrated with our general purpose forces.
Special Operations Forces, for example, have played an increasingly
consequential role over the past 10 years. We have expanded their ranks
considerably during this timeframe, and now we must continue to improve
the quality of their personnel and capabilities.
Closely linked are our intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities--from sensors to analysts. We will continue
to rely on proven systems designed for the low threat environments of
Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, we must also develop and field
sensors designed to penetrate and survive in high-threat areas. They
will expand our ability to access and assess hard-to-reach targets.
This budget also sustains our investment in cyber, in part by
expanding the cyber forces led by the U.S. Cyber Command. Despite
significant investment and progress in the past year, the threat
continues to outpace us, placing the Nation at risk. The fiscal year
2014 budget increases funding for cyber security information sharing,
but we need legislation to allow the private sector and U.S.
interagency to share real-time cyber threat information--within a
framework of privacy and civil liberty safeguards. In parallel, we must
establish and adopt standards for protecting critical infrastructure.
The development and integration of these emerging capabilities will
by no means amount to all that is new in Joint Force 2020. They must be
integrated with our foundational and impressive conventional force
capabilities. The fiscal year 2014 budget protects several areas where
reinvestment in existing systems--such as the C-130, F-16, and the
Army's Stryker combat vehicle--sustains our competitive advantage. All
are backed by our asymmetric advantages in long-range strike, global
mobility, logistics, space, and undersea warfare. And, they must be
connected with a secure, mobile, and collaborative command and control
network.
This combination of increasingly powerful network capabilities and
agile units at the tactical edge is a powerful complement to leadership
at every echelon. It provides the basis to project both discrete and
overwhelming power across multiple domains. It gives policymakers and
commanders alike a greater degree of flexibility in how they pursue
objectives.
As we set priorities and implement reductions, we must rely more
on--and invest more in--our other instruments of national power to help
underwrite global security. Fewer defense dollars only adds to the
importance of relationships among defense, diplomacy, and development.
When the political and economic foundations of our bilateral
relationships are under stress, our military-to-military ties can serve
as a model of professionalism and restraint for foreign militaries, and
often help provide a channel for continued dialogue. Advancing American
interests not only requires integration across all instruments of
national power, but it also requires that our international partners
accept a greater share of the risk and responsibility. Some are more
ready and willing to do that than others.
CONCLUSION
Although I am confident the Joint Force today can marshal resources
for any specific contingency, our goal is to be able to offer military
options that restore and maintain readiness while putting U.S. national
security on a sustainable path to 2020 and beyond. To do this, we must
recruit and retain the most talented people. We must invest in their
competence and character so they can leverage emerging and existing
capabilities in our defense. It is an investment our predecessors made
in decades past. We must do the same.
Our consistent first line of defense has been and always will be
our people. They are our greatest strength. We will rely on our war-
tested leaders to think and innovate as we navigate the challenges and
opportunities that lie ahead. We need to seize the moment to think
differently and to be different. But we cannot do it alone. We need the
help of our elected officials to give us the certainty, time, and
flexibility to make change. Otherwise, the cuts that have already
diminished our readiness will only get deeper, and the risks we will
have to accept in the years to come will only increase.
We can and must stay strong in the face of declining budgets and
rising risk. We must have the courage to make the difficult choices
about our investments, about our people, and about our way of war. The
Secretary's Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) is helping
to identify options and opportunities as we move forward in partnership
with Congress.
We have been down this road before. We can lead through this
uncertainty and manage the transition to a more secure and prosperous
future. I know your Nation's military leaders are ready--as is every
single Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Coastguardsman--to give
their last breath to defend America and her allies.
Please accept my thanks to this committee and Congress for all you
have done to support our men and women in uniform. Together, we serve
our Nation.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, General.
I know Mr. Hale will be here for questions if any are
directed to the Comptroller.
I will start. This morning's front page of newspapers all
across the United States tells the story of Edward Snowden--
Edward Snowden, who was an employee of Booz Allen, working for
one of our premier national security agencies as a contract
employee. The story that is told is that he was a high school
dropout, that he did not finish his military obligation, though
he attempted, and dropped out of community college. And it is
also reported that he is being paid in the range of $200,000 a
year as a contract employee.
CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
Secretary Hagel, I continue to be concerned about the cost
of the contractor workforce, not just in the National Security
Agency (NSA) but in the Department of Defense. Recent reports
have again emphasized that the average contract employee costs
two to three times as much as the average DOD civilian employee
for performing similar work. According to DOD information from
fiscal year 2010, contract employees comprised 22 percent of
your Department's workforce but accounted for 50 percent of its
cost, $254 billion.
So now let us take a look at what is happening when it
comes to the treatment of the workforce. I wholeheartedly
support the idea of exempting uniformed personnel from
sequestration cuts. We owe it to these men and women not to put
a hardship on them when they are literally risking their lives
for America. But then if we take a look at the civilian
workforce in the Department of Defense, here is what we find.
There has not been a civilian pay raise since 2011.
So my question to you is this. If we are setting out to
save money, has the civilian hiring freeze resulted in more or
fewer contract employees? And if so, how are you tracking the
cost ramifications? Has contractor pay in the Department of
Defense increased during the civilian hiring freeze?
Secretary Hagel. Mr. Chairman, I will defer the specific
numbers that you asked or the questions to the comptroller here
in a moment. But let me address your larger context of your
question on contractors.
We are currently reviewing all contractors, all the
contracts we have. We have no choice for all the obvious
reasons. Contractors are part of any institution. We need them,
certain skills, certain expertise. But there is no question
that we are going to have to make some rather significant
adjustments, which we are.
And by the way, the furlough process does include
contractors. It includes companies. It includes acquisitions.
It includes contracts. And your specific questions on the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports--I will ask Mr.
Hale to respond, but let me make one other point.
I do not disagree with any of your general analysis on
contractors. I think when you look at the buildup over the last
12 years--and I was in this body during a significant amount of
that--and as that buildup occurred and the money flowed into
different departments and institutions, because we felt they
were required for the national security of this country, there
will come a time--and it is now where we are going to have to
make some hard choices in the review of those.
So wherever you want to go, but if Mr. Hale would like to
present a response to some of the specific questions on the
numbers, I would be very happy to ask him to do so.
Senator Durbin. Certainly. Please.
Mr. Hale. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. We are taking a $37
billion sequestration cut in fiscal year 2013. The majority of
that is going to come out of contractors. About $2 billion will
come out of furloughs. There is some additional amount from the
hiring freezes that will affect our civilian employees. The
majority will come out of contractors. So we are going to see a
drop in contractors. I do not know yet how much because the
year is not over, but I think it will be a sharp drop.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hale, do you dispute this finding that
the average contract employee costs two to three times as much
as the average DOD civilian employee?
Mr. Hale. No. It sounds about right. But let me say whether
or not a contractor or civilian is cheaper or better really
depends on the circumstances. There are some cases where we
simply do not have the skills in the Department of Defense that
we need or it is a short-term job. It would not make any sense
to grow them. Audit readiness, an excellent point. I am hiring
a lot of contractors because they know how to do audits. We do
not yet. And other circumstances. If you are going to have the
job over a long period of time, you are probably better off, it
is probably cheaper to have a civilian Government employee do
it.
Senator Durbin. When I was on the Bowles-Simpson Commission
and the Secretary of Defense came to speak, we asked him how
many contract employees worked for the Department of Defense,
and he said, ``I cannot tell you. I just do not know.''
Mr. Hale. You know, I know it sounds bad, but let me tell
you why that is partly true, and then I will give you the best
number we have.
It is partly true because if you do a fixed-price contract,
the contractor has no obligation to tell you how many people
are doing it. They just do the work, and if they do it
satisfactorily, you pay them. We are in the process now of
asking all our contractors, probably at some expense to the
Government, to tell us how many people, even if it is a fixed-
price contract. So we will know better. But roughly, we have
got about 700,000 service contractors right now is our best
current estimate.
Senator Durbin. Well, I have found--and I am sure Senator
Mikulski has some thoughts on this issue--a sense of disdain
towards civilian DOD employees and a sense of benign neglect
when it comes to contractor employees. And I think if there is
going to be sacrifice, it has to be across the board, and if we
are going to save money, it should not be at the expense of
those who are willing to work in the Civil Service.
So my time is up at this point.
Mr. Hale. You will not get any argument from me on that,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
I do not know whether to turn to my right or my left. I
think I will turn to Senator Mikulski. I think I will turn to
Senator Cochran.
SHORTFALL IN OVERSEAS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the request
before the committee, I noticed there is an operations and
maintenance shortfall for the Army's request in excess of $8
billion in the overseas contingency operations and maintenance
account. Why are we seeing such a huge difference between what
was requested and what is available for these activities? Why
this big disparity?
Secretary Hagel. Senator Cochran, I will respond generally
and then ask the Comptroller to be more specific on the
accounts.
I noted in my statement here this morning that the costs
essentially of transitioning and withdrawing from Afghanistan--
and that is principally an Army assignment, as has been the
situation, as you all know, the last 12 years. The Army has had
the bulk of certainly the manpower responsibilities in these
two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. As we are unwinding those in
equipment and maintenance, to get that equipment out--it is not
easy to get out for a lot of reasons--the cost has been
significantly more than what had been anticipated over the last
year--2 years. That is part of it.
But there are other parts to it that I am going to ask the
Comptroller to address more specifically which will, I think,
address exactly your numbers. Bob?
Mr. Hale. The shortfall you are referring to is in fiscal
year 2013, and the Army is short as much as $8 billion. We do
these estimates 2 years in advance, Senator Cochran, and it is
hard to guess what a war is going to cost that far in advance.
We do not know for sure the operating tempo. Sometimes we have
guessed too high. We have asked for too much money. I do not
like to say that but I will. But this year, regrettably, we did
not ask for enough.
Several factors. One, we underestimated the level of
operating tempo that would actually occur. We underestimated
the transportation costs, as the Secretary alluded to, to get
equipment out partly because of the issues with Pakistan on the
ground lines of communication and a variety of other factors.
So, yes, we are short as much as $8 billion, and it is coming
at a time when sequestration has greatly limited our ability to
cover that. So if I can make the pitch here, we need this
reprogramming, please, a hopeful full approval or close.
Senator Cochran. We appreciate your efforts to hold down
the costs and try to eliminate unnecessary or wasteful spending
in this budget even though we are involved in military
operations and those are costly and more costly than when you
do not have a war going on. And we understand that. But it just
struck me as a pretty high number, and I was curious as to what
the details were.
In 2012, the Department of Defense--I guess this is
directed to the Secretary--announced a strategy that would
shift focus in military capability to the Pacific theater.
Since that time, the Department has been forced to deal with a
lot of uncertainties, sequestration included, and events such
as what is happening in North Korea and how serious is that,
and are we going to incur knowable amounts of additional
spending for dealing with that stressful area of the world?
Concerning shipbuilding projects for amphibious warship
inventory, if you look at some of the parts of the budget that
you would think you might come in for increases, there will be
decreases. The 30-year shipbuilding plan projects amphibious
warship inventory will fall to 28 ships in fiscal year 2015.
This could have a negative impact on our ability to protect our
interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
What is your assessment of this? I guess the Secretary and
then the Chairman.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
I will respond, and then I know General Dempsey will want
to respond as well.
First, your initial question about additional operating
expenses based on threats in the Asia-Pacific. You mentioned
specifically North Korea. We have had to place assets
differently, reposition resources, capabilities over the last
few months. Essentially since I have been over there, a little
more than 3 months, a good deal of my time has been devoted to
that part of the world, and that particular issue, North Korea,
has consumed a good amount of it. So there have been additional
costs. There may well be additional costs. Partly what the
Comptroller was referring to, Senator, in his general
commentary on answering the chairman's question about
uncertainties, you plan for uncertainties but you never know.
We have had to protect our assets there, whether it is Guam,
Hawaii, Japan, South Korea, and we need to continue to keep all
options available for the President if we would be required to
take any kind of additional action.
SHIPBUILDING
Second, shipbuilding. Yes, there will be a dip, as you
noted, in 2015 as we work toward the 300-ship Navy, and we are
on course for that. The budget numbers play that out. You
mentioned specifically why is there a decrease in some of these
areas. There are decreases in most areas, as you know, because
the resources are not there. So the tough decisions have had to
be made--and more will come--have to align with our strategies
and our commitments and our guidance. We are committed to that
300-ship Navy. We are finding new capabilities in these new
ships that we did not have previously. But as you go through
that cycle of the 30 years--and if the Comptroller wants to go
into more specifics, he can--you will find a couple of those
years will dip because we are retiring old ships that would
cost more to maintain them as we are acquiring new technologies
in ships.
So let me stop there and ask General Dempsey, Senator, if
he would like to respond. Thank you.
General Dempsey. Thank you, Secretary.
Senator, if you are asking will the sequestration level of
cuts have an effect on our ability not only to produce
capability, but capacity--capability, what we can do; capacity,
how often--absolutely. We are talking about a $1.2 trillion
difference when you add up what was done in the $487 billion of
the Budget Control Act that gauged efficiencies in
sequestration. $1.2 trillion is going to leave a mark on what
we plan to do.
Now, that said, the Strategic Choices and Management Review
that the Secretary has just led us through will allow us to
identify the point at which the Defense Strategic Guidance that
you referred to from last year where we will potentially render
it infeasible, and that work should become clearer in the weeks
ahead.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Chairwoman Mikulski.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you
for your questions about Mr. Snowden. All of Maryland is
reeling from this. One, the National Security Agency is in our
State. Second, Mr. Snowden's mother's name was disclosed, her
workplace, her home address. That dear woman had nothing to do
with this incident, and now she is being harassed. And people
are asking why a kid who could not make it through a community
college can make 200 grand a year and be exposed to some of our
most significant secrets. So we will have a lot of hearings on
this, and thank you for raising it for our civilian employees.
It is good to see you, Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey,
Mr. Hale.
First of all, I want to just acknowledge all of the work
that you do, and you, General Dempsey, for your service and the
stress that you are under. I mean, if we just looked at the
``S'' words, from ``Syria'' to ``sequester'' to ``sexual
assault,'' that is enough to keep anyone functioning at a 36-
hour day. So I just want to acknowledge that we are in a very
difficult and transition time both in terms of a military
mandate and then the money to go with it.
Today, I want to focus my questions on the troops, their
families, and their well-being, from recruitment all the way
through to retirement.
Secretary Hagel, I want to thank you for your participation
in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) backlog hearing,
your prompt response, your must-do list, the appointment of Mr.
Lupton. We look forward to working with you to crack the code
on the military backlog.
Second, on healthcare. As you recall in our confirmation
hearing, I had hoped to work on--I look forward to working with
these issues with you.
HEALTHY BASE INITIATIVE
Mr. Chairman, there is within the budget a request for
something called a ``Healthy Base Initiative.'' This is how we
would organize all the resources of the Federal Government,
working with the private sector on the base, to really create a
sense of a healthy base initiative related to everything from
nutrition to physical fitness, resiliency. I will be working
with the chairman to fund it.
I must say on the Healthy Base Initiative, though, I know
you have selected 13 sites. They read like a National
Geographic tour. There are three in Virginia. There are none in
Maryland. Not a good thing to do.
I would hope you would look at Fort Meade. Fort Meade is in
the news, but it makes news every day. There are 39,000
employees, military and civilian and contractors, there. So
could we take a look at that?
And I would like to talk more about healthcare, but let me
move on to something else, which is sexual assault.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Gentlemen, I have been working on this issue for 25 years
both as a Member of the Senate and on the Board of Visitors. We
had the hearing last week, and there was robust response and I
would like to pick up on it.
So let me tell you my focus. My focus is on the service
academies because I want to focus on the training of this
generation and the next generation of leaders. Secretary Hagel,
when I read your testimony--let me get to where I want to go
here--you outline several steps that you are taking, and I want
to acknowledge these steps and I want to appreciate them. They
go, though, to current command. You talk about the service
chiefs to develop military commanders' performance. Excellent.
I support that. In other words, I support everything you have
in your testimony.
SERVICE ACADEMIES
But let us go to the service academies. I believe that
leadership trains leadership, and the tone is set by the
superintendent of the academy. As you look at how to evaluate
military commanders' performance in establishing a command
climate of dignity and respect, which you say in your
testimony, incorporating sexual assault prevention in the
selection of superintendents for the United States military, do
you now or would you consider really evaluating as part of
their performance, one, how they get their job and how they
retain their job, that this be a matter that is included in the
command performance evaluation?
Secretary Hagel. Absolutely, yes. As you know, there is an
evaluation process before any of these individuals are given
these assignments. However, to your point, there has been very
little emphasis on this issue. But that is across the----
Chairwoman Mikulski. When you say ``this issue,'' you mean
the superintendents or sexual assault?
Secretary Hagel. Sexual prevention, assault, training,
attitudes, the entire context of this issue.
I have redirected that effort in recertifying and
reevaluating all of our senior people from recruiters--there is
a stand-down in every military organization--all the sexual
prevention office heads, anybody in those offices, across the
board. This also includes all of our leaders at the academies,
the superintendents, the commandants, and that will go down
into instructors as well. Now, that is a component of this
problem--academies--but it is not, as you know, the only part
of the problem.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I know it is not. But I would like to
really focus on the superintendents of the academies. For 25
years, I have watched some outstanding superintendents,
particularly at the Naval Academy, and I have seen some duds.
Sixty percent of the generals that we now have serving
graduated from West Point. Ninety percent of the admirals
graduated from the Naval Academy. This says what the pipeline
of leadership is, and that is what it is. That is why we spend
$400,000 educating these very talented men and women. They need
leadership that is contemporary and understands the
contemporary workforce. And I am very concerned that in their
selection for being a superintendent, what this is.
So I like your ``from recruitment all the way through.'' I
support everything you have in your testimony, but I need a
focus on these superintendents. Could you give us a list of the
criteria on selecting the superintendent?
Secretary Hagel. We will provide that to the committee, and
you, once again, have my commitment, absolute commitment, as I
know General Dempsey's, our entire leadership on getting this
right. We will get it right. And I understand exactly what you
are saying, and we will provide that information.
[The information follows:]
During the hearing, you asked me to provide the list of criteria
used to select Service Academy Superintendents. While there is no
formal checklist, the Chief of Staff of each Service considers a number
of criteria before recommending to the Service Secretary a three-star
flag officer to serve as the Service Academy Superintendent. The
criteria includes: Extensive command experience to include a successful
two-star command; combat experience; and having graduated from or
served at the Service Academy. In addition, as with any four- and
three-star position, the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff seek officers
who have demonstrated highly effective performance in a variety of key
positions and who have faithfully executed the law, authorities, and
responsibilities accorded them over their careers.
Given the tremendous responsibility associated with the
Superintendent's role in ensuring the best possible development of
tomorrow's leaders, his/her selection carries with it an added degree
of scrutiny by the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff. Beyond selfless
dedication to and competence in the profession of arms, they seek
nominees who they are confident will engender the public's trust and
that of the faculty and students they must lead. The Superintendent
must also be able to provide direction for all phases of cadet academic
instruction and military training while leading any needed
institutional change to ensure each graduate is a commissioned leader
of character committed to the core values of the Service. Accordingly,
the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff carefully consider any potential
nominee's personal and professional reputation in an effort to ensure
recommending only those officers who demonstrate leadership, character
and values commensurate with the honor and privilege of serving as
Superintendent.
I look forward to working closely with you and the Subcommittee as
they consider the fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations Bill. Thank
you for your continued support of our men and women in uniform and our
entire civilian workforce.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, my time is really up.
Also, every year you get a report that was mandated in the
DOD authorization on the sexual assaults at the service
academies, then how they are handled by the service academies,
and then the Board of Visitors is enormously uneven. There are
inconsistent policies, inconsistent implementation of the
policies. Could we really focus on the service academies? I
could go through the numbers and statistics.
Secretary Hagel. We will, we are, and we will continue to
update the committee. We would be very happy, Senator, to come
give you a briefing on specifically this issue anytime that you
request.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
And my last question on this. Would you support Senate
confirmation of the superintendents of the service academies?
Secretary Hagel. I do not have any problem with that at
all.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to associate myself with the comments of the
chairman of our Appropriations Committee. It seems to me that
her points about the service academies are very important, and
I appreciate her bringing them up today.
SHORTFALL IN READINESS ACCOUNTS
Secretary Hagel, you testified this morning that the
shortfall in the military readiness accounts for the remainder
of this fiscal year is about $30 billion. Since unanticipated
war costs, not the sequester, account for at least 25 percent
and perhaps up to a third of the shortfall in the readiness
accounts and about 50 percent of the shortfall in the Army
readiness accounts, should we not be addressing this portion of
the fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall with a supplemental OCO
request?
We understand that war is uncertain, that it is
extraordinarily difficult to accurately estimate what the costs
are going to be, particularly in the situation we find
ourselves in, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there is a direct
link between the unexpected, unfunded war costs and the
furloughs because they are funded from the same accounts, the
readiness accounts.
Now, you have mentioned, as has Secretary Hale, the
reprogramming request that you have before our committee, but
that does not give you more funding. It just allows you to
shift funding around.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
So my question, Mr. Secretary, is this. Will the Department
be submitting a supplemental request to Congress to address the
higher than anticipated war costs?
Secretary Hagel. Senator Collins, first, as you have noted
and as you have read and you are aware, one supplemental to
address this issue is not going to fix this problem. The only
thing that is going to fix this problem is a change in the
sequestration, as you have heard, I know countless times.
Now, to your specific question, we have not considered a
supplemental. I have not discussed a supplemental. So if that
occurs, then we would look at it. But that is about as far as I
can go. We just have not looked at that as a possibility.
Senator Collins. Well, I would encourage you to do so
because although I do not support the sequestration process and
believe we should be setting priorities and I am very worried
about the detrimental impact on the Department of Defense, the
fact is that is not the total cause of the shortfall in the
readiness accounts, and overall across the Department between,
well, approximately a third of the shortfall is not due to
sequestration. It is due to higher than anticipated war costs.
So even if we abolish sequestration today, that does not solve
the problem of your needing, legitimately needing, more money
to deal with the unanticipated, underestimated war costs. And
so I would ask you to look at the possibility of submitting a
supplemental request.
Let me just make one more comment. You talked about the
300-ship Navy being on track, and I, of course, am very pleased
to hear that. And it is particularly important given the new
defense policy focusing on the Pacific that the President has
revealed.
10-SHIP PLAN
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley,
recently testified about the 10-ship plan for destroyers and
that the marginal cost to acquire that 10th destroyer makes it
an extremely affordable acquisition and would contribute to the
cost efficiency of the overall multiyear. In fact, due to
sequestration, the Department is about $306 million short
despite the fact that a destroyer costs considerably more than
that. But there are real economies of scale due to the
multiyear procurement plan that the Congress has approved.
Do you support continuing with that multiyear procurement
plan?
Secretary Hagel. I am familiar with the specific situation,
and we are currently closely examining whether a commitment to
that 10th ship should be made for the reasons you just
mentioned. That decision, as far as I know, has not been made
yet. And I will ask Mr. Hale to respond to this. But it is part
of the overall larger strategic interest, especially as we are
moving 60 percent of our naval assets into the Asia-Pacific
area.
Bob, do you want to respond?
Mr. Hale. There are some specific problems you are well
aware of with sequestration effects on the multiyear. We are
trying to solve them. There is a small amount of money in this
reprogramming actually to help. But we are going to have to
look at this in light of what happens in overall sequestration
before we make that final decision. But we would like the 10th
ship.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I could not help but think on one of the earlier questions
about sexual misconduct at the naval academy and elsewhere, at
least what is reported in the press, in most of those cases
where nothing was done, if that was outside a military
reservation with the special laws, local prosecutors would be
prosecuting people. There would be people going to jail. And I
would hope any local prosecutor who knew what they were doing
would not be taking the position almost of blaming the victims
that we saw in some of these cases.
I mention that because I know there is some reluctance
expressed in making the chain of command more responsive, but
with all of you here, let me tell you there is some thought--
and this is a matter that would not be before the
Appropriations Committee, but before the Judiciary Committee--
to removing the exemption and allowing State prosecutors to
move in on those cases. And I throw that out. I realize that
would be quite controversial. But I throw that out as a warning
to the military chain of command that this ``do things as they
have always been done'' is not acceptable.
There are many of us on the Judiciary Committee who had the
opportunity to serve as prosecutors, both parties, in earlier
careers. And I just throw that out. I am not looking for an
answer. I know the Armed Services Committee and others look at
it. Mr. Secretary, I was heartened by your very, very strong
statement in this area. General Dempsey, I know of your
concern. So I will be revisiting this with you privately, but
it is something that we are considering.
I think we have talked about what our troops have
accomplished in Afghanistan. I include Vermont's 86th Brigade
that was there and they fought with great bravery. Several lost
their lives. But with Syria and Iraq and much of the Muslim
world descending into sectarianism, I wonder whether
Afghanistan faces a similar fate after December 2014. So I
would ask you, can our efforts be sustained by the Afghan Army
when we leave? And is it possible that we leave earlier than we
now plan?
Secretary Hagel. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Just a very
brief response to your sexual assault comments.
You have summarized it pretty well. You know what I have
done in cooperation with our chiefs. There are going to have to
be changes made. There will be changes made. But as we make
those changes and work with the Congress on this, we need to be
as sure as we can be that the consequences that will come from
whatever decision is made by the Congress to make those kinds
of adjustments that we need to make--and you know I agree with
that in many ways--that they are thoughtful.
And just the last point on this. As you know, the Congress
instructed the Department of Defense in its National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) 2013 statement to put together a
panel, which Congress appointed four representatives to that
panel, DOD representatives. Five are on that panel. That panel
will hold its first meeting in the next 2 weeks. I have talked
with them a couple of times. The objective of that panel is to
go down into every aspect of this issue, the chain of command,
authority, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and make
recommendations to the Congress and to the Department of
Defense on what needs to be changed, what they think needs to
be changed. These are very eminent, qualified, respected,
experienced people, men and women of all backgrounds. So I just
add that as a last point. And to this point, we are working
very closely with them.
AFGHANISTAN
As to your questions on Afghanistan, let me respond and
then I will ask General Dempsey for his thoughts on this.
First, as you know, we are building toward the transition
with our allies. I was in Belgium last week. This issue was
very much a focus of the 50-member International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) nations that are in Afghanistan now.
Many will continue to have a presence and have a role in a
post-2014 transition effort, which we will lead, the United
States. As you know, it is train, assist, and advise. A number
of countries came forward last week at that NATO meeting and
committed to Germany, Italy--the Turks are looking at seriously
the consideration of being a framework nation for Kabul and so
on.
I mention that because this is going to continue to be an
international effort. As to your question, can they succeed,
well, that is the question. We have a very strong feeling that
they can, they will. They are going through a very difficult
fighting season now, as you know, every day. Our lead combat
role is now extinguished. There will be a formal handover to
that effect in 2 weeks in Kabul. The Secretary General of NATO
will be there to represent the ISAF forces in NATO. We continue
to build--and help them in every way--their army, their police,
their system. Big problems, questions, of course. Uncertainty,
of course. But we are doing everything we can to assist that
successful transition and a peaceful and prosperous and free
Afghanistan.
General.
General Dempsey. I will submit a longer answer for the
record in deference to your time, Senator.
But I would say one could make a very strong argument that
what really hangs in the balance in Afghanistan right now is
the confidence of the Afghan Security Forces and the confidence
of the Afghan people in them to preserve a measure of stability
after our departure.
And I think that everything we do in the next year and a
half, because that is really what we are talking about here,
between now and the end of 2014, should serve to reinforce
their confidence, a bilateral security agreement, some
commitment to our enduring presence, increasing our commitment
to accelerating the enablers that we provide them. And anything
we do to discourage them will probably make it a fait accompli
that they will not succeed.
But I will submit a longer response for the record.
[The information follows:]
We believe the ANSF will be able to provide security for the Afghan
population once we leave. In fact, transition is already well underway:
core al-Qaeda is decimated, the Taliban degraded, and the ANSF enters
the 2013 fighting season stronger than ever. ANSF is now leading the
vast majority of combat operations and has the lead for planning and
execution of combat operations. We still have 19 months until the end
of the 2014, and we will use that time to continue to focus on
ministerial capacity, enablers, and leadership development to set ANSF
up for long-term function. Also along these lines, ISAF casualties are
now lower than they have been since 2008, the majority of ISAF bases
have been transferred to the Afghan Government or closed, and
construction is complete on most Afghan Army bases and Police
facilities.
As for whether we will be able to leave earlier than currently
planned, that decision will be conditions based, and will depend
largely on Commander ISAF's recommendations. U.S. and coalition forces
are withdrawing very quickly already, and the effects of even faster
withdraw would be precipitous and likely negative--especially with
pending Afghan Presidential elections in 2014, and with hedging
behavior by many actors (including GIRoA and the Afghan people, not to
mention the Taliban) evidenced in advance of clear announcement by the
U.S. of continued support and assistance through the Transformation
Decade. Earlier this year, President Obama announced that the United
States would redeploy 34,000 personnel by February 2014, a level one-
half the size of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time of the
announcement. The pace and size of this withdrawal are consistent with
Commander ISAF's recommendations to draw down in a manner that protects
our troops and maintains hard-won gains. The current withdrawal plan
will provide enough forces to support the ANSF through two crucial
Afghan-led fighting seasons and will also enable us to assist the ANSF
in providing security for the 2014 elections, the success of which is
critical to the long-term stability of Afghanistan.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit a question on Strategic Choices
and Management Review (SCMR) and my concern that--for example,
in the past, we have cut things off. Like Secretary Gates shut
down the Joint Forces Command. They just moved most of it to
the Joint Staff. And I do have a specific question of what
happens. Are things shut down or just moved around?
And, General Dempsey, I look forward to your answer. I
understand it is a very complex issue, but I also worry about
just what is happening there.
My time is up.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Senate where you spent a
lot of years.
NORTH KOREA
I want to get in the area of North Korea. A lot of us are
very concerned--and I know you are--about the developments in
Korea. It runs hot and then it cools off a little bit. But we
have a very unstable regime, I believe, there and so forth.
What role could China play, if they chose to do so, with
North Korea? You know, they have at times. They have let them
go at times. And how important are the developments in Korea to
our national security?
Secretary Hagel. Senator Shelby, thank you.
China. As you all know, the President spent a couple of
days with the new Chinese President Xi in California----
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Secretary Hagel [continuing]. A few days ago. Obviously,
North Korea was a significant part of that agenda. I was in
Singapore about a week ago for the Shangri-La Dialogue. I met
with my not exact minister of defense level counterpart from
China but senior representatives from the ministry of defense
there. General Dempsey has met with his counterpart. And so we
have a number of tracks that we are working with the Chinese
on. I say that specifically to address your point about North
Korea, there is very little question that the Chinese have more
influence with North Korea than any country.
And without veering off into the Secretary of State's
province, I would say that the Chinese have been helpful in
dealing with the North Koreans. We have different issues,
different agendas, different interests. But we also have many
of the same interests that are parallel and intersect. North
Korea is one.
How dangerous is North Korea? Dangerous in the sense they
are unpredictable. They have capacities. We know that. We have
allies there starting right on the border of the Demilitarized
Zone (DMZ) with our allies in South Korea. We know the kind of
armaments and artillery that they have lined up--the North
Koreans--against Seoul. Their capacity, rocket capacity, thrust
capacity, weapons capacity, Japan. That is why we responded the
last 3 months the way we did, Terminal High-Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) battery in Guam to protect our assets, some
other, which this committee is very familiar with, decisions
that we have made, the President has decided on.
So we have to be prepared, Senator, for every option, every
contingency. You said it, I think, correctly. We see this up
and down diplomatic track and then there will be something to
occur, and then there is a diplomatic track. The South Koreans
and North Koreans sat down for the first time in 6 years a few
days ago. There will be ongoing meetings. I think any of those
dialogues and any of those venues are helpful, important. But
North Korea remains still a dangerous and unpredictable
country, and we need to be prepared for that.
I do not know if General Dempsey has any response.
Senator Shelby. General Dempsey.
General Dempsey. Well, thank you, Senator.
I mean, you asked about what are our national security
interests on the Korean Peninsula. I would list four very
quickly. One, defend the homeland. They are seeking to acquire
the ability to reach the homeland or some of our territorial
interests in the Pacific. So we have a very clear interest in
that national security interest.
Secondly, preserve the armistice. We are responsible by
treaty obligation to preserve the armistice that has exited
there for 60 years. And related to that, we have 29,000 service
men and women and about 4,000 families living on the peninsula
to achieve that purpose.
Third, they are a risk to our security in the way they
proliferate technology, whether it is nuclear technology or
ballistic missile technology.
And fourth, I would say we always have an interest in
ensuring secure and confident allies. And so our commitment to
our Republic of Korea allies is it is a reflection of our
commitment to the region.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, would touch--I just have a
few seconds. You might have a longer answer--on cybersecurity?
You know, we are all interested in cybersecurity for our
industries, our private businesses, and so forth. We are being
attacked everywhere. I know that you are being attacked through
the defense installations everywhere. How important to--I think
we all know the basic answer. Cybersecurity is important to the
services because so much of what you do is based on software
and the Internet. Do you want to comment on that?
Secretary Hagel. I will, and in the interest of time, I
will be brief.
But I would start with this. It is one of the very few
areas of the fiscal year 2014 budget where we have asked for an
increase for obvious reasons.
I have said many times, Senator Shelby--I said it when I
was in the Senate--that I think the cyber threat is probably
the most insidious, dangerous threat overall for this country.
And there are a lot of threats. But it crosses every line. You
do not know where it is coming from. You do not know when it is
coming. This is a very significant threat, and I think everyone
understands that in the Congress. We do. Just as you noted, it
takes down industrial base secrets. It can essentially paralyze
economies, our computers, our satellites.
Senator Shelby. It could change the whole equation of
this----
Secretary Hagel. It changes everything. It could change
everything.
As you know, the President spent considerable time with
Chinese President Xi on this issue. I made in my statements and
in my speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last
week--I made that a big part of my speech, and I specifically
noted that we are aware that many of these attacks are
emanating from China. And so I do not think we can minimize
this threat, Senator, and I think it is going to be with us and
it is as big a threat that I think we have out there in every
way to our country. And it is not just unique to this country.
It is unique to every country.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions I
would like to submit for the record, if I could.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen.
TRICARE FEES
Mr. Secretary, you and your colleagues have made very
difficult decisions in this budget. One of them, in particular,
is with respect to the benefits and particularly TRICARE fees.
And one of the realities is there are expectations in the
active and retired force based on great sacrifice and service
that they would receive these benefits or something equivalent
to it.
Can you give us the rationale again? I know you mentioned
in your opening statement about what is compelling you to take
these steps.
Secretary Hagel. Yes, I can, Senator Reed, and I may ask
the Comptroller to give you a couple of numbers on this.
First, as I said in my opening statement--and everyone on
this committee knows this--and as the chairman noted a speech
that Chairman Dempsey gave about a year ago at the National
Press Club, your people are your most important asset. You take
care of your people. And we have made commitments to our
people. Our country has. We have asked them to sacrifice,
continue to sacrifice, and you know all about that, Senator
Reed. Therefore, we have an obligation here.
And the TRICARE program is a very central part of the
benefit package to our people. Not unlike Social Security, not
unlike our entitlement programs generally in society, when you
look out over the next few years, how are we going to sustain
these programs.
And so what we are looking at is finding ways to make some
modest adjustments now so that we are not faced with abrupt
cuts we will not be able to sustain because we can continue to
play out the kind of benefits we have now, but what that is
going to mean is a much smaller force because we are not going
to be able to afford the same kind of benefits.
What we are proposing, Senator, is modest increases in the
enrollment fees. By the way, it does not affect any of the
Active Duty members. Mainly those who would be affected in the
still-working age after they leave the military before 65. We
are asking for a modest increase in that fee, co-pays increase
for prescription drugs.
Still, even if we got those, that benefit package, and
rightly so by the way, would probably be still the best benefit
package that I am aware of anywhere. And so we have got to do
this or at least start thinking about it and get serious about
it because we are just not going to have the resources to
sustain it out through the years that we are making these
commitments.
I will ask the Comptroller if he wants----
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary--and I want to hear from the
Comptroller, but just a follow-up point. Do you have a
deliberate sort of strategy to engage these different groups,
the retirees, the active forces--not just you but the Chairman
or others--so that they understand and they have the
opportunity to communicate with you and give their impressions
together with their ideas? Because I think, again, ultimately
there is a real question here 10 years from now whether the
soldiers--and there is no one more invested in the success of
our military forces than these individuals--will have the
training, equipment, platforms, support that they need to do
the job. Are you going to do that?
Secretary Hagel. We do do that and we do it working with
our military associations that represent certainly our
retirees. We do it with veterans groups. We reach out to the
Congress. We are in touch all the time with certainly members
of your staff and all the appropriate committees, think tanks.
We ask for ideas. We ask for input. We give everyone an
opportunity to weigh in.
I think the last point I would make on this is unless we
are able to--some of the comments that we have made in our
testimony here this morning and others--General Dempsey and I--
slow the growth in some of these programs--and it gets to what
you just noted--what we will find here is that we are going to
cut our combat power significantly. And that is one thing that,
as you know, is a centerpiece of readiness and capability and
options for any threat in the world.
So we have got to balance this, and we are trying to do
that so that we do not hurt people, so we keep our commitments
to people, we do the right thing. If we get at it early and
make these modest adjustments, then we can work through this.
General Dempsey. Could I add, Senator? We cannot do this 1
year at a time. The real problem we are having is these things
come up once a year, and we keep resubmitting them and we do
not get them. Unless we look at the impact of sequestration
over the course of sequestration and recognize the trades--
because strategy is about choice, and we have got to make a
choice how much force structure, how much readiness, how much
modernization, how much compensation. But we have got to look
at it over this 10-year period, and the Strategic Choice Review
is going to give us the opportunity to do it. And we have to do
what you just suggested.
Senator Reed. Mr. Hale, my time is expired. I do not want
to impose on my colleagues. If you have specific data or 10
seconds, I would take it now and then yield.
Mr. Hale. We are going to keep TRICARE generous. By 2018,
our proposals save $2.5 billion in that year alone. If we do
not do that and we have to say cut forces to offset it, it is
about 25,000 troops. We need to slow the growth.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Mr. Hale and Mr. Secretary, about 5 years
ago--maybe longer--every group known to man in the retiree
community, and military associations, had a summit about
healthcare. I think we need to do that again. I would love to
volunteer with you to be part of that.
Mr. Hale, what percentage of DOD spending will healthcare
consume in the next decade if we do not change the trajectory?
Mr. Hale. Well, it is about 10 percent now. Let me supply a
direct number for the record. A lot depends on what happens to
the overall budget, but it is going to grow because the budget
looks like it is getting down. So I would guess it would be in
the teens, but let me supply a better----
Senator Graham. Yes. I heard it could be up to 20 percent
in the next decade if we do not----
Mr. Hale. It could be especially if the defense budget
falls.
Senator Graham. Right.
[The information follows:]
Military healthcare costs in the fiscal year 2014 President's
budget request total $49.4 billion. This equates to 9.4 percent of the
Department's fiscal year 2014 request of $526.6 billion in
discretionary budget authority and assumes $0.9 billion in savings if
the Department's TRICARE fee and co-pay proposals increases are allowed
by Congress.
By fiscal year 2023, even with the projected (but very uncertain)
annual savings from DOD's budget proposals growing to $3.6 billion,
military healthcare costs are estimated to increase to $68.8 billion of
the Department's projected discretionary budget authority of $615.5
billion. Without implementation of DOD's proposed actions to help slow
this growth, healthcare costs will consume nearly 12 percent of the
budget by fiscal year 2023. Because healthcare costs are primarily made
up of medical/pharmaceutical and personnel related costs, which are
anticipated to increase at a faster rate than the Department's overall
budget authority, the growth as a percentage of the total budget
authority is inevitable.
Senator Graham. When is the last time there was a premium
increase in TRICARE?
Mr. Hale. Well, 2 years ago, the Congress did allow about a
15-percent increase for TRICARE Prime and indexed it. But prior
to that, it was the mid-1990s. So it was the first time since
the mid-1990s.
Senator Graham. I want a generous benefit, but I want a
sustainable benefit. Do you agree with me that TRICARE is not
sustainable?
Mr. Hale. I believe if we are going to sustain it, we are
going to have a much smaller force and one that is less modern,
and I think that is not the balance that we want.
Senator Graham. Well, we are not going to fight our enemies
with a good healthcare plan.
Mr. Hale. I could not have said it better, Senator.
AFGHANISTAN
Senator Graham. Now, General Dempsey, when it comes to
Afghanistan, are we winning or losing?
General Dempsey. Well, I sincerely believe we are winning.
Senator Graham. I do too.
What happens if we lose?
General Dempsey. Well, the region will become less stable.
I think there will be problems on Pakistan's border. Iran will
be encouraged to become even more regionally aggressive.
Senator Graham. Kandahar could fall back into the hands of
the Taliban.
General Dempsey. We could find a reemergence of violent
extremist groups.
Senator Graham. And the difference between winning and
losing is what we do between now and the next 18 months. Would
you agree?
General Dempsey. Well, the difference between winning and
losing is certainly what we do between now and the end of 2014,
but also I think the commitment we make beyond----
Senator Graham. I agree with you. Confidence is the key
here. We do not need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan post-2014.
But I think we need a residual force to maintain confidence and
capabilities the Afghans do not have so we can end this war
well.
Mr. Secretary, the election in 2014 in Afghanistan. How
important would you say that is in terms of developing a safe,
secure, prosperous Afghanistan?
Secretary Hagel. Senator Graham, I think it is a key
component because it is about confidence. It is about self-
governance. It is about rights.
Senator Graham. Do you not think the enemy will do
everything they can to disrupt that election?
Secretary Hagel. They will and they are doing it now.
Senator Graham. Let us go to budgets. If sequestration is
fully implemented, General Dempsey, how would you describe the
kind of military we would have 10 years from now?
General Dempsey. Well, that is the effort that the
Secretary has us undergoing right now. But at full
sequestration----
Senator Graham. You said some pretty dramatic things. Do
you still stand by----
General Dempsey. Oh, yes. This will not be a force that
will be adequate to the task.
Senator Graham. Fair enough.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Hagel. I do.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Senator Graham. Iran. Mr. Secretary, do you believe the
Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon or peaceful
nuclear power?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I think, first, we stay focused on
our policy and that is preventing the Iranians from acquiring
any capability to weaponize----
Senator Graham. Do you think what they are doing with the
centrifuges is designed to produce nuclear weapons material or
just peaceful power?
Secretary Hagel. Well, it is certainly giving them options
to move in that direction.
Senator Graham. General Dempsey, do you believe the
Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
General Dempsey. As I have testified previously, I do not
think they have made the decision, but as the Secretary said,
they are positioning themselves to preserve the option.
Senator Graham. Can you imagine why they would be doing all
this if they are not trying to make a nuclear weapon?
General Dempsey. Leverage in all different areas.
Senator Graham. I mean, do you think they are developing a
medical isotope reactor?
General Dempsey. I think that is probably part of it, but
it is increasing their leverage.
Senator Graham. I mean, I just find it odd that if you are
going to have a peaceful nuclear power program, you would go
through all this hell to get it and have it built at a bottom
of a mountain.
Do we have plans to deal with the Iranian nuclear program
if military force is necessary?
General Dempsey. I think it is important to mention we have
options both for their acquisition of a nuclear weapon but also
for the other things they are doing.
Senator Graham. Does Israel think they are trying to
develop a nuclear weapon?
General Dempsey. I believe that if you were to ask my
counterpart, he would say yes.
Senator Graham. Is that true, Secretary Hagel? Would your
counterpart say yes?
Secretary Hagel. I think so. And he will be here, by the
way, this week, and I am going to meet with him.
Senator Graham. My time is about over. But I think it is
important that we say to the world as a Nation that, yes, we
think they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon and we are
not going to let them. I just think that is important.
SYRIA
Finally, about Syria, how does Syria affect Jordan, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Hagel. Well, Syria affects everybody in the
Middle East, as we are seeing.
Senator Graham. You are right. You are dead right about
that. It affects Israel certainly.
What I worry the most about is the King of Jordan becoming
the first victim of Syria outside of Syria. Is that a rational
thing for me to be worrying about?
Secretary Hagel. I think it is very rational.
Senator Graham. What would it mean to the region if the
King of Jordan were deposed?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I think a further destabilization of
the entire region, and any way you would frame it or judge it,
it would be very bad news for all----
Senator Graham. Last question. Is Iraq getting better,
worse, or the same? To General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel.
General Dempsey. Iraq has had probably the toughest month
in its history since the end of our time in Iraq. And Maliki
just met with Barzani for the first time in 2 years.
Senator Graham. That is good news.
General Dempsey. It is very good news. But they are under
significant pressure from al Qaeda.
Senator Graham. What would you say, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Hagel. I would agree with the General. There is a
lot going on here, has been the last 2----
Senator Graham. And al Qaeda has risen.
Secretary Hagel. It has risen. You saw the stories this
morning about the fracturing of the army unit. So they have got
problems.
Senator Graham. Thank you all for your service, and all of
us want to help. You got some amazing, hard decisions ahead of
you, and sequestration to me is just unconscionable. We need to
find a way to fix it. But thank you all for your service.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
a joy to join this committee, and I look forward to working
with all of you. I am happy to be here.
Secretary Hagel, thank you for your service. General
Dempsey and Mr. Hale.
Let me just associate myself with the prior remarks of
Senator Mikulski from Maryland who has been absolutely a
champion for victims of rape, domestic violence, and child
abuse I might say. I think that she made an excellent point
earlier about really focusing, Secretary, on the academies.
I had the pleasure to serve with Senator Reed for several
years on the West Point Board of Visitors. He chaired it. And 5
or 6 years ago, Mr. Chairman, we had a very serious discussion
at that level about the training of sexual assault. And I am
going to send you some materials at least that I know were done
at the West Point Academy. I do not know if I can speak for all
the academies. But I think it is a very good place to start
training the next generation, as well as other actions that can
be done by this chairman and Chairman Levin of the Armed
Services Committee and the women that are serving as well on
these committees to really focus on this problem. It is
shameful and it needs to be addressed in the most direct and
effective way.
KOREA
Number two, I want to ask you, following up Senator Shelby,
about North Korea. I know that we are all concerned, and in the
newspapers, it is about their nuclear capabilities and their
long-term intentions and the dysfunction of the society. But,
Mr. Secretary, what just concerns me terribly is the recent--
well, what concerns me terribly is the existence of these
concentration camps. I know that there are articles that have
been coming out, a flurry lately that talks about the 24
million people in North Korea that live in horrific general
circumstances. But then reports from human rights activists say
that there may be as many as 200,000 or 300,000 people in
concentration camps. And the way you get there is by knowing
someone that is thinking wrongly and your whole family gets
sent there.
There was a remarkable story about a 23-year-old man that
escaped miraculously, and a lot of this is based on his own
personal eyewitness.
Is there anything that you can do with South Korea and with
China to try to bring some level of relief or focus on these
concentration camps? I mean, I do not want to sit here as a
member of this committee like some people did in the 1940s and
closed their eyes to what was going on in Germany. So are you
focused at all on this? Is there anything that we can do?
Because I think this is a serious human rights issue.
Secretary Hagel. Senator Landrieu, as you know, North Korea
is probably the most closed country in the world. Our access to
that country is essentially zero.
There are some things that have been ongoing and then they
stop. One I noted here earlier this morning is the resumption
of talks between the South Koreans and North Koreans, the first
time in 6 years. The Kaesong facility, as you know, has been an
opportunity to start integrating and incorporating. It does not
deal with the problems that you are talking about, but because
we have such limited influence and ability to change anything
in that country, it puts us at, obviously, a very significant
disadvantage to do much.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I understand.
I would just finish up this line with saying that there is
a lot of respect and cooperation between, of course, South
Korea and our military and for many, many years. And South
Korea is a remarkable country. I just visited--and as many of
our colleagues have been there to see. It is just
extraordinary. It is the 12th largest purchasing power economy
in the world, and it sits next to this country that is
virtually closed and dysfunctional.
But if there is anything that our military can do to bring
relief to these horrible camps, I am going to continue to work
with you on that. That is going to be one of my focuses on this
committee.
READINESS
Second, closer to home, Fort Polk has been training our
soldiers jointly. You and I spoke about this. Right in central
Louisiana, no encroachment, expansion, community so encouraging
of this joint training base.
The budget has been reduced for training significantly. Let
us see. The Army reports it has canceled between 6 and 10
Combat Training Center (CTC) rotations in response to the
overseas contingency operations shortfall, which Senator
Collins was referring to.
How concerned are you about impacts to our military
readiness over time, reducing the training that goes on at some
of our premier bases like Fort Polk, Louisiana?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I am very concerned about it, as is
General Dempsey and all of our leaders and we expressed that
concern directly.
As General Dempsey often says, we are consuming our
readiness. General Dempsey's comments earlier this morning
about the cost alone that it is going to take us to get that
readiness back. It is a huge cost to us and our readiness and
our capabilities and our future. And we are not unmindful of
that.
But we are living with the realities we are living with,
and our first priority has to be the capabilities of our
readiness where the threats are and the prioritization of that.
And, unfortunately, the training is at the back end of that
because you do not see it now--you do not need it now, but we
will need it. And I think General Dempsey has made that point
clear every time he has a chance.
Senator Landrieu. Good. And I thank you, General. I would
like to underscore that.
I am going to submit my final question for the record and
that is about the role of the National Guard, Mr. Chairman, in
our cyber fight. You know, we need a million new cyber
warriors. The Guard has 460,000 general strength, not only
preventing attacks but responding to attacks that could cause
civil panic. They are in a particularly important role. And I
am going to ask you in a written question what you view, Mr.
Secretary, as the National Guard's role in the cyber fight.
General Dempsey. Chairman, could I just--there is one image
I want to leave with you because you are talking about the
joint readiness training center at Fort Polk. We have the
national training center. These are Army and the other services
have similar training centers.
By canceling those rotations--I will use the sport of the
moment, the NBA playoffs--what we are doing at local post camps
and stations now is training individual players on a basketball
team but not giving them the opportunity to scrimmage before we
might at some point put them in the game. That is a bad place
to be.
Senator Landrieu. And I would just like to underscore that.
There are only a few joint training centers, and I do not mean
to be, Mr. Chairman, too parochial, but that is perfect. And
thank you, Mr. Secretary and General Dempsey. How ready can you
be if you have not practiced together? That is the question.
And it is really a problem.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to echo many of the comments that my
colleagues made about sexual harassment, rape, and other
similar actions. But I think that ground has been covered.
Mr. Secretary, let me ask you, and let me say welcome to
the subcommittee. It is always good to see you. Let me ask you
about something that barely predates you, something that you
have inherited from the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, and it has to do
with the critical manufacturing capabilities and capacities in
DOD's organic industrial base.
In the bill, we asked for a report that was to be due about
3\1/2\ months ago, and I know you have some extensions through
the Armed Services Committee, so I am not picking on you about
that. But I think the way it currently stands is the Army has
identified the critical manufacturing capabilities in
accordance with the report but has not identified the level of
work to sustain those capabilities. And that is really the
second part of this we need to complete the picture. So a
little bit of a good news/bad news. We have part of the picture
but not the whole picture.
These arsenals are very important for our national
security. For example, they make things in these arsenals that
the private sector does not want to make either because they
are too dangerous or too small volume. One example I know you
are familiar with from your time in the service is white
phosphorous. It is made in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. But all the
arsenals make various pieces and very important pieces of what
we do.
So, nonetheless, it is important that these arsenals
continue to thrive and to be there when we need them. So I am
curious if you can give me right now an update on the report
and, secondly, if you know when this workload piece of this
will be made available.
Secretary Hagel. Senator, I cannot give you an update. I do
not know. I will certainly get back to the record.
But let me ask Bob Hale. Do you know?
Mr. Hale. I do not. We are going to have to get back for
the record. I am sorry.
Secretary Hagel. If that is okay, we will respond
immediately.
[The information follows:]
The Department is completing the final analysis and anticipates
submitting the report by the end of July 2013. Per your inquiry, this
report will include workload estimates, in direct labor hours,
necessary to sustain the identified critical manufacturing
capabilities. I will ensure you receive a copy of the final report upon
completion.
Senator Pryor. Sure. Like I said, you have some extensions
through the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). So I am not
picking on you about that. We appreciate that. But I think it
is important. Some of us have these arsenals and other
facilities that are very important.
HEALTHCARE
Mr. Hale, let me ask you on healthcare. I want to follow up
on Senator Graham's question about that. He talked about how
there is now a premium increase that is phasing in. But the
question for you is--I mean, it is an important question about
our healthcare for our men and women in uniform. But how should
we go about reforming our healthcare system for the military?
Are we looking at some sort of blue ribbon panel? Are we
looking at Congress doing it? Do you have the authority to do
it? Are we looking at something like a BRAC-type situation
where at some point someone comes up with a package of
recommendations that we either say yes or no to? How do you
think we ought to reform it?
Mr. Hale. I think we are looking at a number of options.
Some of them go to making the healthcare system more efficient.
For example, in this fiscal year 2014 budget, we have
undertaken--or there is preparation for it--an overview of our
military treatment facilities, some of which have very low
levels of utilization for a variety of reasons and whether they
should be reformed. There are a number of efforts we have made
to try to make the healthcare system more efficient to deliver
the benefits at less cost.
And as you know, we believe some modest increases are
appropriate for the retirees especially. When Congress set up
TRICARE, the retirees were paying about 27 percent of the cost
of healthcare. It is now about 11 percent. We will not move
back to 27, but we believe we need to move back in that
direction.
So I think we are developing a package. I do not know that
we need a Blue Ribbon Commission. I think we need to enunciate
them clearly to you and then we will need the support of the
Congress because almost all of these require either laws or at
least the consent of the Congress.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Senator Pryor. General Dempsey, let me also follow up with
you on one of Senator Graham's questions. He asked about Iran
which is on a lot of people's mind. You know, I see Iran's
effort to get a nuclear weapon as a threat to U.S. national
security. And I would just like to hear from you how you feel
that it is a threat to U.S. national security.
General Dempsey. Thanks, Senator.
Iran is a threat to U.S. national security in many ways,
not simply their move toward the potential to develop a nuclear
weapon.
And I choose my words carefully because the intelligence
community has not yet come to a conclusion that they intend to
build a nuclear weapon, but as the Secretary said, they are
certainly preserving and building on their options to do so
which should be of concern to all of us and is. And we have
been very clear as a Nation that we are determined to prevent
them from acquiring a nuclear weapon because it would be so
destabilizing to the region.
But they are also active in cyber. They have got surrogates
all over the region and all over the world. They proliferate
arms. They are a disruptive influence globally. And so I do
consider them a threat to our national security.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask one follow-up.
You used the term ``destabilizing.'' Can you explain to the
subcommittee how that event would be destabilizing and also how
it might change the balance in the Middle East?
General Dempsey. The acquisition of a nuclear weapon? Well,
look, this is all playing out in the context of a broader
Sunni/Shia conflict across the region. It certainly stretches
visibly from Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad. And Iran is very
active in fomenting the violence on the Shia side of that
equation. If they were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it is
certainly conceivable that someone on the Sunni side of the
ledger would feel obligated to do the same, and then we are off
to what could potentially be a regional arms race.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I just
respond to one question very briefly?
There is a panel, to your earlier point about TRICARE, so
on, set up by the Congress, as a matter of fact. The two co-
chairs are former Senator Bob Kerrey and former Senator Larry
Pressler. I think it is nine members--seven members. And their
objective is to look at future compensation benefits packages.
So that has not been filled out yet. I think there are still a
couple of members yet to be appointed. But that panel will be
very active and they are starting to fill that out now.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Pryor.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you all for coming before the committee and your service
as well.
MENTAL HEALTH
Secretary Hagel, I want to start with you. Last year I
asked Secretary Panetta to begin a DOD-wide review of how the
Department diagnoses mental health conditions, and he agreed to
do that. The Army recently completed their review, and there
are some really valuable lessons we got from that. And it
really underscored the need to complete the entire DOD-wide
review and identified gaps in care and improvements that need
to be made.
Given the number of suicides we have already seen this year
and our continued winding down from Afghanistan, I think it is
really important that this review stay on track and wanted to
ask you when you expect that review to be completed.
Secretary Hagel. I am well aware of the review. I am
absolutely committed, as Secretary Panetta was, to the review
and addressing it as he said very clearly. When you look at the
latest numbers--we had 350 suicides last year--and all the
other extenuating dynamics that play out, it is, as Secretary
Panetta noted, one of the great internal problems that we have.
As to your question when is it going to be due out, I do
not know. Do you know, Bob? We will get back to you.
Senator Murray. I would like an answer, and then I think we
have to really make sure we stay on track and make sure we get
the diagnoses correct and respond right.
[The information follows:]
During the hearing you asked me about the status of the DOD-wide
review on mental health diagnoses and the Department's progress in
meeting the legislative requirements to create a joint, comprehensive
suicide prevention policy.
In May 2012, prompted in part by allegations that certain mental
health diagnoses and disability ratings of the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES) may have been influenced by factors other than
the medical diagnostic criteria, the Secretary of the Army directed a
review of behavioral health diagnoses and evaluation, especially Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in the context of DES/IDES. In June
2012, Secretary Panetta ordered all military branches to conduct such a
review of behavioral health diagnoses for servicemembers who
participated in a Department's disability evaluation system, to be
completed no later than March 2014.
You also asked what progress has been made in meeting the
legislative requirement to create a joint, comprehensive suicide
prevention program. The Department is making progress on efforts to
standardize, centralize, and evaluate all DOD prevention programs and
policies. We published the Defense Suicide Prevention Program Directive
on June 18, 2013. It establishes policy and procedures for the entire
Department and accordingly assigns roles and responsibilities in
accordance with the requirements for Suicide Prevention and Resilience
contained in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
The Department's joint efforts are guided by operational and mental
health representatives from the Military Services, the National Guard
Bureau, and the Joint Staff. We are also working regularly with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Substance Abuse Mental Health
Services Administration, think tanks, academia, and experts from a
variety of civilian-run programs that have proven track records.
I look forward to working closely with you as the subcommittee
considers the fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations bill. Thank you
for your continued support of our men and women in uniform and our
entire civilian workforce.
SUICIDES
Senator Murray. On the same line, the Army recently
released some statistics saying that there have been 109
potential suicides so far this year. That is just in the Army.
That is really high compared to last year and continues a
disturbing trend you just referred to because we are losing
more servicemembers today to suicide than we do in combat.
We have passed a number of initiatives and pieces of
legislation to combat this problem and to provide some
additional access to mental health resources.
I wanted to ask you, Secretary, what progress has the
Department made in meeting the legislative requirement to
create a joint comprehensive suicide prevention program.
Secretary Hagel. Let me ask Bob Hale or General Dempsey
because I kind of got in the middle of it, so the progress
report--I do not know. I assume we have made progress. I have
asked about it. I have gotten briefings on it. I know it is
ongoing. I know we are doing it. I know Chief Odierno is
focused on it.
General Dempsey, anything else?
General Dempsey. Yes, thanks, Senator. I do not have the
dates and I cannot give you a progress report from memory. We
meet as the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and then we get the
periodic in-progress reviews. I would like to take that one for
the record to give you the proper answer.
Senator Murray. If you could get both of those back to me.
[The information follows:]
In May 2012, prompted in part by allegations that certain mental
health diagnoses and disability ratings of the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES) may have been influenced by factors other than
the medical diagnostic criteria, the Secretary of the Army directed a
review of behavioral health diagnoses and evaluation, especially Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in the context of DES/IDES. In June
2012, Secretary Panetta ordered all military branches to conduct such a
review of behavioral health diagnoses for servicemembers who
participated in a Department's disability evaluation system, to be
completed no later than March 2014.
In assessing the Military reviews thus far, records at Madigan Army
Medical Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, confirmed that some did
contain modified mental health diagnoses, specifically regarding PTSD.
Army has identified all other relevant cases and notified 99 percent of
them; Navy has identified 98 percent of relevant cases and notification
mailings are in progress; and Air Force has identified 72 percent of
relevant cases and 81 percent of these have been notified. The Physical
Disability Board Review is in process of obtaining all necessary
records, including those from VA.
In regard to suicide prevention, the Department is making progress
on efforts to standardize, centralize, and evaluate all DOD prevention
programs and policies. We have drafted the Defense Suicide Prevention
Program Directive that establishes policy and procedures for the entire
Department and accordingly assigns roles and responsibilities. Other
efforts include:
--The launch of a help-seeking campaign to reduce stigma.
--The development of an analytic-based method for identifying/
targeting at-risk members.
--The Military Crisis Line which provides overall access to services.
--The development of Suicide Clinical Practice Guidelines and
memorandum guidance.
--The development of training core competencies for gatekeepers,
commanders, chaplains and clinicians.
While these activities are centrally coordinated by the
Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, they are guided
by operational and mental health representatives from the Military
Services, the National Guard Bureau, and the Joint Staff. We are also
working regularly with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the
Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), think
tanks, academia, and experts from a variety of civilian-run programs
that have proven track records.
Again, I look forward to working closely with you as the
subcommittee considers the fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations
bill. Thank you for your continued support of our men and women in
uniform and our entire civilian workforce.
HEALTHCARE
Senator Murray. And in your testimony, you actually say
that DOD is protecting funding for mental health. Can you just
quickly say how those funds are going to be used, and are there
programs that are going to be expanded under that?
Secretary Hagel. I am going to ask the Comptroller to take
you down through that.
Mr. Hale. We were referring to the fact that we will not
sacrifice any of the quality of healthcare because of
sequestration. We will find ways to meet all of our key
healthcare needs. There may be some reductions, say, in
research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs
based on sequestration, but the healthcare for individuals will
not be compromised.
Senator Murray. And the mental health side?
Mr. Hale. Yes, the same.
Secretary Hagel. All the current programs that we have will
be funded.
Mr. Hale. And in particular, Wounded Warriors will be our
highest priority. I mean, we will do nothing to affect their
care.
Senator Murray. Okay, I appreciate that. I do not want to
lose track of the mental health side of this.
My last question is more strategic. Over the last 10 years,
military installations across our country have grown
dramatically to sustain the fight in two wars. I have
personally seen in my home State Joint Base Lewis-McChord grow
by 64 percent since 2006 to meet the demand.
Now, as the military shifts its focus to the Asia-Pacific
region, the DOD is going to increasingly rely on the
installations in our Western States. And I wanted to ask you
today to discuss how DOD is taking advantage of the investments
that we have now made over the last 12 years and the strategic
value of our installations in the Western States like Joint
Base Lewis-McChord and the Fairchild Air Force Base in
Washington State to facilitate your long-term strategic
decisions.
Secretary Hagel. I will make a general comment in response
to your question. Then if General Dempsey or the Comptroller
would like to add anything.
Obviously, as you have stated, those assets that we have,
especially in the western part of the United States, become--
they have always been important, but become more central to
that shift of our priorities based on threats and interests and
our ability to defend those interests in the Asia-Pacific. So I
do not think there is any question that that is going to
continue, and that means infrastructure. That means all that
goes with it.
Now, that does not mean that there will not be any
adjustments or considerations of consolidations until we get
down into some of these things as to the implementation of the
Defense Strategic Guidance and, in particular, the Asia-Pacific
rebalancing. By my general assessment of it is that they will
remain critically important to that strategic shift.
Senator Murray. General Dempsey.
General Dempsey. The only thing I would add, Senator, is
that I align myself with the Secretary's general impression
that our rebalancing in the Pacific will certainly advantage
that part of our infrastructure that tends to exist on the west
coast.
But it is worth mentioning that the Army, for example, has
not yet announced how it will go from its current strength,
which is roughly just over 550,000 down to 490,000. Based on
the last budget cut, the $487 billion, there is going to have
to be some number of brigades cut, and the Army has not
announced nor shared with the Secretary where those reductions
will come from.
On top of that, then we have got to account for
sequestration, and I predict it will affect every installation
in the continental United States and most of those overseas.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
ACQUISITION STRATEGY
We have talked about a lot of ways that the Department of
Defense is going to envision saving money and some of them more
painful than others. We have not spent much time this morning
talking about the acquisition strategy at the Department of
Defense, which consumes a substantial amount of taxpayers'
dollars each year.
Are you envisioning, Mr. Secretary, any changes in approach
either to existing acquisition projects or future projects that
could save us money and still keep us safe with the best
technology?
Secretary Hagel. Mr. Chairman, yes. We are constantly
evaluating that. We are currently evaluating it. We have to if
for no other reason than the reality of resource limitations.
They have to align with our strategic interests with the
President's strategic defense guidance, what kind of assets do
we project that we are going to need out into the future. This
is a constant evaluation.
I think when Ash Carter was the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, he started a number of new programs that have been
followed by the current Under Secretary Frank Kendall--Bob Hale
will be able to provide some numbers on this--which have given
DOD significant savings, at the same time enhancing our
capacity and ability to align our assets and resources with our
strategic interests and defending those.
So let me stop there and then General Dempsey may want to
say something too. But the Comptroller may want to add some
numbers to what I have just noted.
Mr. Hale. I do not have a number for better business
practices that the Secretary was referring to in my head. I
know that we have had success in kind of sharpening our pencils
and getting our suppliers to do the same and weapons systems
like the F-35. We have also, in this budget that is before you
now, proposed termination or restructurings of weapons that
will save about $8.2 billion over the 5-year period. The
precision tracking space system was one, SM-3 IIB missile, and
also a major restructuring of the ground combat vehicle. So I
see that continuing regardless of whether we see budget cuts
and accelerating if we see cuts in the Budget Control Act and
sequestration.
Senator Durbin. When I speak to the contractors for the
major acquisitions, virtually all of them have an argument that
goes along familiar lines. The marginal cost of the next X,
whatever it is, is dramatically less. So if you will keep
buying, it will get cheaper. But, unfortunately, it is like
going to the store and saying I am just going to buy sale
items, and it turns out everything is on sale. And you really
have to decide what is the most important thing.
CYBERSECURITY
A recent briefing on one of these weapons systems brought
to mind the fact that what we are trying to do is to stay a
step ahead of the enemy, any potential enemy. And this whole
cyber war makes it more complex. Our enemies are vaulting ahead
of where they once were by stealing the best ideas from us.
So can you address that particular issue in terms of the
theft of this technology, the cybersecurity issue, and how it
keeps forcing us to run faster to try to catch this rabbit?
Secretary Hagel. As I had noted in some earlier comments in
answering questions here this morning, I put the cyber threat
as high up on the list of threats to this country as any one
thing, and there are a lot of threats. We have got nuclear
threats, terrorism, and so on. And one of the reasons I do is
for the very reason you just noted, Mr. Chairman. You read
about it almost every day in the papers about the theft of
industrial base secrets and all that goes with that.
So, yes, we do have to stay ahead of it, and yes, we do
have to work closely with the private sector. Yes, there is a
mix and there is a balance on this. And we constantly try to
achieve that right mix with resources and priorities and the
technology. Technology drives it all.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Mr. Hale, back to my first line of questioning, when you
provide me with the information about the contractors'
employees, if you could also provide me with their salaries. I
would like to know what kind of sacrifice these contractor
employees are making compared to civilian DOD employees through
sequestration.
Mr. Hale. Will do.
[The information follows:]
In our fiscal year 2011 report to Congress on contracted services,
we estimated the number of contractor full-time equivalents (FTE) to be
709,879. It is important to note that the 709,879 number equates to the
full-time level of effort services provided to the Department, not
necessarily the number of actual employees working for the Department.
The total cost for this support was $145 billion, equating to an
average contract employee cost of $205,000 per FTE. This is how much
the Department pays the contractor for the service they provide. It
does not necessarily represent how much is paid to the employee.
Contract employees are paid directly by their companies, who set their
salaries.
Additionally, you asked if it is true that the average contract
employee costs about two to three times as much as the average DOD
civilian employee performing similar work. It is true that the cost of
a contractor FTE can be more expensive than Government employees
performing similar work, in some cases as much as two to three times as
you noted. At the same time, contract employees can represent the most
cost efficient option for the Department, particularly for specialized
demands of short duration and base operating and installation support
functions. The private sector is a vital source of expertise,
innovation, and support to the Department and the analysis of what we
spend on each sector of the workforce must be location specific. I am
committed to continuing to integrate the information we have about
contractor costs into our programming and budgeting processes, in order
to ensure our workload alignment decisions do not result in unnecessary
expenses.
I look forward to working closely with you as the subcommittee
considers the fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations bill. Thank you
for your continued support of our men and women in uniform and our
entire civilian workforce.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the panel.
I think the hearing has been very informative, very
straightforward. I appreciate the fact that they have been
responsive to our questions, and in situations where we do not
have the exact dollar amounts for a request, they are getting
back to us with a more explicit request.
We want to be sure we cooperate with the Department of
Defense. I do not know of any other responsibility that we have
here in the Senate than to try to be sure we get this right.
Protecting the safety and security of our American citizens is
our highest priority, and I think we need to convey that from
this panel, as well as to expect that same kind of commitment
and attitude from the panel of witnesses before us.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. I think
I will direct it first to Mr. Hale.
There will be, as I understand it, a significant increase
in the number of ground-based interceptors located at Fort
Greely, Alaska. And as the Department of Defense prepares to
increase this number, as I understand it, from 30 to 44, which
we believe is the right thing to do, nearly a 50-percent
increase, what steps will be taken to implement the ``fly
before you buy'' policy and how will this impact the unit cost
of each ground-based interceptor in the near term? Mr. Hale,
have you gotten into that?
Mr. Hale. Well, we are certainly committed to making sure
these interceptors work, that testing goes on. It has been a
little more successful lately.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Hale. That is very hopeful.
I do not have in my head a unit cost, but as you know, our
plan is to refurbish one of the missile fields for operational
use and to buy some additional interceptors, also to refurbish
some that are now in storage.
So we will have some time. This is not going to happen
immediately, and that will give us time to finish the testing
program. And we are committed, as I said, to being sure this
works before we expand its numbers.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
My thanks to our witnesses today, all of you. And we will
be working with you in preparation of the budget for the fiscal
year 2014.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Chuck Hagel
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL SPECTRUM
Question. Secretary Hagel, the reallocation of Federal spectrum is
a topic that continues to receive attention and is a point of focus for
the Obama administration. Does DOD have a plan for reallocating
spectrum?
Answer. DOD has actively been working with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), other Federal agencies and industry to
assess spectrum relocation, sharing and other options for repurposing
spectrum. These efforts have highlighted the importance of ensuring
that spectrum repurposing decisions are technically sound and
operationally viable from a mission perspective. The results so far
have been promising. For example:
--The 1695-1710 MHz and 3550-3650 MHz bands have been identified for
geographic spectrum sharing. Ongoing work through the FCC
rulemaking process on the details of the sharing arrangements.
DOD has large investment in weather satellite ground stations
and critical radar capabilities in these bands.
--Ongoing assessment of two 5 GHz bands for sharing with unlicensed
use; DOD already shares other segments of the 5 GHz band with
unlicensed users.
--DOD has also been actively working with industry through the CSMAC
Working Groups to progress the 1755-1850 MHz band evaluation,
including working through highly complex technical issues, to
assess and recommend practical frameworks. All analysis of this
band is pointing to a combination approach which includes both
sharing and relocation of Federal systems.
Question. What are the main concerns for DOD as it assesses
spectrum reallocation?
Answer. DOD's main concerns are directly tied to the necessity of
assured access to spectrum in order to meet its varying current and
future global mission requirements, consistent with overarching
Administration goals. From a DOD perspective, both sharing and
relocation decisions pose potential risks. These risks are further
complicated for DOD due to the magnitude, complexity and diversity of
its operations. Successful relocation or sharing of defense operations
is dependent upon the ability to conduct adequate analysis to determine
cost and operational feasibility; availability of alternate spectrum to
relocate systems to; adequate implementation funding; and adequate time
to implement. If any of these conditions is not met, then the ability
to transitioning defense and military operations for relocation or
sharing is at great risk. While no decision to repurpose spectrum is
``risk free,'' the risks can and must be managed.
Question. Could proceeds from auctioning DOD-held spectrum help
alleviate DOD's growing budget constraints?
Answer. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (Public Law 108-
494), as modified by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2012 (Public Law 112-96), does not allow DOD or any other Federal
agency to use auction proceeds for any activities other than costs that
can be attributed to spectrum sharing or relocation associated with the
auction. Any auction monies that remain in the SRF after the payment of
relocation or sharing costs must revert to the U.S. Treasury, ``for the
sole purpose of deficit reduction,'' not later than 8 years after the
date of the deposit.
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE--ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
Question. In surge years, there is plenty of work and the rate
arsenals charge is very competitive. But as workload declines, rates go
up, pricing the arsenals out of the market in some cases. My colleagues
and I have pressed the Army to improve its workload planning process,
and as a result, Army is soon to release a new, Organic Industrial Base
Strategic Plan to map a way forward.
How do you believe we can best support our organic industrial base
during these challenging budget times? Will you work with the Army and
this subcommittee to implement this plan and preserve these critical
capabilities?
Answer. The Department recognizes that maintaining depots and
arsenals provides readily available base and surge capabilities that
enable our forces to respond to mobilization, national defense
contingency situations, and other emergency requirements. Supporting
the organic industrial base as well as our commercial industrial base
will be a very difficult challenge in the face of severely restricted
budgets. Industrial activities are competing with operational
components for scarce available resources. The Department is taking
proactive steps to meet these challenges. A draft DOD instruction
relating to arsenals will be issued this year. This instruction directs
arsenals to identify critical manufacturing capabilities and sustaining
workloads annually. The Army's recently published Organic Industrial
Base Strategic Plan provides a forward-looking management framework
that will ensure critical capabilities are sustained, balanced with
private sector industrial base requirements, and available to surge to
meet future wartime and other emergency operations. We will continue to
work with the Army and this subcommittee to preserve critical
industrial capabilities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Making the situation more difficult, Congress's inaction
has led to an across-the-board budget sequester. These cuts are the
opposite of strategy, but they appeal to those who want to duck
responsibility for their own policies.
In light of all these challenges, can you tell us how you will
ensure that the ``Skimmer'' sets the right priorities, and how you will
implement those priorities? When will the ``Skimmer'' wrap up, and what
help can this panel offer? Last, what impact does sequestration have on
your ability to reprioritize Pentagon spending?
Answer. The Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) was
designed to prepare us to shape the Department in different budget
scenarios. It finished its analysis at the end of May and DOD
leadership has been briefed on its results. The SCMR was guided by the
2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, which articulated priorities. DOD
leadership provided further refinement of those priorities, which
informed the strategic discussion in the SCMR. The SCMR itself did not
set priorities, nor did it provide recommendations for implementation.
Those would arise from discussions with the President.
If sequestration continues, the Department would greatly benefit
from maximum flexibility to shift resources among appropriations. In
addition, we will ask for Congress's help in passing legislation that
will enable DOD to cut spending in areas that Congress has previously
prevented. For example, the Department needs to be able to shed itself
of excess bases. A new Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)
is an essential step in cutting future spending. The Department also
needs to be able to reform compensation. The President's budget
contained a package of military compensation proposals that Congress
must act on, including a modest increase in the fees and pharmacy co-
pays for TRICARE; and providing servicemembers a 1-percent pay raise in
fiscal year 2014.
Sequestration is irrational, it is mindless, and it is damaging.
The Department sincerely hopes that Congress will work to end it.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Do you believe China's military modernization is
sufficiently transparent?
Answer. I believe that China should be more transparent about its
military modernization. The Chinese have taken some steps to increase
transparency over the past few years, including regularly publishing
defense white papers and establishing a spokesperson and Web site for
the Ministry of National Defense. However, China's lack of transparency
surrounding its growing military capabilities and strategic
decisionmaking has increased concerns in the region about China's
intentions. Absent a move towards greater transparency, these concerns
will likely intensify as the People's Liberation Army (PLA)
modernization progresses.
The area of defense spending is one example: It is difficult to
estimate actual PLA military expenses due to China's poor accounting
transparency and incomplete transition from a command economy. China's
published military budget likewise omits several major categories of
expenditure, such as procurement of foreign weapons and equipment.
Question. What are the prospects for expanded high level military
to military engagements, as well as low level joint training
activities?
Answer. Within the limits of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) of 2000, we continue to work towards a healthy, stable, reliable
and continuous military to military relationship with China, which is
an essential component of a positive, cooperative and comprehensive
United States-China relationship. Our strategy operates along three
main lines of effort: improving cooperative capacity in areas of mutual
interest, such as peace-keeping, humanitarian assistance, disaster
relief missions and counter-piracy operations; fostering greater
institutional understanding through contacts between armed forces at
all levels; and building common views of the regional security
environment and related security challenges, which occurs primarily
through institutional exchanges. We have made progress in all of these
areas; however, the relationship currently falls short of a solid
foundation sufficient to weather natural turbulence in the bilateral
relationship.
Question. What are your greatest concerns with respect to China's
growth in military capabilities?
Answer. My concerns have less to do with specific capabilities than
with strategic intent. China publicly states that its rise is
``peaceful'' and that it harbors no ``hegemonic'' designs or
aspirations for territorial expansion. However, the Chinese are
continuing to pursue a long-term, comprehensive military modernization
program designed to improve the capacity of its armed forces to fight
and win short-duration, high-intensity regional military conflicts.
They also appear to be using the capabilities of the U.S. military as a
``pacing threat'' toward which they have oriented much of their new
development. We are concerned most with why China is developing these
new capabilities and under what circumstances China might use them.
Question. Do you believe the theft of U.S. intellectual policy is a
matter of Chinese state policy?
Answer. I believe that at least a significant fraction of the theft
of intellectual property that has occurred is either attributable to
Chinese state entities or originates from China, as the Department
noted in this year's report to Congress on military and security
developments involving China. The National Counterintelligence
Executive noted in its 2011 report, Foreign Spies Stealing U.S.
Economic Secrets in Cyberspace, ``China's intelligence services
frequently seek to exploit Chinese citizens who can use their insider
access to steal sensitive business information.'' Additionally, the
United States Government continues to be concerned about malicious
cyber-enabled economic theft of intellectual property, trade secrets,
and confidential business information for commercial gain. We are
engaging China directly on these issues under the auspices of the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, including the newly formed civil-
military Cyber Working Group.
Question. The Air Force's fiscal year 2014 budget request includes
funds to continue operating the Global Hawk Block 30's, but the
Department has so far ignored current law and has not obligated the
funds provided by Congress for the remaining three Global Hawk planes.
Recent press reports indicate the Air Force will purchase the planes;
however, some have speculated the Air Force will not purchase the
planes sensors. Not purchasing the sensors would be a clear violation
of congressional intent, as a Global Hawk without its sensors is
useless to uniformed commanders.
When will the Air Force purchase the remaining Block 30 aircraft?
Will the Air Force also purchase the sensors for those aircraft?
Answer. The Air Force is in negotiation with Northrop Grumman to
procure three Global Hawk Block 30 Lot 11 aircraft and sensors. The
program office released a request for proposal on June 25, 2013
requesting Not-To-Exceed Lot 11 proposals, in writing, due back to the
Air Force not later than July 18, 2013. Planned request for proposal
response dates support contract award dates of September 2013 (advanced
procurement) and September 2014 (low rate initial production).
Question. Despite these guidelines, I continue to hear stories of
servicemembers who were prescribed mefloquine when one of the other
medications would have been appropriate and were not given the FDA
information card.
What steps are the services taking to ensure that medical personnel
prescribing this drug are following DOD and FDA regulations? How many
servicemembers were issued this drug within the last year?
Answer. The Services continue to monitor mefloquine utilization.
The Army and Navy have developed Continuing Medical Education programs
for healthcare providers and pharmacists on the topic of prescribing
and dispensing mefloquine. During calendar year 2012 2,261
prescriptions for mefloquine were given to 1,971 Active Duty
servicemembers. The revised DOD policy for prophylaxis of malaria was
released on April 15, 2013. The policy raises the medication
atovaquone-proguanil to first line consideration along with doxycycline
and indicates mefloquine should be reserved for individuals with
intolerance or contraindications to both first-line medications. It
emphasizes before using mefloquine for prophylaxis, care should be
taken to identify any contraindications on an individual basis and
ensure the patient information handouts required by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration are available.
Question. Will you address the issue of mefloquine toxicity by
making it a focus area for research under the Defense Medical Research
and Development Program and the War-Related Illness and Injury Study
Center?
Answer. At this time a research effort in this area is not planned.
The Department will continue to evaluate future research needs in this
area.
Question. I had the opportunity to travel with Senator McCain and
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to Guantanamo last Friday,
and let me commend Admiral Smith and his team, working under very
difficult circumstance and doing a great job. As I said to them, it is
the situation and the policy that need improvement, not their efforts.
Secretary Hagel, do you believe that closing Guantanamo is in our
national security interest?
Answer. Yes. The President's goal, which takes into account our
national security interests, is to cease detention operations at the
detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I fully
support that goal.
Question. The President said he asked the Department of Defense to
establish a site inside the U.S. to hold Military Commission trials.
Maybe there will be more than one site eventually designated inside the
U.S., but I hope that you will work quickly to establish a site inside
the U.S. where we can start prosecuting, in Military Commissions, some
of the approximately 30 detainees at Guantanamo who in 2010 the
Guantanamo Task Force determined there was enough evidence to prosecute
in either Military Commissions or Federal Court.
Do you believe that these, or the other detainees at Guantanamo,
can be brought to the United States and held in secure facilities while
they await trial or continued detention under the laws of war? Do you
believe that these detainees scan be transferred in ways that don't
pose additional security threats?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Department could house detainees in
secure facilities in the United States. Throughout our history, the
United States has held detainees captured during armed conflict both in
overseas theaters as well as on U.S. soil. The Department has already
held as many as three detainees at the Naval Consolidated Brig at
Charleston, South Carolina. The last of these three was transferred to
Justice Department custody in March 2009.
However, legislative restrictions with respect to Guantanamo
detainees have precluded transfers to the United States. Since 2009,
each National Defense Authorization Act has prohibited the Department
of Defense from using funds authorized to be appropriated by the Act to
``transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within
the United States, its territories, or possessions'' those detainees
currently held at the detention facility at Guantanamo. While such
restrictions are applicable, the Department will not be able to
transfer any detainees at Guantanamo to the United States.
Question. How long will it take DOD to establish a site inside the
U.S. to be able to hold these Military Commission trials? Aren't there
secure military courtrooms inside the U.S. already in existence where
Guantanamo detainees could be tried almost immediately? Do you know how
many of these approximately 30 GTMO detainees who could have charges
filed against them can only be prosecuted in a Federal criminal court
because the charges of ``Conspiracy'' and ``Material Support to
Terrorism'' are no longer available in Military Commissions unless the
Al-Bahlul decision is overturned?
Answer. The amount of time needed to prepare a site for holding
military commission trials depends largely on the status of the
detainee(s) to be tried. There are heightened security and handling
requirements for High Value Detainees, such as the six individuals
already arraigned and currently being tried for complicity in the 9/11
attacks and the attack on the USS Cole. It would take a number of
months for the Department to establish a site inside the U.S. to hold
military commissions for such individuals. For cases not involving High
Value Detainees, there are already military facilities inside the
United States capable of holding trials.
Recent D.C. Circuit decisions in the Hamdan II and Al Bahlul cases
have limited the Government's ability to pursue charges in military
commissions for conduct that pre-dates 2006, when Congress passed the
first Military Commissions Act. The Chief Prosecutor has stated that
many of the detainees designated for prosecution cannot be tried by
military commission under current law because of the unavailability of
material support charges for such pre-2006 conduct. The question of
which, if any, of the detainees not prosecutable by military commission
can be prosecuted in Federal court is a question for the Department of
Justice.
At the Government's request, rehearing en bane has been granted in
the Al Bahlul case, and briefing will begin shortly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
CIVILIAN CREDENTIALING
Question. Secretary Hagel, I have put much time and effort into
assisting veterans transition into civilian employment. Too often, I
have identified that civilian licensing or certification agencies are
not appropriately recognizing the years of military service that could
translate into comparable requirements for civilian employment
opportunities. Recently, I have been informed that the Navy has not
continued with the re-submission of their training requirements to the
Coast Guard for approval to recognize naval sea time and training
requirements for domestic and international commercial service.
Why has the Navy not renewed their training documents with the
Coast Guard to maximize the recognition that servicemembers could
receive for comparable civilian skills in the merchant marine? When
will the Navy address these issues?
Answer. As of March 2013, Navy courses that had previously expired
were approved/renewed by the Coast Guard. There was a brief lapse in
the submission of Navy training data for Coast Guard approval due to a
gap in assignment of program responsibility. However, upon discovery of
the gap during a program review, the material was submitted to the
Coast Guard for credentialing review. The Navy is continuing analysis
to identify other applicable training for submission. The Navy also
remains committed to assisting Sailors as they transition into civilian
employment by providing Sailors access to the Navy Credentialing
Opportunities On-Line (COOL) Web site (https://www.cool.navy.mil) which
helps Sailors find information on certifications and licenses related
to enlisted ratings, designators, collateral duties/out of rate
assignments, and officer designators to include comparable requirements
for the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines.
Question. The Army is currently doing an exemplary job at
maintaining their training certification with the Coast Guard and even
goes so far as incorporating Coast Guard requirements into the Army
training curriculum so that servicemembers are receiving Coast Guard
credentials as part of their military training.
Has the Navy explored this option for servicemembers in the Navy?
If so, what are the impediments to providing this training so that
servicemembers have the opportunity to also receive their Coast Guard
credentials?
Answer. The Navy has not explored the option of incorporating Coast
Guard requirements into the training curriculum. The Army tailored its
training to incorporate Coast Guard licensure which supports their
material and logistics/transport mission (similar to Merchant Marine
logistics/transport occupations). The Navy's training curriculum is
different and supports the mission of delivering credible capability
for deterrence, sea control, and power projection to deter or contain
conflict and fight and win wars. However, there are several Navy
occupations (both Officer and Enlisted) that have roles closely related
to Merchant Marine occupations and are directly tied to Coast Guard
licensure. These occupations currently have the opportunity to attain
Coast Guard licensing based on their existing Navy training and
experience. The Navy remains committed to assisting Sailors as they
transition into civilian employment by providing Sailors access to the
Navy Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL) Web site (https://
www.cool.navy.mil) which helps Sailors find information on
certifications and licenses related to enlisted ratings, designators,
collateral duties/out of rate assignments, and officer designators to
include comparable requirements for the Coast Guard and Merchant
Marines.
BIOFUELS
Question. I am pleased that recently the Department awarded
contracts in Phase 1 of its Defense Production Act biorefinery program.
The Federal funds are being matched--and then some--by private funds. I
believe that this effort will be a game-changer for the biofuels
industry, with the projected operational cost of the fuels to be less
than $4 per gallon. This effort will help advance the timeline for the
commercialization of drop-in alternative fuels.
Assuming these companies are successful in Phase I, are you
committed to making the Phase II awards under the Defense Production
Act?
Answer. The Department of Defense is committed to making Phase II
awards, provided an evaluation of the results of Phase I by interagency
technical experts shows the project's technical progress, plans, and
business strategy warrant a move on to Phase II. Phase I will take
approximately 1 year to complete. Phase II, which is for biorefinery
construction, will take approximately 36 months to complete.
Question. I want to clear a few things up about section 526, and
the impacts on the Department of Defense in particular.
First, has section 526 in any way limited the Department from
purchasing the fuels it needs to keep our country safe and our troops
out of harm's way while fighting overseas?
Answer. No, it has not. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 provides DOD a useful baseline as we
develop the fuels of the future and has not constrained our warfighting
activities.
Question. Second, it is my understanding that a lawsuit filed by
environmental groups seeking to prohibit the Department's ability to
procure fuels from Canadian oil sands using the argument that it did
not comply with section 526 was dismissed.
Despite persistent rumors from special interests to the contrary,
does section 526 in any way limit or prohibit the Department's ability
to procure fuels from Canadian oil sands? Why or why not?
Answer. No, it has not. The Department purchases the vast majority
of its fuel on the open market without specifying the source of the
feedstock. Since such a contract is not ``for procurement of an
alternative or synthetic fuel,'' but simply for fuel meeting our
performance specifications without regard to source, section 526 does
not apply.
Question. How does the Department's Defense Logistics Agency
evaluate combined purchases of both conventional and alternative fuel,
such as biofuel, under the requirements of section 526?
Answer. If the fuels are being purchased as part of the Defense
Logistics Agency's bulk petroleum program, Section 526 Energy
Independence and Security Act would not have an effect. Bulk petroleum
purchases are the vast majority of the Department of Defense's fuel
purchases. If the DOD were limiting the purchase specifically to an
alternative fuel, the purchase would have to be evaluated under section
526. To date, however, DOD has not made combined purchases of both
conventional and alternative fuel requiring evaluation under section
526.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. I am a co-sponsor of the Cyber Warrior Act of 2013, which
was referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, and
requires the creation of National Guard Cyber Response Teams in every
State. I understand the Department of Defense has some concerns with
legislation. However, even before this legislation was introduced, I
included a requirement in the fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act explanatory statement requiring DHS and DOD to
provide a joint report regarding the costs and benefits of deploying
the National Guard to prevent or recover from a cyber-attack. That
Appropriations law was enacted on December 2011, the report was due on
May 1, 2012. Congress has yet to receive it.
Why specifically is this report delayed?
Answer. The Department has worked closely with the Department of
Homeland Security to provide input for this report, and we understand
that it was delivered to the committee on June 12, 2013.
Question. What unique capabilities does the National Guard bring to
the fight that can quickly meet and augment USCYBERCOM's evolving
mission?
Answer. National Guard forces should be strategically integrated
into the national defense cyber mission, including U.S. Cyber Command.
As part of a Total Force solution, National Guard forces can be a
source of the skilled cyber operators that we need. A critical element
of the Total Force solution will be the need to train Reserve Component
personnel to the same standard as the Active Component personnel. The
civilian-acquired skills that many National Guard members have may help
them meet the common training standards that U.S. Cyber Command has
established.
Question. Does the ability to switch between title 32 authorities
and title 10 authorities give the National Guard additional
capabilities in the monitoring and defense of our Homeland?
Answer. We are working through the best way to integrate the
National Guard strategically into the national defense cyber mission.
National Guard forces should complement the Total Force in the same way
that they do for other missions. As part of a Total Force solution,
National Guard cyber personnel will need to be trained to the same
standard as the Active Component cyber personnel to meet defense
requirements. The Department of Defense is focused on working with the
Military Departments and the National Guard Bureau regarding how these
personnel can be integrated into our cyber force structure. The
Department is also actively engaged with its interagency partners and
the States to improve its ability to respond to cybersecurity
challenges in a whole-of-government approach that leverages all
appropriate authorities, including what role National Guard personnel
could play when serving in a State Active Duty status.
Question. What can you do today to make better use of the capacity
of the National Guard to address cybersecurity?
Answer. We are working through the best way to integrate the
National Guard strategically into the national defense cyber mission.
National Guard forces should complement the Total Force in the same way
that they do for other missions. As part of a Total Force solution,
National Guard cyber personnel would need to be trained to the same
standard as the Active Component cyber personnel to meet defense
requirements.
Question. What training and education needs are there to ensure the
Guard has robust teams that are ready to meet this very serious threat?
Answer. As the Military Departments retain training and
accreditation authorities, each will make determinations regarding what
civilian skills, experience, and credentials might be credited for
otherwise required military training. It will be essential that
National Guard members train to the common standards that U.S. Cyber
Command is developing for all of its forces. These training
requirements will ensure that all cyber personnel have the skills
needed to conduct their particular operational responsibilities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
STRATEGIC CHOICES AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Question. Secretary Hagel, I am told that the Services have
submitted their input for the Strategic Choices and Management Review
(SCMR) which you ordered. The results might be useful as we continue to
look at how to allocate resources to the Departments and Agencies. What
is the next step in the process of your review, and when do you plan to
share the results with Congress?
Answer. The Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) finished
its analysis at the end of May and DOD leadership has been briefed on
its results. Next, the I will meet with the President to brief him on
the results to give him a sense of the choices that will have to be
made if the DOD topline remains sequestered beyond fiscal year 2013.
After I have met with the President, I will begin meeting with members
of Congress to brief them on the SCMR results.
It is important to understand that the SCMR is not a set of
recommended actions under various DOD topline assumptions--it is a set
of options for consideration. The Department remains committed to the
President's budget for fiscal year 2014 that was submitted to Congress
as the best plan for allocating resources to the Department and
Agencies to ensure that our national security requirements are met.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. The Pentagon recently reported that in 2012, an estimated
26,000 U.S. military servicemembers experienced ``unwanted sexual
contact''--an increase of 35 percent since 2010. What factors has the
Department of Defense (DOD) attributed to this sharp rise, and what
specific actions is DOD taking to prevent sexual misconduct in the
military?
Answer. Based on responses, to the 2012 Workplace and Gender
Relations Survey, the Department estimates that 6.1 percent of active
duty women and 1.2 percent of active duty men experienced some form of
unwanted sexual contact during the year prior to the survey. Unwanted
sexual contact is the survey term for the contact sex crimes between
adults prohibited by military law, which range from rape to abusive
sexual contact (e.g., groping). The estimated rate of unwanted sexual
contact experienced by men increased from 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent in
2012, but this change was not statistically significant. For women, the
estimated rate increased from 4.4 percent to 6.1 percent, from 2010 to
2012.
We do not know what factors could account for the apparent increase
in the incidence of sexual assaults against women. Our Workplace and
Gender Relations Survey consolidates responses from active duty
members--it is not a study of the entire military environment. Even
victims of sexual assault themselves often do not know why an offender
decided to perpetrate a crime against her or him. As such, our survey
research does not provide us with causal explanations. We are working
to enhance our research methods to help identify factors in the
military environment that might better account for changes in the
incidence rate of sexual assaults.
As part of the 2013 DOD-wide Strategic Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Plan, I have directed the Secretaries of the Military
Departments to make the prevention of sexual assault one of their top
priorities. Reducing and eliminating sexual assault requires a
multipronged approach--one that leverages a wide range of initiatives
and engages every servicemember to prevent the crime from occurring in
the first place. When an assault occurs, effective processes and
personnel with specialized training must be in place to respond, care
for victims, investigate every allegation, and hold offenders
appropriately accountable.
Underpinning our efforts is the need for enduring cultural change--
requiring leaders at all levels to foster a command climate where
sexist behaviors, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are not
tolerated, condoned, or ignored; a climate where dignity and respect
are core values we must all live by and define how we treat one
another; where bystanders are trained and motivated to intervene and
prevent unsafe behaviors; where victims' reports are taken seriously,
their privacy is respected, and they are treated with sensitivity; and
finally, a climate where offenders know they will be held appropriately
accountable for their actions.
I have attached an Information Paper describing the Department's
most recent initiatives to prevent and respond to the crime of sexual
assault.
______
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE INITIATIVES
(As of July 1, 2013)
Sexual Assault Senior Leader Accountability and Engagement:
Secretary Hagel established and/or participates in a series of
engagements involving military, Congressional, and civilian leaders.
--SECDEF Weekly Meeting: Secretary Hagel established weekly
accountability and assessment meetings with senior DOD leaders
from the Secretary's staff and the Services.
--White House Health of the Force Groups: Senior DOD leaders and Vice
Chiefs of Staff of the Services participate in Coordinating and
Working Group meetings to discuss DOD's approach and identify
additional Executive Branch actions to combat sexual assault in
the military.
--Congressional Outreach: Senior DOD leaders are participating in
extensive hearings, meetings and engagements on pending
legislation and the development of proposals to address the
crime of sexual assault. Specifically, meetings and
communications have occurred with numerous Members of Congress,
to include Senators Gillibrand, Ayotte, Reed, McCaskill, Reid,
Durbin, and Murray, as well as Representatives Speier, Tsongas,
Turner and Susan Davis.
Enhancing Administration of Military Justice:
Secretary Hagel is committed to a comprehensive assessment of the
military justice system, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate adult
sexual assault crimes.
--Response Systems Panel: Secretary Hagel recruited experts in their
respective fields to serve on this Congressionally-mandated
independent panel established under section 576 of the fiscal
year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act; he spoke with the
Response Systems Panel on May 17 and June 27, 2013 during its
administrative meetings and previously called on the panel to
deliver its report in 12 rather than 18 months.
--Secretary Hagel directed the DOD Acting General Counsel to:
--Develop a method to incorporate the rights afforded to victims
through the Crime Victims' Rights Act into military justice
practice.
--Evaluate the Air Force Special Victims Counsel pilot program and
other approaches to ensure that victims of sexual assault
are provided the advice and counsel they need to understand
their rights and to feel confident in the military justice
system.
--Develop a legislative proposal to amend Article 60 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to severely limit convening
authorities' power to overturn convictions. This proposal
has been completed and submitted to Congress.
Sexual Assault Stand-Down:
Secretary Hagel ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a
concept for a sexual assault prevention and response stand-down
affecting their respective organizations as well as the Combatant
Commands. The active force stand down was completed July 1. Reserve
Component will be complete by September 1. The sexual assault and
prevention stand-down included the following mandatory activities:
--Active review of credentials and qualifications of current-serving
recruiters, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Victim
Advocates to ensure they meet applicable selection criteria and
standards of conduct.
--Refresher training for recruiters, Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators and Victim Advocates on professional ethics, their
critical responsibilities and standards, and the impact on
mission readiness for violations of standards.
--Purposeful and direct commander and leader engagements with
servicemembers and civilian employees on SAPR principles and
the climate of dignity and respect necessary in every workplace
across the DOD.
Implementation of DOD-Wide Sexual Assault Strategic Plan:
Secretary Hagel directed the military Services to align their
programs with a revised Sexual Assault Prevention Response Strategic
Plan by July 31.
By clearly defining priorities, objectives, and tasks, this plan--
and its effective implementation--will help ensure that the DOD's
ongoing initiatives to reduce and ultimately eliminate sexual assault
are being closely tracked and achieving their purpose.
Sexual Assault Accountability, Climate and Victim Advocacy Measures:
SECDEF directed implementation in the next 6 months of the
following initiatives as a way to enhance commander accountability,
ensure appropriate command climate, improve victim response, and ensure
safety:
--All commanders must be provided results of subordinates' annual
command climate surveys to improve insight into climate at
every level of the chain of command (July 31, 2013).
--DOD component heads must direct visual inspections of all DOD
workplaces, to include Military Service Academies, to ensure
that facilities promote an environment of dignity and respect
and are free from materials that create an offensive work
environment (July 31, 2013).
--The Department must improve the effectiveness of sexual assault
prevention and response programs in recruiting organizations,
processing stations, and ROTC programs to ensure that new and
aspiring servicemembers are aware of critical responsibilities
and standards and to ensure safety (September 30, 2013).
--The Service Chiefs must develop methods to hold military commanders
accountable for establishing command climates of dignity and
respect, and incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim
care principles in their commands (November, 1 2013).
--The Service Secretaries must implement methods to improve victim
treatment by their peers, co-workers, and chains of command.
Direct victim input will be incorporated (November 1, 2013).
DOD has made progress in preventing and responding to sexual
assault, but we are not satisfied and recognize there is much more work
to do. Our aim is to reduce, with the ultimate goal to eliminate, the
crime of sexual assault from the Armed Forces.
______
Question. Of the estimated 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual
contact that occurred in the military in 2012, 3,374 cases of sexual
assault were reported. What steps is DOD taking to encourage victims of
sexual misconduct to report their cases?
Answer. The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program
has taken many steps to improve victim confidence, which leads to
increased reporting and ultimately greater accountability for
offenders. Our SAPR Program is focused on the victim as its foundation.
We have created, resourced, and trained the entire force on the variety
of reporting options that provide avenues for victims to seek support
services. The DOD Safe Helpline, established in April 2011, offers
anonymous crisis intervention for victims. The Restricted Reporting
option provides case management and medical care without initiating an
investigation, and the Unrestricted Reporting option provides case
management and medical care while initiating an investigation by
military law enforcement. Other enhancements include:
--Special Victims Capability: All responders--from investigators to
victim advocates to chaplains--have received specialized
training on how to best assist sexual assault victims. As we
field the Department's new Special Victims Capability, victims
will be supported through the military justice system by
specially trained investigators, prosecutors, and Victim
Witness Assistance Program liaisons.
--Legal Assistance Pilot Program: DOD is sponsoring a legal
assistance pilot program in the Air Force with 24 full-time,
specially trained attorneys who are providing legal
representation to victims of sexual assault. Under this
program, legal assistance attorneys represent victims in a
confidential, attorney-client relationship throughout the
investigation and prosecution processes. I have directed an
evaluation of the pilot by November 1, 2013, to determine
whether the program should be extended to other services or
otherwise changed.
--Development of Methods to Improve Victim Treatment: To improve
overall victim care and trust in the chain of command, increase
reporting, and reduce the possibility of ostracizing victims, I
have directed the Secretaries of the Military Departments to
assess, monitor, and develop methods to improve victim
treatment by their peers, co-workers, and chains of command,
and to report their methods to me by November 1, 2013.
These additional measures are underway to improve victim care and
inspire greater confidence in the system:
--Sexual Assault Stand-down: The stand-down will provide purposeful
and direct commander and leader engagements with servicemembers
and civilian employees on SAPR principles and the climate of
dignity and respect necessary in every workplace across the
DOD. Also, Service leaders will conduct a review of credentials
and qualifications of current-serving recruiters, Sexual
Assault Response Coordinators, and Victim Advocates to ensure
they meet applicable selection criteria and standards of
conduct. It will also include refresher training for
recruiters, Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, and Victim
Advocates on professional ethics, their critical
responsibilities and standards, and the impact on mission
readiness for violations of standards.
--Victim option to request an expedited transfer within the
installation or to a new installation or base.
--Credentialing of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual
Assault Victim Advocates to ensure that they meet professional
standards and certification to a national standard, to enhance
care for victims.
--Expansion of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual
Assault Victim Advocates across the force to ensure the
delivery of services.
Retention of unrestricted reports and restricted reports for 50
years to enable documentation and claims within the Department of
Veterans Affairs and to provide ample time for a victim to decide on
converting a restricted report to an unrestricted report.
Question. In 2012, DOD gathered data on sexual misconduct in the
military primarily by measuring instances of ``unwanted sexual
contact.'' Does DOD plan to add specificity to future studies and
surveys by gathering data that distinguishes between various forms of
contact?
Answer. The Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty
Members (WGRA) uses the term ``unwanted sexual contact'' (USC) to ask
military members whether, within the last year, they have experienced
contact sex crimes between adults, prohibited by military law, which
range from rape to abusive sexual contact (e.g., groping). Research on
crime prevalence surveys shows that an analog term like ``unwanted
sexual contact'' is the most effective means for capturing crime
prevalence data from laymen. Identification of the kind of crime
someone experienced is a legal determination and it is unrealistic to
expect military members who are not judge advocates to understand the
legal elements of a crime. However, the definition of ``unwanted sexual
contact'' uses several behavioral anchors which allow us to categorize
the kinds of unwanted behaviors a member experienced. This approach has
been used consistently in DOD surveys since 2006.
USC is measured by asking members to refer to experiences in the
past 12 months in which they experienced any of the following
intentional sexual contacts that were against their will or which
occurred when they did not or could not consent:
--Sexually touched them (e.g., intentional touching of genitalia,
breasts, or buttocks) or made them sexually touch someone;
--Attempted to make them have sexual intercourse, but was not
successful;
--Made them have sexual intercourse;
--Attempted to make them perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, or
penetration by a finger or object, but was not successful; or
--Made them perform or receive oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by
a finger or object.
A member is counted in the USC prevalence rate if he or she replied
``yes'' to any of the behaviors listed.
In fiscal year 2012, of the 6.1 percent of active duty women who
indicated they experienced USC in the year prior to being surveyed:
--31 percent indicated they experienced a completed penetration;
--26 percent indicated they experienced an attempted penetration;
--32 percent indicated they experienced unwanted sexual touching; and
--10 percent did not specify the kind of unwanted sexual contact they
experienced.
Of the 1.2 percent of active duty men who indicated they
experienced USC in the year prior to being surveyed:
--10 percent indicated they experienced a completed penetration;
--5 percent indicated they experienced an attempted penetration;
--51 percent indicated they experienced unwanted sexual touching; and
--34 percent did not specify the kind of unwanted sexual contact they
experienced.
The proportions of the behaviors reported by women and men have
remained statistically unchanged since 2006. While there may be some
refinement of this item, these behavioral anchors will be used on the
planned 2014 WGRA survey.
Question. What mental and physical healthcare and support services
does DOD provide servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault?
Answer. Current DOD policy (DODI 6495.02 ``Sexual Assault and
Response (SAPR) Program Procedures'', Enclosure 7) describes the
comprehensive elements of the care provided to victims of sexual
assault. These include four key areas:
(1) Timely and Standardized Healthcare Across the Services
--It is DOD policy that sexual assault victims presenting to a
medical facility must be seen and assessed immediately
regardless of evidence of physical injury
(2) Comprehensive Acute and Follow-Up Medical Care
--All victims receive a comprehensive assessment including a history
and physical exam to determine if there are injuries requiring
immediate treatment.
--Once victims are medically stable, they are offered a sexual
assault forensic examination (SAFE) and offered the services of
a sexual assault response coordinator (SARC).
--Victims are also offered, at a minimum, testing and prophylactic
treatment options for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and
other sexually transmitted diseases; assessment of pregnancy
risk with options for emergency contraception; counseling on
any necessary or recommended follow-up care and referral
services.
--When feasible, and with the victim's consent, medical management is
linked to the patient's primary care manager for follow-up
treatment to facilitate continuity of care and support.
(3) Standardized Forensic Examination Procedures DOD Policy and Policy
for Each Service Requires:
--Victims of sexual assault must be offered a forensic examination.
--Procedures for conducting SAFEs follow the U.S. Department of
Justice Protocol ``A National Protocol for Sexual Assault
Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,'' current
version (``National Protocol'').
--Medical providers conducting SAFEs are trained to follow the
``National Protocol'' Standard.
--Medical providers in remote areas have access to the ``National
Protocol''.
--Availability of standardized SAFE kits at all Medical Treatment
Facilities (MTFs).
--Providers use these SAFE kits and document their examinations with
the most current edition of DD 2911 ``DOD Sexual Assault
Forensic Examination Report''.
--The services of a SARC are offered to the victims. The SARC or a
Sexual Assault Response Victim Advocate is available to respond
and speak to victims at any time requested.
--There is communication and coordination of care between the SARC
responders and healthcare personnel.
--SARCs serve as a single point of contact to coordinate services
that are provided to victims.
--SARCs are responsible for counseling victims on the choice between
unrestricted and restricted reports, and for coordinating
actions following the victim's decision.
--There is a requirement for MTFs to have available healthcare
providers trained to conduct SAFEs or to implement agreements
for SAFEs to be conducted by a trained provider at a local
civilian facility.
--Mechanisms exist to assure confidentiality in cases where the
victim has elected restricted reporting.
--After a SAFE has been conducted, the chain of custody is maintained
with all specimens being properly labeled and handed off to the
Military Service-designated law enforcement agency (in the case
of unrestricted reporting). There is a mechanism for the SARC
to generate a restricted reporting control number (RRCN) for
labeling in cases of restricted reports to preserve
confidentiality of the victim while ensuring that the chain of
custody for evidence will be retrievable if the victim chooses
to proceed with unrestricted reporting at a later date.
(4) Comprehensive Behavioral Health Services
--Victims are assessed and offered immediate behavioral health
services or a referral for follow-up services, as the victim
requests or as clinically indicated. Behavioral health services
are widely available across DOD to address the comprehensive
emotional needs of traumatized persons, DOD has thousands of
providers trained in evidence-based therapies for trauma.
A recent snapshot audit of the Services' compliance with policies
regarding availability of trained healthcare providers, from MTFs or
through community partnerships, indicates that the Services are in
compliance. Sexual assault medical forensic examiners were found to be
available 24 hours a day, either within the MTF, or through current
signed agreements with local civilian facilities. Additionally, the
audit demonstrated that each Service already has written policies
addressing requirements for medical response to a sexual assault
victim.
Question. You have formally expressed support for making changes to
Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which
currently allows military commanders to overturn court-martial verdicts
in major criminal cases. What would the impact be on how DOD addresses
cases of sexual assault in the military?
Answer. I do not believe that my proposal would cause any major
change in the way DOD addresses cases of sexual assault in the
military. Preventive efforts, care of victims, thorough investigations,
thoughtful disposition decisions, and the courts-martial themselves
would remain unchanged. The only change would be post-trial, limiting
the authority of convening authorities to dismiss findings of guilty of
serious offenses by courts-martial. This authority is used rarely and,
in my opinion, is no longer needed because we can trust the members of
courts-martial and our military judges, who make the decisions of guilt
or innocence, to exercise their independent judgment and make those
findings based solely on the facts and the law in each case.
Question. It has been reported that multiple managers of military
sexual assault programs throughout the country--including one at an
installation in my State--Have been relieved of their posts for alleged
misconduct that conflicts with the duties of their roles. What types of
training programs and behavioral standards are in place for DOD
managers and employees of preventive sexual assault or post-assault
programs? What is DOD doing to ensure that these standards are improved
or better-enforced?
Answer. In February 2012, DOD SAPRO contracted with the National
Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) in support of the
establishment of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advocate
Certification Program (D-SAACP). The goal of the D-SAACP is to ensure
all DOD personnel working with victims of sexual assault meet national
standards as established by the National Advocate Credentialing Program
for training and providing direct victim assistance. The D-SAACP
requirements include 40 hours of initial training and 32 hours of
continuing educational requirements every 2 years. D-SAACP requirements
exceed the national standard by further requiring that all applicants
pass a background check and include letters of endorsement from
commanders and supervisors. Training requirements were established in
collaboration with the Department of Justice, Office of Victims of
Crime and NOVA. In March 2013, SAPRO and NOVA completed an evaluation
of DOD-wide Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) and Victim
Advocate (VA) training, ensuring each course meets core competency
standards.
In addition, I ordered a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
stand-down to: review credentials and qualifications of current-serving
recruiters, SARCs, and VAs to ensure that they meet applicable
selection criteria and standards of conduct; and conduct refresher
training for recruiters, SARCs, and VAs on professional ethics, their
critical responsibilities and standards, and the impact on mission
readiness for violations of standards.
The stand-down was completed by the Active Force on July 1, 2013
and will be completed by the Reserve Force by September 1, 2013.
Collectively, these efforts are designed to ensure standards are
communicated, assessed, and enforced across the Department.
Question. What programs are in place to educate servicemembers
about sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention and response? Are
these programs mandatory for all servicemembers?
Answer. The Department of Defense has separate programs, each with
separate authorities, to oversee training and policies regarding sexual
harassment and sexual assault. Sexual harassment training and the
accompanying complaint process fall under the Equal Opportunity
Program, while issues regarding sexual assault training and policy rest
with the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program. While
both programs are under the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, they have separate leadership and
different programs. The training requirements for each program are
described below.
Department of Defense military equal opportunity (EO) policy, which
includes the prevention of sexual harassment, requires the Military
Departments to take the following actions regarding training and
education programs for all servicemembers:
--Provide periodic, mandatory education and training in EO and human
relations at installation and fleet unit commands, during pre-
commissioning programs and initial entry training, and
throughout professional military education (PME) systems, as
part of the overall effort to achieve EO within the Department
of Defense.
--This training is provided to all servicemembers, enlisted and
officer, including flag and general officers.
--The training includes comprehensive material on leadership roles
and responsibilities, the prevention of sexual harassment,
complaints processing, legal implications, reprisal prevention
and detection, climate assessment methodologies, and managing
civilian equal employment opportunity systems.
Examples of Service programs supporting this policy in the area of
sexual harassment prevention training and education include:
--First Duty Station Orientation for newcomers and key personnel
briefings delivered one-on-one to incoming Air Force leaders
address sexual harassment prevention efforts, the unit climate
assessment program, and other aspects of the Air Force EO
program.
--Students and staff officers participating in Naval Reserve Officer
Training Corps, Officer Candidate School, and Officer
Development School receive one hour of training the first week
of school as an introduction to the Navy sexual harassment
prevention program.
--All Marine Corps personnel receive annual training on Marine Corps
EO policy; prevention of discrimination and sexual harassment;
and proper use of the Informal Resolution System.
--Cadets and midshipmen at the Military Service Academies receive
annual prevention of sexual harassment training commensurate
with their progression from the first through the fourth year
at the Academy.
The Department of Defense SAPR Office is responsible for ensuring
SAPR training is consistent throughout the Department and the Services.
Core competencies and learning objectives for each type of training
have recently been developed by the DOD SAPR Office and the Services
based on these core competencies and learning objectives, the revised
curriculum will be implemented by the end of this fiscal year.
SAPR training begins with accessions training when all recruits
receive an initial SAPR brief within the first 14 days of training.
This brief provides a basic understanding of the SAPR program and
provides specific information on reporting options, including reporting
options during training. Additional, more detailed, SAPR training is
also conducted throughout recruit training and during follow-on initial
training.
Mandatory SAPR training is conducted for each servicemember
annually and SAPR training is also conducted pre- and post-deployment.
Bystander intervention training is also conducted by Services on a
regular basis, and SAPR is often included in broader ethics training
throughout the Department.
All phases of PME from junior noncommissioned officer schools
through the War Colleges also provide SAPR training. This PME training
is designed to address the specific SAPR responsibilities at each grade
and billet assignment. In addition, prior to assuming command, officers
and their senior enlisted leaders are given specific SAPR training
designed to address their roles in all aspects of SAPR.
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), Victim Advocates,
chaplains, and first responders also receive SAPR training focused on
their specific billets. In addition, SARC professional certification
requires a minimum of 40 hours of training for initial certification
followed by an additional 32 hours of continuing education every 2
years.
The Secretary directed a Department-wide SAPR stand-down which was
completed on July 1, 2013 for the Active Component and will be
completed September 1, 2013 for the Reserve Component. The stand-down
included a review of credentials for recruiters, SARCs, and Victim
Advocates. In addition, they also received refresher training on
professional ethics, and their critical responsibilities and the
standards to which they will be held. Commanders also engaged their
servicemembers on SAPR principles and the climate of dignity and
respect necessary throughout DOD.
Question. Despite added attention to and appropriations for DOD
screening and delivery of care to servicemembers with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), mental health
issues remain a very serious problem for servicemembers. Are DOD's
various mental health initiatives achieving the desired results?
Answer. The Department is intently focused on ensuring that the
behavioral health of our servicemembers and their families remains a
top priority. Over the last several years, DOD has hired more
behavioral health specialists, brought on Public Health Service medical
professionals, expanded our TRICARE network, and expanded the ways by
which our beneficiaries can access mental health services. An important
element of the Department's strategy has been to embed mental health
specialists directly within military units, and this approach has
helped us identify and intervene earlier with servicemembers, and has
also encouraged our servicemembers to seek assistance when they need
it. Access to behavioral health services has also been expanded through
the Department's Patient Centered Medical Home initiative which is
placing 470 behavioral health providers into primary care clinics.
These strategies have achieved the desired result of a 40-percent
increase in mental health providers hired in DOD over a 3-year period
from 6590 in fiscal year 2009 to 9242 in fiscal year 2012. This
includes a 37-percent increase in the number of psychologists, a 26-
percent increase in the number of psychiatrists, a 32-percent increase
in the number of social workers, and a 21-percent increase in the
number of mental health nurses.
In addition to expanding access to mental health services, the
Department has increased its screening and outreach efforts,
implementing policies and clinical training for providers to ensure the
early detection of servicemembers with symptoms of PTSD and TBI and to
provide clear and specific guidelines for the management of acute and
chronic conditions. New standardized Tri-Service workflow forms for
routine psychological health screening in primary care and other
clinical settings have also been implemented. And in fiscal year 2012,
the Department finalized and implemented a comprehensive revision of
the Pre-Deployment Health Assessment, Post-Deployment Health Assessment
(PDHA), and Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) forms which all
deploying servicemembers are required to complete. Recent data appear
to indicate that the combined effect of the Department's deployment
mental health outreach, screening, and treatment efforts has resulted
in some encouraging trends. At the end of 2012 (4th Quarter) only 3
percent of returning servicemembers reported symptoms that raised
concerns about possible PTSD and were recommended for referral to
mental health specialty or primary care for further evaluation and
possible treatment. Of those referred, 83 percent chose to follow
through with their referral within the Military Health System and had a
successful mental health encounter within 180 days after redeployment.
Access to TBI care has been also enhanced through establishment of
the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NiCoE), which provides
cutting-edge evaluation, treatment planning, research and education for
servicemembers and their families dealing with the complex interactions
of mild traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions. On
June 13, 2013, the Department started construction for the third in a
series of nine National Intrepid Center of Excellence Satellite Centers
at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, 1 year after breaking ground on the first
two centers, built at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Fort Belvoir,
Virginia. Similar to enhanced mental health screening and outreach
efforts, new ``Policy Guidance for Management of Concussion/Mild
Traumatic Brain Injury in the Deployed Setting'' (DOD Instruction
6490.11) was signed September 18, 2012 to ensure servicemembers
involved in potentially concussive events during deployment are
screened and treated promptly for concussion. From October 1, 2011
through September 30, 2012, a total of 3,601 servicemember exposures to
potentially concussive events were reported to the Combined Information
Data Network Exchange/Blast Exposure Concussions Incident Report event-
triggered system, and this TBI screening process identified 541
provisional cases of concussion, pending comprehensive medical
evaluation.
While these efforts are improving access, quality, and transition
of behavioral healthcare, the Department recognizes the need to further
quantify the positive impact of its mental health initiatives and
programs. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013,
section 739, requires DOD to identify potential gaps and redundancies
in psychological health and traumatic brain injury services and
treatments, develop a plan for mitigating gaps and redundancies, and
identify the individual within DOD responsible for leading the
implementation of this plan. Additionally, the President signed an
Executive Order (EO) on August 31, 2012, directing DOD, Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Health and Human Services, in
coordination with other Federal agencies, to take steps to ensure that
Veterans, servicemembers, and their families receive the mental health
services and support they need. The EO includes a requirement to review
all existing mental health and substance abuse prevention, education,
and outreach programs to identify programs that are effective and
produce the greatest impact on outcomes while additionally identifying
gaps and redundancies. Multiple initiatives are underway which respond
to these mandates.
DOD, pursuant to the timelines of the contingent initiatives,
charged the Defense Centers of Excellence (DCoE) for Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to begin conducting a mental health
programs assessment in October 2012. An interim report regarding this
effort is now under internal review with a subsequent report to follow
in late 2013. DOD will submit its first phase report to the Committees
in February 2014, responding to findings stemming from the President's
Executive Order and studies of the effectiveness of DOD psychological
health program initiatives. Subsequent annual reports of findings will
be produced by the fourth quarter of each fiscal year from 2014 to
2017.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
RUSSIAN ARMS SALES
Question. Despite American sanctions against arming the Syrian
regime, Russia continues to support President Assad. Russia has
reiterated its intent to provide the S-300 air defense system to Syria.
What would the United States do if Russia provides Syria the S-300? And
how can we mitigate this threat to Israel?
Answer. We have publicly, privately, and repeatedly urged our
Russian counterparts to cease arms sales and deliveries to Syria,
urging them to act as more responsible partners. The Administration
continues its dialogue with Russia at the highest levels, following on
the mutual understanding that a common approach--the proposed ``Geneva
II'' conference--would be an important starting point to end the
violence and to prepare the way for a political transition. The
Department of Defense continues to develop and refine a variety of
possible options for the President's consideration. We also continue to
cooperate closely with Israel and all of our partners in the region who
would be affected by the transfer of the S-300 so that we can
understand the threat posed by this and other potential Syrian weapon
systems.
______
Questions Submitted to General Martin E. Dempsey
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. I understand that China is developing a range of new
military capabilities, including new stealth and conventional aircraft,
advanced anti-ship missiles, and advanced ships. In fact, within the
past year, China commissioned its first aircraft carrier.
What are your greatest concerns with respect to China's growth in
military capabilities?
Answer. Our primary concern is with the strategic intent of China's
military modernization efforts and its implications for cross-Strait
and regional stability. We assess that China is pursuing a long-term,
comprehensive military modernization program to improve its capacity to
fight and win high intensity, short duration regional conflict. We are
also concerned regarding China's assertiveness in space, cyberspace,
and on its periphery. These concerns are intensified by elements of
China's military build-up, particularly anti-access, area denial and
power projection capabilities that could enable Beijing to use its
military for coercive purposes. Although there have been modest
improvements in transparency, there remains uncertainty about how China
will use its growing capabilities.
I am committed to increase the frequency and the depth of our
military-to-military relationship with China to encourage greater
transparency and understating.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
UNCHANGING SERVICE SHARE OF DOD BUDGET
Question. Since 1947, the share of the defense budget that each
military service receives has remained relatively constant. This
balance has been maintained even as the world has undergone fundamental
changes in the strategic environment. The Cold War has ended and 12
years of land-based counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan are over or transitioning to Afghan security forces.
According to the President's defense strategy, we are implementing a
strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, which I believe is the
right focus--so long as it is properly resourced with the necessary
assets such as a robust naval presence.
A 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies report,
Beyond Coldwater-Nichols: Defense Reform for a New Strategic Era finds
that, because the budget process is Service-centric, there is ``weak
advocacy of the joint perspective.'' How can we, as a Nation, adapt to
the unique challenges of the 21st century if our budgets will not adapt
to new strategic realities?
Answer. The chart below shows the Service's share of the Defense
budget from 1948 to 2013. The budget balance tips between the Services
based on national needs--the Cold War increased the Air Force's share,
the Reagan build-up increased the Navy and Air Force's share, and OIF/
OEF, Gulf War, Vietnam, and Korea all increased the Army's share. All
of these changes reflect the Department's adoption of fundamental
changes in the strategic environment.
Our current conflict has proved that the Joint Force has never been
stronger, and as Chairman, I established priorities to help guide the
strategic direction of the Joint Force. The President's budget
implements and deepens the commitment to the new strategy, across all
military services, meeting the Department's needs in a complex security
environment.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Durbin. The Defense Subcommittee will reconvene
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on voluntary
military education programs.
The committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., Tuesday, June 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]