    [Senate Hearing 113-762]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin, Leahy, Feinstein, Pryor, Cochran,
    Murkowski, and Graham.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH LEE JAMES, SECRETARY

                 opening statement of senator richard j. durbin

        Senator Durbin. The subcommittee meets this morning to
    receive testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for
    the United States Air Force. Our apologies for being a little
    bit late, but we had a scheduled vote and rushed right over.
        I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of the Air Force, the
    Honorable Deborah Lee James; thank you for coming. The Air
    Force Chief of Staff, General Mark Welsh, III; thank you,
    General, for being here. The Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau, General Frank Grass; it is good to see you again. The
    director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General Stanley
    Clarke, III; General Clarke. And the Chief of Air Force
    Reserve, Lieutenant General James Jackson; thank you so much.
    We appreciate you being here.
        The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request includes
    $108 billion for the Air Force that falls under our
    jurisdiction. The budget does not include funding for overseas
    contingency operations, and that is a concern.
        Until we receive the President's plan for support in
    Afghanistan post-2014, it is extremely difficult, if not
    impossible, to appropriate proper levels of funding to support
    our warfighters.

                               prepared statement

        This budget establishes obvious priorities and the purpose
    of this hearing is to investigate the rationale behind those
    priorities. The budget submission clearly prioritizes training
    as part of a long-term plan to restore readiness after
    sequestration.
        The Air Force is also canceling some planned upgrades to
    legacy equipment in order to fund new capability priorities. In
    the interest of time, I will ask that the remainder of my
    opening statement be placed in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
        The subcommittee meets this morning to receive testimony on the
    fiscal year 2015 budget request for the United States Air Force.
        I am pleased to welcome:
      --the Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Deborah Lee James;
      --the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Mark Welsh, III;
      --the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank Grass;
      --the Director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General Stanley
            Clarke, III; and
      --the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Lieutenant General James
            Jackson.
        Thank you for being here with us today and providing your
    testimony.
        The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request includes $108
    billion for the Air Force that falls under the Defense Subcommittee's
    jurisdiction. The budget request does not include funding for Overseas
    Contingency Operations, which is a major concern for the committee.
    Until we receive the President's plans for support in Afghanistan post-
    2014, it is impossible to appropriate proper levels of funding to
    support our warfighters serving in war zones.
        This budget establishes obvious priorities. The purpose of this
    hearing is to investigate the rationale behind those decisions and
    determine whether they are the right ones.
        The budget submission clearly prioritizes training, as part of a
    long-term plan to restore the readiness lost from sequestration.
        The Air Force is also cancelling some of its planned upgrades to
    legacy equipment in order to fund its new capability priorities: the
    Joint Strike Fighter, the K-46A refueling tanker, and the Long Range
    Strike Bomber. However, the Air Force has also made some
    recommendations that cause concern, such as retiring the entire A-10
    and U-2 fleets, as well as retiring a portion of the critical support
    aircraft fleet that have proven invaluable over the last 12 years of
    war.
        In addition, we are concerned as we look across the next 5 years of
    budgets. The Department of Defense wants to add $115 billion over the
    Budget Control Act caps written into law. What happens if these funds
    don't materialize? Similarly, if funding for education, healthcare, and
    other domestic programs remains at sequester levels, will the Air Force
    have more challenges in finding well-educated, fit, and capable young
    men and women to recruit for the future force?
        Throughout this conversation, we cannot waver in protecting our
    most precious asset--our people. General Welsh, you and I recently had
    the opportunity to visit Scott Air Force Base in Illinois to discuss
    its value to the nation and review the tremendous contributions
    provided by the dedicated men and women who work there. Scott has all
    Active Duty, Guard and Reserve personnel working side by side, and the
    Air Force is stronger for it. It was a great visit, I learned a lot,
    and I come away believing more strongly that we cannot allow budget
    pressures to squander their skills.
        I look forward to working with you, our distinguished panel,
    throughout the year; so that our fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill
    can enable the United States Air Force to successfully defend our
    national interests around the world.
        We sincerely appreciate your service to our Nation and the
    dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men and women in our Air
    Force.

        Senator Durbin. I turn the floor over to my friend and
    colleague, Senator Cochran, before recognizing the panel.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to join
    you in welcoming Secretary James, General Welsh, General Grass,
    and the leaders of the Air Guard and Reserve, to our
    committee's hearing to review the Air Force budget request for
    fiscal year 2015.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I have a statement, which I will ask to be printed in the
    record, Mr. Chairman, and will look forward to our discussion
    of the recommendation and the request from this panel. And we
    thank you for your cooperation.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary James
    and General Welsh, General Grass and the leaders of the Air Guard and
    Reserve to our committee's hearing to review the Air Force budget
    request for fiscal year 2015.
        Secretary James, let me take the opportunity to welcome you to your
    first appearance before this committee as Secretary of the Air Force.
    We thank you for your service as the Air Force continues its vital role
    in the defense of our Nation both on the ground and in the air and
    space.
        Madam Secretary, based on the information I have received from the
    Air Force, I question the analysis behind the recommendation to
    deactivate Keesler's 815th Tactical Airlift Squadron, which we know as
    the ``Flying Jennies'', and move the 10 C-130J transport aircraft. I
    look forward to receiving more information related to the associated
    costs of the transfer. I hope we can count on you to consult with the
    members of the Mississippi delegation as we work to understand this
    proposal.
        Keesler Air Force Base was selected as the Air Force's 2013
    Installation Excellence award winner which recognizes excellence in
    services, facilities, and quality-of-life among other things. Keesler
    and the community banded together after the Gulf Coast were ravaged by
    Hurricane Katrina. They volunteered and worked tirelessly for months to
    help rebuild the community and the base. This is something we will
    never forget.
        We are proud to host bases from which Active Duty, Reserve and Air
    Guard airmen operate and train for a wide range of jobs from pilots to
    supporting cyber warfare requirements.
        We are very proud of the training mission at Keesler Air Force Base
    which has expanded to support Air Force cyber warfare requirements.
    Columbus Air Force Base is home to the premier pilot training wing, and
    the 172nd Air Wing in Jackson, which is home to the Air National
    Guard's C-17 cargo aircraft unit.
        The training and work that takes place in Mississippi contributes
    to our Nation's air and space superiority, and our state stands ready
    to expand its role in helping the United States Air Force accomplish
    its missions.
        We look forward to your testimony.

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
        And now we will open with Secretary James. Your written
    statement will be placed in the record. If you would like to
    summarize it or add to it, this is your opportunity.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH LEE JAMES

        Ms. James. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Vice
    Chairman Cochran. It is, certainly, a pleasure for me and my
    colleagues to come before you this morning. And even more so,
    it is a huge honor and privilege for me to serve as the 23rd
    Secretary of the Air Force on behalf of our 690,000 Active
    Duty, Guard, Reserve, civilian airmen, and their families.
        I am now all of 3-months-old on the job, and what a busy
    time it has been. I have been to 18 different bases in 13
    States as well as having just returned from my first overseas
    trip, where I visited with airmen in Germany, Qatar, Kuwait,
    U.A.E., and Afghanistan, to include Kabul, Bagram, Kandahar,
    and Shindand. And what I wanted you to know is that at each and
    every location that I have visited, I have seen really three
    key things. I have seen terrific leaders who are tackling
    issues, tough issues. They are tackling them head-on and
    directly. I have seen superb total force teamwork everywhere I
    have been, which is extremely encouraging. And most
    importantly, I have seen just amazing and very, very innovative
    airmen who are extremely dedicated to the service of our
    country; so very inspiring.
        With that said, Mr. Chairman, we are living in very
    challenging times, both in terms of our security environment as
    well as the budget environment that we are facing. And in our
    submission that you now have before you, we have attempted to
    take these challenges on again directly and deliberately and
    thoughtfully, and we have done so as a team, very inclusively.
        To make these choices, we first began with the strategy,
    and that begins with the strategy of today, which includes
    defending the homeland against all threats; building security
    globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression;
    and number three, remaining prepared to win decisively against
    any adversary should deterrence fail.
        That is the story of today for our strategy, but there is
    also the story for tomorrow. The story for tomorrow is we need
    to invest now in the technologies and platforms. We need to
    also turn ourselves and direct ourselves to new centers of
    power and be prepared to operate in a more volatile and
    unpredictable world, a world in which we can no longer take for
    granted American dominance of the skies and space.
        Now, your Air Force is crucial in this strategy throughout,
    both the part for today and the part for tomorrow. But the
    trouble is the likely budget scenarios that we are facing will
    probably leave us with certain gaps. In fact, I am certain that
    that will be the case.
        Now, having been an observer on the scene of defense for
    more than 30 years, I know and you know, there are always some
    degree of gaps that we face between strategy and budgets. They
    never match exactly. And when those mismatches occur, what we
    have to do is we have to make decisions. We have to ultimately
    come down to judgment calls based on our best military judgment
    about what risks are most prudent; what risks can we assume.
        Now, I will grant you this has been a more complex year
    than most, a more difficult year than most, because there is no
    low-hanging fruit to capture as part of these budgetary
    actions. We are grateful for the greater stability and the
    additional bump-ups that we got in fiscal year 2014 and 2015
    through the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) and the fiscal year
    2014 consolidated appropriations act. It didn't solve all of
    the issues before us, but it was a great help and we thank you
    for that.
        Our fiscal year 2015 budget hits the target under the BBA,
    but it also contains what we call the Opportunity, Growth and
    Security Initiative. That is $26 billion additional across DOD,
    $7 billion of which will come to the Air Force, and we would
    put that money toward readiness and investment priorities that
    would help us get closer to where we think we need to be.
        So the bottom line here is that the budget and the 5-year
    plan is one in which we are rebalancing. We are coming out of
    13 years of a persistent war in the Middle East, and now we
    need to rebalance. We need to recapture our complete readiness
    and our future capability.
        It is really not an either/or situation because we very
    much need to have both in that rebalancing action.
        Let me quickly give you some of our major decisions, and I
    would like to lay them out in terms of the priorities that I
    have laid out for our Air Force.
        And those priorities are number one, taking care of people;
    two, balancing today's readiness with tomorrow's readiness; and
    three, ensuring that we have the best Air Force in the world,
    the most capable Air Force but at the best value for our
    taxpayers.
        So beginning with priority one, as far as I am concerned,
    100 percent of the time, it always comes down to people. So
    taking care of people, to me, means we need to recruit the
    right people; we need to retain the very best people. Once we
    have them, we need to develop them. We need to shape the force
    as we go forward as well and get the right balance between our
    Active Duty, our National Guard, and our Reserve components.
    And by the way, our plan going forward does rely more heavily
    on the National Guard and Reserves, not less reliance, but more
    reliance.
        It also means that we have to communicate well the various
    force management techniques that we are now utilizing within
    the force, and, certainly, we are trying to do our best at
    this.
        It also means having diversity of thought and background at
    the table as we make decisions. We will get better decisions if
    we achieve that.
        We have to protect our most important family programs. We
    have to ensure that the climate is one of dignity and respect
    for all.
        We have to continue to combat sexual assault and make sure
    that everybody is living and leading our core values in the Air
    Force, which are integrity, service, and excellence.
        And we need to do fair compensation going forward as well,
    though we do feel that we have to slow the growth in that
    compensation; and that is one of those hard decisions that no
    one is fully happy with, but we feel it is necessary in order
    to free up money to put back into readiness and modernization
    for the future.
        And that leads me to my second priority, and that is
    balancing today's readiness with tomorrow's readiness. The
    readiness of today, of course, is training; it is equipment; it
    is what we need today to do our job; it has taken a hit over
    time, particularly last year during sequestration.
        So our fiscal year 2015 request fully funds flying hours
    and other high-priority readiness issues. And we will see, if
    this is approved, gradual improvements in our readiness. We
    won't get it all done in 1 year. It is going to take time. But
    it will set us on the right path.
        In terms of our investments for tomorrow, we did protect
    our F-35 program, the KC-46 tanker, and the long-range strike
    bomber, which are the three top priorities in terms of new
    investment programs.
        We also, of course, continue to support the nuclear triad,
    two-thirds of which are ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic
    missiles), and our bombers are in the Air Force.
        We also have begun to replace, or we have made decisions to
    replace, our aging platforms like the Combat Rescue Helicopters
    and invest in a new jet engine technology that promises reduced
    fuel consumption, lower maintenance, and will help our
    industrial base.
        Now to pay for all of this, given our budget realities, we
    had to make some very tough choices. So we are proposing to
    retire some entire fleets. That way we will get billions of
    dollars of saving versus millions of dollars. This will include
    the A-10 and the U-2, two terrific platforms that have served
    us well for years. But again, tough choices were in order.
        We will also have to limit the growth of combat air
    patrols. We will retire our fleet of Predators over time, the
    MQ-1, in favor of a fully capable MQ-9 Reaper fleet in the
    future.
        So these are just a few of the trade-offs. But by doing so,
    we can ensure that we will maximize our combat capability in
    the future and maximum combat power at the best cost to the
    taxpayer, which leads me to priority number three, and that is
    make every dollar count.
        So in these tough budgetary times, in particular, we need
    to make sure that every dollar counts. So to me this means we
    are going to be focusing on keeping our acquisition programs on
    budget and on schedule. We are going to continue to move
    forward and get to a point where we are auditable as the
    Department of Defense (DOD) and as the Air Force.
        We are going to trim overhead, including that 20-percent
    reduction you have heard the Secretary of Defense talk about.
    By the way, I do want to join with the Secretary and ask you to
    please approve another round of BRAC (base realignment and
    closure) in 2017.
        Now, while sequestration level funding will have us spend
    less in the short term, the ramifications of returning to lower
    levels and sequestration levels in fiscal year 2016, we feel,
    will compromise our national security simply too much. And so
    we would ask, please, do whatever you can, so that we will not
    return to the sequestration levels in 2016.
        But if we must, we have thought through how we would manage
    that as well. So if we were to return to fiscal year 2016
    sequestration levels, we would have to retire up to 80 more
    aircraft, including the KC-10 tanker fleet. We would have to
    defer some sensor upgrades that we want to do to the Global
    Hawk, that would bring it up to parity with the U-2.
        We would have to slow the purchases of F-35s. We would have
    to have fewer combat air patrols, fewer Predator and Reaper
    patrols. We couldn't do that next generation jet engine program
    I told you about. We would probably need to re-evaluate the
    Combat Rescue Helicopter and some of our other important
    programs.
        So that return to sequestration would have very serious
    ramifications in 2016 for us if we have to do so. And again, we
    ask you to please support the higher levels going forward in
    the 5-year plan.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by giving you my vision for
    the Air Force, where I hope the Air Force will be 10 years from
    now.
        I am certain our Air Force will be smaller, but it will be
    highly capable and it will be innovative and it will be ready.
    We will be a good value for the taxpayers, and we will be
    recognized as such. We will be able to respond to problems when
    our country asks us to step up overseas to whatever mission
    comes our way, unparalleled airpower, as well as here at home
    when disaster strikes us. We will be more reliant on our
    National Guard and Reserve because it makes good mission sense
    and it is a good value for the taxpayer, and it will be powered
    by the best airmen on the planet.
        I thank you so much for what you do for our Nation and look
    forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Deborah Lee James and
                           General Mark A. Welsh, III
                                  introduction
        America's Airmen and Air Force capabilities play a foundational
    role in how our military fights and wins wars. The Air Force's agile
    response to national missions--in the time, place, and means of our
    choosing--gives our Nation an indispensable and unique advantage that
    we must retain as we plan for an uncertain future. Whether responding
    to a national security threat or a humanitarian crisis, your Air Force
    provides the responsive global capabilities necessary for the joint
    force to operate successfully.
        It takes the combined efforts of all of our military Services and
    the whole of government to deny, deter, and defeat an enemy, and over
    the last decade this integration has tightened. Just as we depend on
    our joint partners, every other Service depends on the Air Force to do
    its job. Whether it is Global Positioning System (GPS) information to
    navigate waterways, airlift to get troops to and from the fight,
    manning intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos to deter
    aggression, or reconnaissance and satellite communication to tell
    forces where enemy combatants gather or hide, the Air Force provides
    these capabilities, as well as many others. Here at home, our Airmen
    patrol the skies ready to protect the homeland and are integral to the
    movement of people and lifesaving supplies when disasters, like
    Hurricane Sandy or the California wildfires, strike. This capability to
    see what is happening and project power anywhere in the world at any
    time is what Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power are all
    about.
        The current fiscal environment requires the Air Force to make some
    very tough choices. When making decisions about the best way for the
    Air Force to support our Nation's defense, the abrupt and arbitrary
    nature of sequestration created a dilemma between having a ready force
    today or a modern force tomorrow. To best support national defense
    requirements, comply with the Defense Department's fiscal guidance, and
    meet defense strategy priorities, as updated by the 2014 Quadrennial
    Defense Review (QDR), we attempted to preserve capabilities to protect
    the homeland, build security globally, and project power and win
    decisively. To do this the Air Force emphasized capability over
    capacity. We worked hard to make every dollar count so we could protect
    the minimum capabilities for today's warfighting efforts, while also
    investing in capabilities needed to defeat potential high-end threats
    of the future. Moving forward, we seek to maintain a force ready for
    the full range of military operations while building an Air Force
    capable of executing our five core missions: (1) air and space
    superiority; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR);
    (3) rapid global mobility; (4) global strike; and (5) command and
    control, all against a well-armed and well-trained adversary in 2023
    and beyond.
                             strategic environment
        The United States Air Force has long enjoyed technological
    superiority over any potential adversary. However, the spread of
    advanced technology has eroded this advantage faster than anticipated.
    The proliferation of nuclear weapons, cyber capabilities, cruise
    missiles, ballistic missiles, remotely piloted vehicles, air defense
    systems, anti-satellite development efforts, and technologically
    advanced aircraft, including 5th generation fighters, are particularly
    concerning. Increased access to such capabilities heightens the
    potential for the emergence of additional near-peer competitors--
    adversaries capable of producing, acquiring, and integrating high-end
    capabilities that rival or equal our own and can possibly deny our
    freedom of action. This means we may not be able to go where we need to
    in order to protect our national security interests. This dynamic
    security environment creates both opportunities and challenges for the
    United States. As we address known threats, we must also have the
    vision to understand the changing strategic landscape, and keep an open
    mind with regard to which of these changes represent true threats, and
    which may present strategic opportunities.
                               fiscal environment
    Historical Perspective
        The Air Force has always had to balance what we can do
    (capability), how much we have to do it with (capacity), and how well
    trained and responsive we need to be (readiness). However, over time
    our trade space has been shrinking. As an Air Force, with respect to
    aircraft and personnel, we are on course to be the smallest since our
    inception in 1947. After peaking at 983,000 active component Airmen in
    1952, we have consistently gotten smaller. While the military as a
    whole has grown since 9/11, the Air Force has further reduced our
    active component end strength from 354,000 to just over 327,600 today.
    Also, the Air Force post-war budget drawdowns in the 1950s and 1970s
    were followed by major acquisition programs that fielded most of our
    current missile, bomber, tanker, fighter, and cargo inventory, yet post
    9/11 investments have replaced less than 5 percent of the currently
    active combat aircraft. Since 1990, our aircraft inventory has
    decreased from 9,000 to 5,400 aircraft, and the average aircraft age
    has increased from 17 to 27 years. Additionally, since 1962, our annual
    budget's non-Blue Total Obligation Authority (TOA) (funding that the
    Air Force does not control and cannot use to balance other
    requirements) has risen to more than 20 percent of our total Air Force
    TOA.
        This narrow trade space and constrained funding leave no room for
    error. Past drawdown strategies suggest that the Air Force should
    prioritize high-end combat capabilities; near-term procurement of
    highly capable and cost-effective weapons and munitions as force
    multipliers; and long-term research and development for the next-
    generation weapon delivery platforms. Simultaneously, we must gain and
    maintain readiness across the full range of operations.
    Fiscal Realities
        In fiscal year 2015, the Air Force must be able to execute national
    defense requirements while also recovering from the impacts of fiscal
    year 2013 sequestration, and adjusting to the fiscal year 2014
    Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) funding levels and the uncertainty in the
    future years planned budget top line for fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
    We are working hard to make the right choices that maximize each
    taxpayer dollar and ensure we can meet national security needs today
    and in the future.
    Effects of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Sequestration
        The magnitude of the cuts generated in fiscal year 2013 by
    sequestration was difficult to absorb in the short term. We stood down
    31 active component squadrons for more than 3 months. We initiated
    civilian furloughs, putting extreme stress on the workload and personal
    finances of our civilian workforce. We cut maintenance of our
    facilities, in many cases by 50 percent, and delayed major maintenance
    actions, including depot aircraft overhauls.
        With support from Congress, the Air Force was able to realign $1.7
    billion into operations accounts. This allowed us to cover our overseas
    contingency operations requirements and enabled us to resume flying
    operations, but these budget adjustments came at a sacrifice to future
    weapon system modernization. Of the units affected by the fiscal year
    2013 sequestration, only about 50 percent have returned to their
    already degraded pre-sequestration combat ready proficiency levels, and
    it will take years to recover from the weapon system sustainment
    backlog.
    Fiscal Year 2014 Game Plan
        Though the BBA and the fiscal year 2014 Appropriations Act provided
    partial sequestration relief in fiscal year 2014, and some help for
    fiscal year 2015, they do not solve all of our problems. The additional
    funds help us reverse our immediate near-term readiness shortfalls and
    enable the Air Force to build a plan that mostly shields our highest
    priorities, including: flying hours; weapon system sustainment; top
    three investment programs; and key readiness requirements such as
    radars, ranges, and airfields. However, the tightening fiscal caps
    combined with the abrupt and arbitrary nature of sequestration clearly
    drove the Air Force into a ``ready force today'' versus a ``modern
    force tomorrow'' dilemma, forcing us to sacrifice future modernization
    for current readiness.
        This dilemma is dangerous and avoidable and will continue to be a
    threat in 2015 and beyond. If given the flexibility to make prudent
    cuts over time and avoid sequestration, we can achieve significant
    savings and still maintain our ability to provide Global Vigilance,
    Global Reach, and Global Power for the Nation.
    Fiscal Year 2015 and Beyond--Long Range Vision
        The fiscal year 2015 President's budget (PB) is our effort to
    develop and retain the capabilities our Nation expects of its Air Force
    within the constraints placed upon us. The least disruptive and least
    risky way to manage a post-war drawdown is to wait until the end of the
    conflict to reduce spending and to provide a ramp to the cuts.
    Sequestration provides no such ramp. However, the fiscal year 2015 PB
    in conjunction with the BBA does allow for a more manageable ramp, as
    seen in Chart I, Air Force Budget Projections. This funding profile
    allows us to move toward balance between capability, capacity, and
    readiness.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Chart I: Air Force Budget Projections

        Maintaining the fiscal year 2015 PB top line level of funding will
    provide the time and flexibility to make strategic resourcing choices
    to maximize combat capability from each taxpayer dollar. If we continue
    to be funded at the fiscal year 2015 PB top line level we can continue
    a gradual path of recovery to full-spectrum combat readiness, preserve
    munitions inventories, and protect investments such as the new training
    aircraft system and the next generation of space-based systems.
    Additionally, the President has proposed an additional Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI) to accompany the fiscal year
    2015 budget request. For the Air Force, this $7 billion additional
    investment would enhance our readiness posture, enable us to fund
    critical modernization programs, accelerate recapitalization efforts,
    and improve our installations and bases.
        A sequestration-level budget would result in a very different Air
    Force. We are aggressively seeking innovative cost savings and more
    efficient and effective ways of accomplishing our missions; however,
    these initiatives will not be sufficient to reach sequestration funding
    levels. To pay the sequestration-level bill we will have to sacrifice
    current tanker and ISR capacity by divesting KC-10 and RQ-4 Block 40
    fleets, all of our major investment programs will be at risk, and our
    readiness recovery will be significantly slowed due to required cuts in
    weapon system sustainment and ranges.
                  fiscal year 2015 budget decision methodology
        During the development of the fiscal year 2015 budget submission,
    the Air Force took a bold but realistic approach to support the Air
    Force 2023 framework and the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, as
    updated during deliberations on the 2014 QDR. To do this within fiscal
    guidance, including the Strategic Choices and Management Review, we had
    to make difficult trades between force structure (capacity), readiness,
    and modernization (capability). As a result, the Air Force established
    four guiding principles to steer our strategy and budget process.
      --We must remain ready for the full-spectrum of military operations;
      --When forced to cut capabilities (tooth), we must also cut the
            associated support structure and overhead (tail);
      --We will maximize the contribution of the Total Force; and
      --Our approach will focus on the unique capabilities the Air Force
            provides the joint force, especially against a full-spectrum,
            high-end threat.
        When building the budget, there were no easy choices. We divested
    fleets and cut manpower that we would have preferred to retain. We
    focused on global, long-range, and multirole capabilities, especially
    those that can operate in contested environments, which meant keeping
    key recapitalization programs on track. We made these choices because
    losing a future fight to a high-end adversary would be catastrophic.
    Full-Spectrum Readiness
        Because of our global reach, speed of response, and lethal
    precision, the Air Force is the force that the Nation relies on to be
    first in for the high-end fight. This is our highest priority. To do
    this we must be ready across the entire force. This means we need to
    have the right number of Airmen, with the right equipment, trained to
    the right level, in the right skills, with the right amount of support
    and supplies to successfully accomplish what the President tasks us to
    do in the right amount of time . . . and survive.
        Over the past 13 years, the Air Force has performed exceptionally
    well during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, these
    operations have focused on missions conducted in a permissive air
    environment and with large footprints for counterinsurgency. This left
    insufficient time or resources to train across the full range of Air
    Force missions, especially missions conducted in contested and highly
    contested environments. To ensure success in future conflicts, we must
    get back to full-spectrum readiness. We can only get there by funding
    critical readiness programs such as flying hours, weapon system
    sustainment, and training ranges, while also balancing deployments and
    home-station training--in short, reducing operational tempo. This will
    not be a quick fix; it will take years to recover. If we do not train
    for scenarios across a range of military operations, including a future
    high-end fight, we accept unnecessary risk. Risk for the Air Force
    means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer
    to win, and our military service members will be placed in greater
    danger.
    Fleet Divestment
        Given the current funding constraints, the Air Force focused on
    ways to maximize savings while minimizing risk to our joint forces and
    our ability to support national defense requirements. Every aircraft
    fleet has substantial fixed costs such as depot maintenance, training
    programs, software development, weapons integration, spare parts, and
    logistics support. Large savings are much more feasible to achieve by
    divesting entire fleets rather than making a partial reduction to a
    larger fleet. This allows us to achieve savings measured in the
    billions rather than ``just'' millions of dollars.
        Upon first glance, divesting an entire fleet is undesirable because
    it removes all of a fleet's capabilities from our range of military
    options. For example, divesting the A-10 causes a loss of combat-tested
    aircraft optimized to conduct the close air support mission. However,
    the A-10 cannot conduct other critical missions, such as air
    superiority or interdiction, and cannot survive in a highly contested
    environment. Air superiority, which gives ground and maritime forces
    freedom from attack and the freedom to attack, is foundational to the
    way our joint force fights. It cannot be assumed, must be earned and is
    difficult to maintain. One of the dramatic advantages of airpower in a
    major campaign is its ability to eliminate second echelon forces and
    paralyze the enemy's ability to maneuver. As the Air Force becomes
    smaller, we must retain multirole aircraft that provide greater
    flexibility and more options for the joint force commander.
        Another example is the Air Force's U-2 and RQ-4 Global Hawk Block
    30, high-altitude ISR aircraft. The U-2 has been the combatant
    commanders' high-altitude ISR platform of choice due to its exceptional
    reliability, flexibility, survivability, and sensor capabilities. In
    the current fiscal environment, the Air Force cannot afford to maintain
    both platforms. While both have performed marvelously in Afghanistan
    and other theaters worldwide, the Global Hawk RQ-4 Block 30 provides
    unmatched range and endurance and, after multiple years of focused
    effort, now comes at a lower cost per flying hour. With responsible
    investment in sensor enhancements, the Global Hawk RQ-4 Block 30 can
    meet high-altitude, long endurance ISR requirements. Therefore, long-
    term affordability after near-term investments provides a stronger case
    for the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 in a constrained funding environment.
        To support combatant commanders and act as good stewards for the
    taxpayer, we need to divest entire fleets of aircraft to achieve large
    savings while preserving the capabilities the Air Force uniquely
    provides to the joint force.
    Active Component/Reserve Component (AC/RC) Mix
        American Airmen from each component--Regular Air Force, Air
    National Guard, and Air Force Reserve--provide seamless airpower on a
    global scale every day. The uniformed members of today's Total Force
    consist of approximately 327,600 Regular Air Force Airmen, 105,400 Air
    National Guardsmen, and 70,400 Air Force Reserve Airmen actively
    serving in the Selected Reserve, as authorized by the fiscal year 2014
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Over the past two decades,
    to meet combatant commander requirements and the demands of recurring
    deployments, the Air Force has increasingly called upon its Total
    Force. This elevated use of the Air National Guard and Air Force
    Reserve has transformed a traditionally strategic reserve force into a
    force that provides operational capability, strategic depth, and surge
    capacity. As the Air Force becomes smaller, each component will
    increase reliance on one another for the success of the overall
    mission.
        To meet Department of Defense (DOD) strategic guidance for a leaner
    force that remains ready at any size, the Air Force plans to remove
    approximately 500 aircraft across the inventories of all three
    components, saving over $9 billion. Additionally, the Air Force has
    instituted an analytical process of determining the proper mix of
    personnel and capabilities across the components to meet current and
    future requirements within available resources. Air Force leadership
    representing the active and reserve components, including adjutants
    general, teamed to develop the Air Force fiscal year 2015 Total Force
    Proposal (TFP-15) that preserves combat capability and stability for
    our Total Force. Taking into account recent lessons learned and
    existing fiscal realities, this compilation of actions maximizes every
    dollar and leverages opportunities to move personnel and force
    structure into the reserve component, while still preserving capability
    and capacity across all three components. To do this, the Air Force
    plans to transfer aircraft from the active component to the Air
    National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, including the transfer of
    flying missions to locations that would otherwise have no mission due
    to fleet divestments. This effort helps the Air Force maintain combat
    capability within mandated budgetary constraints by using the strength
    and unique capabilities of the Guard and Reserve components to make up
    for capabilities lost as active duty end strength declines, a concept
    known as compensating leverage. Leaders from all three components
    developed the TFP-15 plan which accomplishes these objectives using the
    following principles as guidelines:
      --Where possible, replacing divested force structure with like force
            structure (e.g., A-10 with F-16);
      --Adding similar force structure without driving new military
            construction;
      --Adding same-type force structure to units where possible and
            returning mission sets to locations where they were previously
            located;
      --Considering opportunities to realign force structure to the reserve
            component prior to any decision to completely divest aircraft;
            and
      --Considering new aircraft deliveries as options for mission
            transition at uncovered locations.
        In January 2013, as part of the Air Force's effort to optimize the
    capabilities of the active and reserve components, the Secretary of the
    Air Force (SecAF) and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF)
    established the Total Force Task Force (TF2) to explore and leverage
    the unique strengths and characteristics of each component. This task
    force conducted a comprehensive review of Total Force requirements,
    offered ideas for improving collaboration between the three components,
    and gave us a starting point for future Total Force analysis and
    assessment efforts. To continue the body of work initiated by the TF2,
    and facilitate a transition to a permanent staff structure, the CSAF
    directed the stand-up of a transitional organization, the Total Force
    Continuum (TF-C), on October 1, 2013. The TF-C is continuing to develop
    and refine decision support tools that will help shape and inform the
    fiscal year 2016 budget deliberations.
        The Air Force has made great strides in understanding how a three-
    component structure can operate as a powerful, efficient, and cost-
    effective Service that maximizes the integrated power of our air,
    space, and cyberspace forces. This needs to be the way we do business,
    without even thinking about it. We will continue to seek ways to
    strengthen and institutionalize the collaboration and cooperation
    between the components, including reviewing the National Commission on
    the Structure of the Air Force's findings. Our initial examination of
    the Commission's report suggests a great deal of symmetry between many
    of their recommendations and current Air Force proposals for the way
    ahead. The Air Force is committed to ensuring that our Total Force is
    fully synchronized to deliver an unparalleled array of airpower
    anywhere in the world.
    Recapitalization vs. Modernization
        One of the most critical judgments in building the Air Force plan
    for 2015 and beyond was how to balance investment in our current aging
    fleet against the need to buy equipment that will be viable against
    future adversaries. Forced to make tough decisions, we favored funding
    new capabilities (recapitalization) over upgrading legacy equipment
    (modernization). We cannot afford to bandage old airplanes as potential
    adversaries roll new ones off the assembly line. For example, the
    backbone of our bomber and tanker fleets, the B-52 and KC-135, are from
    the Eisenhower era, and our 4th generation fighters average 25 years of
    age. That is why our top three acquisition priorities remain the KC-46A
    aerial tanker, the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and the Long Range
    Strike Bomber (LRS-B).
        The KC-46A will begin to replace our aging tanker fleet in 2016,
    but even when the program is complete in 2028 we will have replaced
    less than half of the current tanker fleet and will still be flying
    over 200 KC-135s. Similarly, our average bomber is 32 years old. We
    need the range, speed, survivability, and punch that the LRS-B will
    provide. Tankers are the lifeblood of our joint force's ability to
    respond to crisis and contingencies, and bombers are essential to
    keeping our Air Force viable as a global force. In our fiscal year 2015
    budget submission, we have fully funded these programs.
        The F-35A is also essential to any future conflict with a high-end
    adversary. The very clear bottom line is that a 4th generation fighter
    cannot successfully compete with a 5th generation fighter in combat,
    nor can it survive and operate inside the advanced, integrated air
    defenses that some countries have today, and many more will have in the
    future. To defeat those networks, we need the capabilities the F-35A
    will bring. In response to tightening fiscal constraints, the Air Force
    has deferred four F-35As in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). If
    the President's projected top-line enhancements are not realized, and
    future appropriations are set at sequestration-levels, the Air Force
    may lose up to 19 total F-35As within the FYDP.
        Moving forward, we cannot afford to mortgage the future of our Air
    Force and the defense of our Nation. Recapitalization is not optional--
    it is required to execute our core missions against a high-end threat
    for decades to come.
                           making every dollar count
    Program Stewardship
        The Air Force and our Airmen are committed to being good stewards
    of every taxpayer dollar. One way we are doing this is by making sound
    and innovative choices to maximize combat capability within available
    resources. Recently, the Air Force announced its intent to proceed with
    the program to ensure the continued availability of the Combat Rescue
    Helicopter (CRH). The CRH contract award protects a good competitive
    price and effectively uses the $334 million Congress appropriated to
    protect the program.
        Another example of maximizing the bang out of each taxpayer buck is
    the KC-46A tanker contract. The recapitalization of the Air Force's
    tanker fleet is one of our top three priorities, and the fixed-price
    contract for 179 aircraft represents an outstanding return on
    investment for the Air Force and the American people. The program is
    currently on track in cost, schedule, and technical performance, and in
    the fiscal year 2015 PB we were able to save $0.9 billion in KC-46A
    Aircrew Training System and other KC-46A program risk adjustments based
    on successes to date. Keeping this program on a stable funding path is
    imperative to meeting our contractual obligations and ultimately to our
    Air Force's ability to meet national defense requirements.
        The Air Force remains committed to delivering space capabilities at
    a better value to the taxpayer. In cooperation with Congress and the
    office of the Secretary of Defense, we have used the Efficient Space
    Procurement strategy to drive down costs of two key satellites, Space-
    Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and Advanced Extremely High Frequency
    (AEHF). Through stable research and development funding, block buys,
    and fiscal authority to smooth our spending profile combined with
    strong contracting and negotiation approaches using fixed price
    contracts and ``should cost'' reviews, the Air Force has been able to
    achieve significant savings. For satellites 5 and 6 of the AEHF
    program, these practices reduced Air Force budget requirements $1.6
    billion \1\ from the original independent cost estimate of the Cost
    Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE). For SBIRS 5 and 6
    these practices have already reduced the budget $883 million \2\ from
    the original CAPE estimate and negotiations are still ongoing. Since
    our policy is to fund to the CAPE independent cost estimates, these
    savings are real dollars that are now available to reduce the pressure
    on our budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal year 2012-fiscal year 2017 savings.
        \2\ Fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2018 savings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Perhaps the best results are on the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle (EELV) program where we have used competition, long-term
    contracts (where there is only one provider), and good understanding of
    costs to get better deals for the government. This year's budget
    reduces the program by $1.2 billion. Combined with prior year Air Force
    reductions and savings for the National Reconnaissance Office, we have
    reduced the total program by $4.4 billion since its ``high water mark''
    in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The Air Force remains committed to
    driving competition into the launch business and we are actively
    supporting new entrants in their bids for certification. At the same
    time we must maintain our commitment to mission assurance that has
    resulted in unprecedented success. We have had 68 successful EELV
    launches and 30 additional successful National Security Space launches
    in a row, but we know that the only launch that matters is the next
    one.
        These are just a few examples of how the Air Force is optimizing
    our allocated resources. Good stewardship of the taxpayer's dollars
    demands we look for more efficient ways to accomplish the mission as an
    inherent part of our program and budget decisionmaking process every
    year.
    Energy
        To enhance mission capability and readiness, the Air Force is
    diligently managing our resources including our demand for energy and
    water. By improving the efficiency of our processes, operations,
    facilities, and equipment, the Air Force can generate cost savings and
    decrease our reliance on foreign energy sources. The Air Force has
    reduced its facility energy consumption by 20 percent since 2003 and
    has instituted a number of fuel saving initiatives, reducing the amount
    of fuel our aircraft have consumed by over 647 million gallons since
    2006. Additionally, we are investing $1.4 billion across the FYDP for
    next generation jet engine technology that promises reduced fuel
    consumption, lower maintenance costs, and helps ensure a robust
    industrial base. By instituting aircraft and installation efficiencies
    over the past 5 years, we avoided an energy bill $2.2 billion higher in
    2013 than it would have been otherwise.
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
        As we make efforts to become more efficient by improving and
    sustaining our installations, we also recognize we carry infrastructure
    that is excess to our needs. The Air Force is fully involved in the
    office of the Secretary of Defense led European Infrastructure
    Consolidation efforts. Since 1990, the Air Force has decreased European
    main operating bases from 25 to 6, returning more than 480 sites to
    their respective host nations and reduced Air Force personnel in Europe
    by almost 70 percent. While we have made large reductions in base
    infrastructure overseas, and previous BRAC rounds made some progress in
    reducing U.S. infrastructure, we still spend more than $7 billion
    operating, sustaining, recapitalizing, and modernizing our physical
    plants across the Air Force each year. While our best efforts to use
    innovative programs have paid dividends, such as recapitalizing our
    housing through privatization and pursuing public-public and public-
    private partnerships, we continue to spend money maintaining excess
    infrastructure that would be better spent recapitalizing and sustaining
    weapons systems, training for readiness, and investing in our Airmen's
    quality of life needs. The Air Force has limited authority under
    current public law to effectively consolidate military units or
    functions and then divest real property when no longer needed. To save
    considerable resources, we request BRAC authority in 2017.
    Military Compensation
        Military compensation has risen over the last decade and has helped
    the Air Force to recruit and retain a world class force in the midst of
    an extended period of high operations tempo. To sustain the recruitment
    and retention of Airmen committed to serve the Nation, military
    compensation must remain highly competitive. However, in light of
    projected constraints on future defense spending DOD needs to slow the
    rate of growth in military compensation in order to avoid deeper
    reductions to force structure, readiness, and modernization efforts
    critical to support the warfighter and the national defense. The Air
    Force supports the military compensation recommendations and will
    reinvest the savings back into readiness to provide our Airmen with the
    necessary resources to remain the best equipped and best trained Air
    Force in the world.
                                     airmen
    Innovative Force
        We are the best Air Force in the world because of our Airmen. We
    continue to attract, recruit, develop, and train Airmen with strong
    character who are honor bound, on and off-duty, by the Air Force's core
    values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All
    We Do. We depend on a workforce that leads cutting-edge research,
    explores emerging technology areas, and promotes innovation across
    government, industry, and academia.
        The budgetary constraints in fiscal year 2014 and beyond force the
    Air Force to become smaller. However, as we shrink, we must continue to
    recruit and retain men and women with the right balance of skills to
    meet Air Force mission requirements, and maintain a ready force across
    the full-spectrum of operations. Attracting science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent to our civilian workforce
    has been hampered by furloughs, hiring and pay freezes, and lack of
    professional development opportunities. Despite fiscal constraints, the
    Air Force needs to continue to attract and nurture our Nation's best
    and brightest into both our military and our civilian workforces,
    because it is our innovative Airmen who continue to make our Air Force
    the best in the world.
    Airmen and Family Support
        Airmen and their families are our most important resource. We are
    committed to fostering a culture of dignity and respect, and to
    ensuring an environment where all Airmen have the opportunity to excel.
    As a result, the Air Force will preserve our core services programs
    (fitness, childcare, and food services) and warfighter and family
    support programs. Unfortunately, the budget environment necessitates
    consequential reductions to morale, welfare, and recreation programs at
    U.S.-based installations to affect cost savings. We will do so in a
    manner that provides commanders as much flexibility as possible to
    respond to their individual military community needs and unique
    geographic situations.
    Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
        The Air Force's mission depends on Airmen having complete trust and
    confidence in one another. Our core values of Integrity, Service and
    Excellence, define the standard. Sexual assault is absolutely
    inconsistent and incompatible with our core values, our mission, and
    our heritage. As such, our SAPR program is a priority both for ensuring
    readiness and taking care of our Airmen.
        During the last year, the Air Force has worked hard to combat
    sexual assault. We have invested in programmatic, educational, and
    resourcing efforts aimed at reinforcing a zero tolerance environment.
    Our SAPR office now reports directly to the Vice Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force. We revamped our wing and group commanders' and senior non-
    commissioned officers' sexual assault response training courses,
    established full-time victim advocates with comprehensive training and
    accreditation requirements, and implemented the Defense Sexual Assault
    Incident Database to streamline data collection and reporting efforts.
        The Air Force has been DOD's leader in special victim capabilities,
    particularly with the success of the Air Force's Special Victim's
    Counsel (SVC) program. The SVC program provides victims with a
    dedicated legal advocate whose sole job is to help the victim through
    the often traumatizing legal process following an assault. So far the
    results have been exceptional. Since the program's implementation, more
    than 565 Airmen have benefited from SVC services, and in fiscal year
    2013, 92 percent of the victims reported that they were ``extremely
    satisfied'' with SVC support. Due to its success, the Secretary of
    Defense has directed all Services to stand up similar SVC programs. The
    Air Force has also established a team of 10 Special Victims' Unit
    senior trial counsels and 24 Air Force Office of Special Investigations
    agents who have received advanced education and training to work sexual
    assault cases.
        Providing a safe, respectful, and productive work environment free
    from sexual innuendo, harassment, and assault is the responsibility of
    every Airman, and the Air Force is committed to realizing this vision.
    Diversity
        The Nation's demographics are rapidly changing, and the makeup of
    our Air Force must reflect and relate to the population it serves. To
    leverage the strengths of diversity throughout our Air Force, our
    leaders must develop and retain talented individuals with diverse
    backgrounds and experiences, and create inclusive environments where
    all Airmen feel valued and able to contribute to the mission. Air Force
    decisionmaking and operational capabilities are enhanced by enabling
    varied perspectives and potentially creative solutions to complex
    problems. Moreover, diversity is critical for successful international
    operations, as cross-culturally competent Airmen build partnerships and
    conduct the full range of military operations globally.
        The competition for exceptional diverse talent will remain fierce.
    To compete with other government agencies and the business sector to
    attract and recruit the Nation's finest talent, the Air Force must
    develop an accessions strategy that taps new markets of diverse, high
    performing youth. In a similar sense, the Air Force must continue
    targeted development of existing talent, and continue to promote a
    comprehensive mentorship program that trains all Airmen to view
    operational problems and opportunities through a diversity lens.
    Force Management
        In fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015, we will implement a
    number of force management programs designed to reduce the overall size
    of the force while maintaining our combat capability. The goal of these
    programs is to make reductions through voluntary separations and
    retirements, maximizing voluntary incentives to ensure a smooth
    transition for our Airmen. To meet current funding constraints,
    significant reductions in total end strength over the FYDP are
    required, and may impact up to 25,000 Airmen. These reductions are
    driven largely by the divestiture of associated force structure and
    weapons systems, headquarters realignment, and a rebalancing of
    aircrew-to-cockpit ratios in a post-Afghanistan environment.
    Realignment efforts will also reduce Headquarters Air Force funding by
    20 percent immediately and combatant command headquarters funding
    through a 4-percent annual reduction reaching 20 percent by fiscal year
    2019. We have developed a plan to retain high performing Airmen so that
    we can accomplish the mission our Nation expects.
                              america's air force
    A Global, Ready Force
        Over the past 35 years, the Air Force has been called upon more
    than 150 times to conduct combat or humanitarian operations in more
    than 50 countries around the world. It is impossible to predict when
    America will call on its Air Force next. It is our job to be ready.
        The evolving complexity and potentially quick onset of warfare
    means that future conflicts will be a ``come as you are'' fight. There
    will be precious little time to ``spin up'' units that are unready to
    carry out their designated missions. Currently, the combatant
    commanders' requirement for fighter squadrons essentially equals the
    number of squadrons in the Air Force, and the requirement for bomber
    aircraft and ISR platforms is much greater than the number currently in
    the inventory. In simple economic terms, our supply across Air Force
    capabilities is less than or equal to the demand. Tiered readiness is
    not an option; your Air Force is either ready or it is not.
    Air Force Core Missions
        Airmen bring five interdependent and integrated core missions to
    the Nation's military portfolio. These core missions have endured since
    President Truman originally assigned airpower roles and missions to the
    Air Force in 1947. While our sister Services operate efficiently within
    the air, space, and cyber domains, the Air Force is the only Service
    that provides an integrated capability on a worldwide scale. Although
    the way we operate will constantly evolve, the Air Force will continue
    to perform these missions so that our military can respond quickly and
    appropriately to unpredictable threats and challenges.
                Air and Space Superiority . . . Freedom From Attack and the
                        Freedom to Attack
        Air and space superiority has long provided our Nation an
    asymmetric advantage. The Air Force's fiscal year 2015 budget request
    focuses on the capabilities necessary to ensure we can provide the
    theater-wide air and space superiority our combatant commanders
    require.
        Since April 1953, roughly 7 million American servicemembers have
    deployed to combat and contingency operations all over the world.
    Thousands of them have died in combat. Not a single one was killed by
    bombs from an enemy aircraft. Air superiority is a fundamental pillar
    of airpower and a prerequisite to the American way of modern, joint
    warfare--we cannot fail. In calendar year 2013 (CY13), the Air Force
    flew over 27,000 air superiority sorties, accounting for over 37,000
    flight hours. These sorties directly supported critical missions, such
    as homeland air sovereignty with Operation Noble Eagle and the
    protection of the President of the United States. Additionally, the Air
    Force flew numerous Theater Security Posture missions in the Central
    Command and Pacific Command areas of responsibility.
        To ensure we can provide unmatched air superiority capability and
    manage the risk associated with combat force reductions and emerging
    advanced technologies, the Air Force is modernizing munitions and
    platforms. In fiscal year 2015, the Air Force continues to invest in
    the AIM-120D and AIM-9X air-to-air missiles and develop new munitions
    to address future threats. Upgrades to the F-22 program and the
    procurement of the F-35A will also provide required capabilities to
    help ensure freedom of movement in contested environments. Continued
    upgrades to 4th generation platforms, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface
    Standoff Missile Extended Range for the F-16, are also necessary to
    ensure sustained viability in the future. These added capabilities will
    ensure the Air Force is prepared to survive today and meet tomorrow's
    challenges for control of the air.
        America's freedom to operate effectively across the spectrum of
    conflict also includes its ability to exploit space. Every day joint,
    interagency, and coalition forces depend on Air Force space operations
    to perform their missions on every continent, in the air, on the land,
    and at sea. In CY13, the Air Force launched 8 National Security Space
    (NSS) missions totaling 68 consecutive successful Evolved Expendable
    Launch Vehicle launches to date and 98 consecutive successful NSS
    missions. In fiscal year 2015, the Air Force will acquire three launch
    services and plans to launch 10 NSS missions. The Air Force will also
    continue the evaluation and certification of potential new entrants.
        The space environment is more congested, contested, and competitive
    than ever, requiring the Air Force to focus on Space Situational
    Awareness (SSA). Our SSA modernization efforts include: moving forward
    with acquisition of the Space Fence (near-Earth SSA capability);
    defining the Space-Based Space Surveillance follow-on system; fielding
    the Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program; continuing work
    with our Australian partners to field an advanced space surveillance
    telescope (deep-space SSA capabilities); and fielding the Joint Space
    Operations Center mission system (SSA command and control and data
    integration and exploitation).
        The Air Force remains fully committed to the long-term goal of
    fostering international relationships and supporting ongoing security
    efforts with partner nations around the globe. Teaming with allies and
    partners not only helps cost and risk-sharing, it also increases
    capability and capacity to support contingency operations. Space is an
    area in which we have made significant progress in building
    partnerships.
        Underpinning all of these capabilities is our ability to
    effectively operate in and through cyberspace. The advantages of
    effective cyberspace operations in speed, ubiquity, access, stealth,
    surprise, real-time battlespace awareness and information exchange, and
    command and control are manifest in every Air Force mission area and
    nearly every mission area has come to depend on them. Global strike;
    fused intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; force and
    personnel movement; telemedicine; global logistics; financial systems;
    joint aerial network linkages; space control; remotely piloted aircraft
    and vehicle command and control; target deconfliction; fires
    coordination; and even aspects of national strategic (including
    nuclear) command and control, rely on cyberspace superiority. Despite
    the strategic risk this dependence introduces, the advantages to those
    mission areas are too great to forego, so the Air Force must continue
    to lead and leverage the advantages of cyberspace superiority.
                Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance . . .
                        Delivering Decision Advantage
        Air Force globally integrated ISR provides commanders at every
    level with the knowledge they need to prevent strategic surprise, make
    decisions, command forces, and employ weapons. Our ISR Airmen identify
    and assess adversary targets and vulnerabilities from hideouts to
    bunkers to mobile launchers with greater accuracy than ever seen in the
    history of warfare. In 2013 alone, Airmen flew over 27,000 ISR
    missions, enabled the removal of 1,500 enemy combatants from the fight,
    provided critical adversary awareness and targeting intelligence to
    U.S. and coalition forces in over 350 troops-in-contact engagements,
    enhanced battlespace awareness through 630,000 hours of sustained
    overwatch of tactical forces and communication lines, and identified
    over 350 weapons caches and explosive devices that would have otherwise
    targeted American and partner forces. ISR reduces uncertainty about our
    adversaries and their capabilities, strengthens deterrence, prompts
    adversaries to act more cautiously, provides intelligence that allows
    commanders a decisionmaking advantage, and delivers real-time
    information on which troops rely to fight effectively and win.
        In recent years, the development of Air Force ISR capabilities has
    focused mainly on meeting the needs of permissive combat environments.
    In more contested future environments, gaining and maintaining an ISR
    advantage will become increasingly difficult and even more important.
    Therefore, the Air Force will focus primarily on enhancing ISR
    capabilities for operations in contested environments. Accomplishing
    this will require updating the current mix of ISR assets, while also
    giving significant and sustained attention to modernizing Air Force ISR
    systems, capabilities, and analytical capacity.
                Rapid Global Mobility . . . Delivery on Demand
        The Air Force's rapid global mobility capability is truly unique.
    There is no other force in the world that would have the confidence to
    place its fighting men and women at the end of an 8,000 mile logistical
    train. The fact that we are able to reliably supply a military force of
    100,000 \3\ troops in a landlocked country half a world away during an
    active fight is simply amazing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ At their peak, U.S. military forces in Afghanistan consisted of
    100,000 military members and over 112,000 contractors. Source: CRS 2011
    report ``DOD Contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On any given day, Airmen deliver critical personnel and cargo and
    provide airdrop of time-sensitive supplies, food, and ammunition on a
    global scale. Averaging one take-off or landing every two minutes,
    every day of the year, America's mobility fleet provides a capability
    unmatched by any air force across the globe. Whether it is sustaining
    the warfighter in any environment or delivering hope with humanitarian
    assistance, our Airmen ensure that the whole of government and
    international partners are strengthened with this unique capability to
    get assets to the fight quickly, remain in the fight, and return home
    safely.
        In CY13, Airmen flew 26,000 airlift missions, and over the course
    of 345 airdrops, the Air Force dropped 11 million pounds of combat-
    enabling sustainment to coalition forces on the ground in Afghanistan.
    As the linchpin to power projection at intercontinental distances, Air
    Force tanker crews flew 31,700 missions and aeromedical evacuation
    crews airlifted 5,163 wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and
    injured civilians around the globe. Since 9/11, America's tanker fleet
    has offloaded over 2.69 billion gallons of fuel to joint and coalition
    air forces, and the Air Force has logged an astounding 194,300 patient
    movements.
        To ensure global reach, the Air Force will continue to protect this
    vital mission by recapitalizing our aging aerial tanker fleet with the
    KC-46A, modernizing the inter-theater airlift fleet, and continue
    supporting the C-130J multiyear procurement contract that will extend
    beyond fiscal year 2018.
                Global Strike . . . Any Target, Any Time
        The Air Force's nuclear and conventional precision strike forces
    can credibly threaten and effectively hold any target on the planet at
    risk and, if necessary, disable or destroy it promptly--even from bases
    in the continental United States. These forces possess the unique
    ability to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic effects all in
    the course of a single combat mission. Whether employed from forward
    bases or enabled by in-flight refueling, global strike missions include
    a wide range of crisis response and escalation control options, such as
    providing close air support to troops at risk, interdicting enemy
    forces, supporting special operations forces, and targeting an
    adversary's vital centers. These capabilities, unmatched by any other
    Nation's air force, will be of growing importance as America rebalances
    its force structure and faces potential adversaries that are
    modernizing their militaries to deny access to our forces.
        In CY13, the Air Force flew 21,785 close air support sorties in
    Operation Enduring Freedom, including over 1,400 sorties with at least
    one weapons release. In the rebalance to the Pacific, the Air Force
    rotated five fighter squadrons and three bomber squadrons to forward
    locations in Guam, Japan, and Korea to project power and reassure our
    regional partners and flew over 43,000 missions bolstering theater
    security and stability. We continue to invest in the Pacific theater to
    ensure viability of our Air Force bases through a combination of
    hardening, dispersal, and active defenses.
        The Air Force will focus future efforts on modernizing global
    strike assets to ensure that American forces are prepared to act when,
    where, and how they are needed. The multirole F-35A is the centerpiece
    of the Air Force's future precision attack capability, designed to
    penetrate air defenses and deliver a wide range of precision munitions.
    Procuring the F-35A aircraft remains a top priority, and we plan to
    achieve initial operational capability in 2016.
        The backbone of America's nuclear deterrence is the ICBM fleet. To
    ensure the ICBM's viability through 2030, the Air Force will invest in
    updated warhead fuzes, as well as beginning guidance and propulsion
    modernization programs and modernization of launch facilities and
    communication centers. While the LRS-B is the bomber of the future, the
    Air Force will continue to modernize current B-2 and B-52 aircraft to
    keep these nuclear capabilities viable. The Air Force will ensure we
    are able to maintain the flexibility to deploy nuclear forces in a
    manner that best serves our national security interests.
                Command and Control . . . Total Flexibility
        Air Force command and control systems provide commanders the
    ability to conduct highly coordinated joint operations on an unequaled
    scale. Getting the right information to the right person at the right
    time is essential to the American way of war. The capability to deliver
    airpower is also intimately dependent on the ability to operate
    effectively in cyberspace, a domain in and through which we conduct all
    of our core missions and which is critical to our command and control.
    Operations in cyberspace magnify military effects by increasing the
    efficiency and effectiveness of air and space operations and by
    integrating capabilities across all domains. However, the Nation's
    advantage in command and control is under constant attack with new and
    more capable threats emerging daily in the areas of cyber weapons,
    anti-satellite systems, and electromagnetic jamming. Our adversaries
    are making advances by electronically linking their own combat
    capabilities, which create new military challenges.
        To counter these challenges, the Air Force will prioritize
    development and fielding of advanced command and control systems that
    are highly capable, reliable, resilient, and interoperable, while
    retaining the minimum command and control capacity to meet national
    defense requirements. More importantly, we will recruit and train
    innovative Airmen with the expertise to build, manage, secure, and
    advance our complex and diverse command and control systems.
                                   conclusion
        Ultimately, our job is to fight and win the Nation's wars. While,
    the Air Force's fiscal year 2015 budget submission remains strategy-
    based, it is also shaped by the fiscal environment. At the levels
    requested in the President's budget, the Air Force protects the
    capabilities required to prevail in the more demanding operational
    environment in years to come. By making tough choices today we set
    ourselves on a path to produce a ready and modernized Air Force that is
    smaller, yet still lethal against potential adversaries in the future.
    Regardless of the strategic tradeoffs made, at sequestration-levels it
    is not possible to budget for an Air Force that is capable of
    simultaneously performing all of the missions our Nation expects. We
    would end up with a force that is less ready, less capable, less viable
    and unable to fully execute the defense strategy. While we would still
    have the world's finest Air Force able to deter adversaries, we would
    also expect to suffer greater losses in scenarios against more modern
    threats.
        Airpower . . . because without it, you lose!

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Madam Secretary.
        I would say, to the remaining members of the panel, your
    written statements will be part of the record. If you would
    like to highlight it for a moment or two, we would really like
    to get to questions. We have a lot of them.
        General Welsh, you are first up.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. WELSH, III, CHIEF OF STAFF
        General Welsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman
    Cochran, Senators, thank you so much. It is always an honor to
    be here. And I will keep this very brief, in accordance with
    your desire, sir.
        Let me just say that your Air Force is the finest in the
    world, and we need to keep it that way. We built this budget to
    ensure that Air Force combat power remains unequaled, but that
    does not mean that it will remain unaffected.
        Every major decision reflected in our fiscal year 2015
    budget proposal hurts. There are simply no easy choices left.
    Every option reduces capability that our combatant commanders
    would love to have and believe they need, and we simply cannot
    ignore the fact that the law as currently written returns us to
    the sequestered funding levels the Secretary mentioned in
    fiscal year 2016. And to prepare for that, we must cut people
    and force structure now to create a balanced Air Force that we
    can afford to train and operate in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
        We also have to look at where must we recapitalize to be
    viable against a threat 10 years from now, where can we
    modernize with the remaining forces, and what is the impact
    that has on everything else.
        That summarizes everything we have done in the budget, sir,
    and we look forward to your questions.
        Senator Durbin. General Grass.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL FRANK J. GRASS, CHIEF, NATIONAL
                GUARD BUREAU
        General Grass. Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    members of the subcommittee, it is an honor and a privilege to
    be here today.
        First, I want to share my gratitude for the great working
    relationship we have with the Air Force today. The relationship
    comes directly from the leadership of General Welsh and
    Secretary James.
        I want to start by saying that the National Guard does
    three things well: Fighting our Nation's wars, defending the
    homeland, and building partnership capacity overseas.
        These missions have come to us both for the Army and Air
    Guard, and we support the COCOMs (combatant commands) in every
    one of those missions. We want to maintain the same types of
    equipment, the same types of training and structure that the
    Air Force has today.
        Our equipment training structure and unique dual skills
    enable us to provide a cost-effective force that furthers our
    national security. During the past 12 years, we have deployed
    Guardsmen overseas 760,000 times. Domestically, these soldiers
    and airmen responded to emergencies in all 10 FEMA (Federal
    Emergency Management Agency) regions during fiscal year 2013.
        Today, the soldier and airmen of Washington National Guard
    are demonstrating that capability with over 140 soldiers and
    airmen deployed around the world, and over 232 responding to
    the tragic mudslides in their States, assisted by the State of
    Colorado.
        Fiscal challenges will continue to shape us in the future.
    I know that the Budget Control Act and sequestration is the
    law, so we are looking to the future to figure out what
    capabilities the National Guard will need both for the
    Governors as well as overseas.
        One of the areas we are looking at in very great detail
    with the Air Force and the Army is looking at cyber, and we
    feel that cyber is an area for the National Guard to look into
    in the future.
        Sir, I will defer my time to my director of the Air
    National Guard, General Clarke.
        Senator Durbin. General Clarke, if you would like to
    summarize your remarks, please?
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. CLARKE, III,
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
        General Clarke. Chairman and Vice Chairman, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify. I will parallel what General Grass
    just said, and also the Secretary and Chief of Staff, in that
    the total force is a healthy total force. I have been on the
    job for a year now. I have had a chance to observe it at many
    levels here in Washington, but more importantly, out in the
    field and watch the amazing stories of people as they return
    home from their opportunities to serve overseas, side-by-side
    with regular Air Force, if you will, airmen and members of Air
    Force Reserve, a seamless total force.
        Credit for that goes to the United States Air Force senior
    leadership, both current and previous, who designed the Air
    Force the way it is. And we operate in a way that you can't
    tell the difference between the airmen and what they do. Behind
    that is the fact that we have challenges. We want to continue
    to modernize, recap on par with the regular Air Force. We plan
    to do that in the 2015 POM (Program Objective Memorandum) and
    beyond. But the opportunity to continue to serve operationally
    side-by-side with regular airmen of the Air Force and the Air
    Force Reserve is paramount to what we do.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So our balanced strategy going forward in the future is to
    first make sure that we can be the first choice for homeland
    operations. We will continue to be a proven choice for
    warfighting operations. And we will be an enduring choice for
    security cooperation.
        Thank you for the opportunity.
        [The statement follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Stanley E. Clarke III
                                opening remarks
        Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee: I am honored to appear before you today representing
    the men and women of the Air National Guard.
        The Air National Guard, as both a reserve component of the U.S. Air
    Force and the air component of the National Guard, has seen both
    successes and challenges this past year. Our successes can be
    attributed to the hard work of the men and women of the Air Guard, who
    continue to exhibit the professionalism and dedication upon which the
    Air National Guard is built. The challenges of sexual assault and
    suicide prevention are being addressed and will eventually lead to a
    stronger Air National Guard; however, rapidly declining and shifting
    funding levels are having primary and secondary affects upon the future
    of the Air Force and the Air National Guard.
        This presentation provides an overview of the past year, focusing
    primarily on the Air National Guard's contribution to the national
    defense strategy, followed by a look into the future, including areas
    where we solicit your continued support.
        The National Guard, including the Air National Guard, is unique in
    its contribution to the three pillars of the defense strategy--Protect
    the Homeland, Project Power and Win Decisively, and Build Security
    Globally. The inherent characteristics of the National Guard are
    foundational for its responsibilities to local, State, territorial, and
    Federal authorities. Its cost-effective citizen Airmen and Soldier
    construct, underpin the unique qualities the National Guard brings to
    the table with its Balanced Strategy--The First Choice for Homeland
    Operations, A Proven Choice for the Warfight, and An Enduring Choice
    for Security Cooperation.
                    the first choice for homeland operations
        The National Guard has always been the State and territorial
    Governors' first choice in disaster response. This is equally true of
    both the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. The Air
    National Guard's contribution is founded in its dual-use of airpower
    capabilities, for while Guard Airmen are quite capable of helping with
    such labor-intense tasks as filling sandbags, they are more likely to
    leverage the unique contributions of airpower and our Guard Airmen's
    extensive training for tasks such as airlifting essential supplies to
    the disaster area; setting up and operating emergency communications
    centers; transporting, erecting, and manning emergency medical
    facilities; or providing aircraft and/or satellite imagery and analysis
    essential for effective consequence management. The following are
    examples from last year:
          Boston Marathon Bombing (April 2013).--The Massachusetts Air
            National Guard transported, set up, and manned an emergency
            communications center, while Air Guard Security Forces cordoned
            the crime scene and assisted the Massachusetts Transit Police
            in securing subway stations with armed and professionally
            trained Guard Airmen from the local community. These Guard
            Airmen provided order and security to a chaotic event, freeing
            local authorities to concentrate on securing the area and
            finding the bombing suspects. Additionally, Air Guard Religious
            Support Teams provided counseling and comfort to both private
            citizens and first responders.
          California Wildfires (August 2013).--Air Guard C-130s specially
            modified with Modular Aerial Fire Fighting Systems dropped over
            211,000 gallons of fire suppressant, and the California Air
            National Guard's 234th Intelligence Squadron flew MQ-1 Predator
            remotely piloted aircraft over the fire area providing real-
            time, full-motion video and data analysis that was used to help
            direct and plan firefighting efforts.
          Southwest Border Operations.--The Arkansas Air National Guard's
            123rd Intelligence Squadron provided analysis of full-motion
            video from Air Guard RC-26 aircraft supporting U.S. Customs &
            Border Protection, Texas Rangers, and other civil authorities
            protecting our Southwest borders. This joint effort led to the
            seizure of over 53,000 lbs. of marijuana, 200+ lbs. of cocaine,
            and over 30,000 illegal individual border crossings.
          Eagle Vision.--Alabama, California, Hawaii, and South Carolina
            Air National Guard units collected and analyzed unclassified
            commercial satellite images providing near real-time assistance
            to emergency management agencies coordinating firefighting,
            flood, hurricane, tornado, and other relief efforts throughout
            the western U.S. and overseas including Typhoon Haiyan.
                        a proven choice for the warfight
        National Guard Airmen have participated in every American conflict
    since the Mexican border emergency of 1916, but when the Guard members
    of the Alabama Air National Guard's 117th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing
    volunteered in August 1990 to deploy to Bahrain in support of support
    Operation Desert Shield, little did they know they were on the vanguard
    of redefining the Air National Guard. Since then, the Air National
    Guard has evolved from a strategic reserve, called upon primarily
    during national emergencies, to an essential partner in the daily
    operations of the Total Air Force in all five core missions: Air and
    space superiority; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
    rapid global mobility; global strike, and command and control.
        Last year, over 39,895 Air National Guard men and women deployed to
    48 countries as part of the Total Air Force defense of U.S. national
    security interests. Additionally, Guard Airmen defended the skies over
    our homeland and supported their deployed brethren through U.S.-based
    ``reach-back'' capabilities including remotely piloted aircraft
    operations and intelligence analysis.
                  an enduring choice for security cooperation
        The men and women of our Air National Guard also contribute to the
    third pillar of the national defense strategy--Building Security
    Globally. Over the past 20 years, the National Guard has evolved into
    an in-demand, low cost, high impact security cooperation partner of
    choice for the Department of Defense with participation in such
    activities as the State Partnership Program, Foreign Military Sales
    training, and training exercises that assist in shaping our
    international environment and build partner capacity.
        State Partnership Program. The National Guard State Partnership
    Program is Department of Defense program executed at the State level
    using both Army and Air National Guard expertise. The program is based
    upon each Combatant Commanders' security cooperation objectives for the
    individual countries within their areas of responsibility. Today, 49
    States, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia are partnered with
    74 countries around the world. The specific objectives of each country
    program are a joint decision between the Combatant Commander, the
    partner nation, and the State National Guard; however, in general, the
    National Guard provides a consistent and enduring relationship with the
    partner nation, reinforcing deterrence, building capacity of U.S. and
    partner countries for internal and external defense, and strengthening
    cooperation between countries. The program partners engage in training,
    assessments, and exercises in a broad range of security cooperation
    activities to include host nation homeland defense, disaster response,
    crisis management, interagency cooperation, and border/port/airport
    security.
        The Soldiers and Airmen of the National Guard are uniquely
    qualified for this program for a number of reasons. First, because
    Guard members often spend their entire military careers in the same
    unit or State, they are able to build long-term personal relationships
    with their partner country counterparts and provide program continuity.
    Second, the civilian and military skills of our citizen Soldiers and
    Airmen afford training opportunities outside the usual military defense
    training. For example, Air Guard members are also experienced in air
    security, constabulary operations, crisis management, disaster
    response, and a myriad of other civil support missions. Finally, Guard
    members exemplify civil-military relations and the role of the military
    in a democracy. Our citizen Soldiers and Airmen offer strong examples
    of a co-dependent, supportive relationship between the Nation's
    political structures, civil society, and the military.
      --Last year Guard Airmen worked 7,054 man-days, on 42 partnership
            engagements, in 13 countries including Uganda, Morocco, Jordan,
            Poland, India, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Trinidad,
            Uruguay, Mexico, Honduras, and Colombia. Men and women of the
            Air National Guard helped our Allies and partners improve their
            flying skills, equipment maintenance, aerial port operations,
            imagery analysis, and search and rescue techniques.
      --The partnership between the State of South Dakota and Suriname,
            which began in 2006, is a great example of what our Air Guard
            men and women bring to the table in security cooperation. In
            2013, led by one of our outstanding Air Guard chief master
            sergeants, the South Dakota Army and Air National Guard women
            participated in a ``Women in the Military'' workshop with
            members of the Surinamese armed force. The goal was to promote
            awareness, equality, and future opportunities for women in the
            military. As the partnership moves forward, they are broadening
            and deepening leadership and development while bolstering new
            opportunities for training and learning.
        Foreign Military Training. In addition to the State Partnership
    Program, Air Guard members conduct flight training for foreign military
    aircrews through both formal schools at U.S. bases and Air Guard
    visits/exercises overseas. Guard Airmen trained 124 aircrew members
    last year from Lithuania, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, Iraq,
    Singapore, Denmark, Australia, Romania, India, Japan, Belgium, and
    Germany in C-130, F-16, and C-17 flight operations and maintenance.
                       sustaining the air national guard
        The men and women of our Air National Guard have accomplished great
    things since 1990 and Operation Desert Shield. Their transformation
    from a cold war-era surge force to a 21st century force capable of
    maintaining a long-term rotational combat operations tempo has been
    unprecedented and would not have been possible without the support of
    the Air Force and Congress. We must ensure this capability is not lost;
    that we do not condemn the next generation of Airmen to relearn the
    lessons of past post-war drawdowns. We must sustain the Air National
    Guard capabilities within the National Guard's Balanced Strategy
    through the dedicated efforts of each Guard Airmen in concert with the
    U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, and Congress.
                                   personnel
        Our Airmen are our most valuable and treasured assets upon which
    our success depends. Our Airmen, together with their families and
    employers, remain our first priority, especially in times of turmoil.
        Recruiting and Retention. Some predicted that the move from a
    strategic reserve to an operational reserve would adversely affect our
    ability to recruit and retain quality people; however, the Air National
    Guard exceeded its authorized fiscal year 2013 end-strength of 105,700
    by eight Airmen (105,708) through judicious personnel management. Last
    year, however, retention was disappointing as losses exceeded
    expectations by 15 percent (planned 9,072, actual 10,437). According to
    exit interviews, the greatest challenge to retention was not repeated
    mobilizations but mission turmoil, i.e., the uncertainty caused when a
    unit loses its mission without a clear plan for the future. We have
    found the most effective counter to this challenge is the personal
    touch--making a concerted effort to ensure every member of the Guard
    family knows that we appreciate and value their contributions, and that
    the Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force leadership are working
    together to backfill their unit with a new mission.
        To compensate for the unplanned increase in retirements and other
    departures, Air Guard Recruiters exceeded their recruiting goals by 4.5
    percent, including an increase of 8 percent of prior-service personnel.
    But, as we move forward, the Air National Guard faces both significant
    opportunities and some challenges with its recruiting program. The
    opportunities come from the drawdown of Regular Air Force and other
    Services' manpower. In fiscal year 2015, the Regular Air Force end-
    strength will decline by approximately 16,700 Airmen. The Air Force
    will rely on a bevy of force management programs that include
    incentivizing early departure from active duty and releasing AFROTC
    cadets from their commitments. The Air National Guard is working with
    the Air Force to capitalize on these programs for possible Air Guard
    accessions. The challenge for the Air National Guard is that it too
    will be reducing its end-strength to meet budget targets. If the Air
    Guard is to help the Nation sustain combat capability and retain access
    to the highly-trained personnel in which our Nation has made
    significant financial investment, the Air National Guard will need some
    flexibility in end-strength, at least temporarily.
        Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program (SAPR). Every sexual
    assault incident taints our Core Values and destroys unit morale--it
    must be eliminated. The Air National Guard's SAPR Program is composed
    of five parts: prevention, advocacy, investigation, accountability, and
    assessment.
      --Prevention.--Acknowledging the problem and educating everyone in
            the organization of the problem is the first step. In January
            2010, the Air Force launched an extensive education program to
            ensure every Airman understands the problem and knows what is
            expected of him or her as Air National Guard professionals.
      --Advocacy.--In January 2013, the Air National Guard implemented a
            Special Victim's Counsel Program. This Program provides advice
            to victims on the investigative and military justice processes,
            victims' rights protections, and empowers victims by removing
            barriers to their full participation in the military justice
            process.
      --Investigation.--The Air Force Office of Special Investigation
            (AFOSI) is charged with investigating all sexual assaults that
            occur in a Federal or Title 10 status regardless of the
            severity of the allegations. For incidents that occur in non-
            Federalized duty status, Air Guard commanders must report the
            assault to the local law enforcement agency. In addition, the
            National Guard has opened an Office of Complex Investigations
            composed of Guard members with previous criminal investigation
            training and special sexual assault investigation training, to
            step-in when local law enforcement agencies decline to
            investigate.
      --Accountability.--In July, the Air Force established minimum
            administrative discharge procedures for any Airman (officer or
            enlisted) who commits or attempts to commit a sexual assault or
            engages in an unprofessional relationship while serving in
            positions of special trust, e.g., recruiters, commanders, or
            training officers and non-commissioned officers.
      --Assessment.--The Department of Defense has established common
            metrics and reporting procedures to collect and track
            statistics on sexual assault. These tools will provide the
            feedback necessary for early identification of adverse trends
            and areas for additional action.
        Suicide Prevention. The Air National Guard continues to struggle
    with the tragedy of suicide within its ranks. In 2013, the Air Guard
    experienced 13 suicides, down from 22 in 2012, but still well above our
    ultimate goal of zero. There is tangible evidence that the addition of
    Wing Directors of Psychological Health in 2010 and implementation of
    the Air Force Suicide Prevention Program have had positive impacts;
    however, our team of medical personnel, chaplains, Airmen & Family
    Readiness Program Managers, safety personnel, Transition Assistance
    Advisors, and Military OneSource counselors, together with Air Guard
    supervisors and leaders at all levels, continue to address this
    important issue.
                      fiscal year 2015 president's budget
        Fiscal uncertainty is nothing new to the Air Guard, but this year,
    with the Budget Control Act, Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, and
    the Bipartisan Budget Act, it felt like we were stuck in ``stop-n-go''
    traffic. The resulting cash flow challenges, Government shutdown, and
    furloughs damaged morale and delayed Weapon System Sustainment
    programs, but the Air Guard was able to maintain its flying training
    schedule, meet operational commitments, and mitigate the impact upon
    its readiness.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget increases the number of Air
    National Guard F-16 fighter wings, adds eight KC-135 aerial refueling
    tanker aircraft, and eight C-130J tactical airlift aircraft to the Air
    Guard inventory. The budget proposal, however, reduces Air National
    Guard end strength by 400 personnel in 2015 and retires 27 F-15C
    Eagles, the entire fleet of A-10 Warthog fighter aircraft, and six E-8
    Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (J-STARS) aircraft.
    While the Bipartisan Budget Act provided welcomed relief, the steep
    glideslope of the defense budget combined with increasing personnel and
    equipment acquisition costs is forcing the U.S. Air Force to make very
    difficult tradeoffs between capability, capacity, and readiness.
        No one wants to give up aircraft or people, but in order to ensure
    we have the best Air Force ready to defend this Nation at home and
    abroad within fiscal constraints, tough choices must be made. The Air
    National Guard worked closely with the Air Force leadership to mitigate
    the impact upon our Guard Airmen and develop a budget that complies
    with the Bipartisan Budget Act, lays the ground work to restoring Air
    Force readiness while preparing to meet future national security
    challenges, and ensures the Air National Guard remains a combat ready
    operational force.
        Equipment. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James explained
    the Air Force strategy in building the fiscal year 2015 budget, ``we
    attempted to strike the delicate balance of a ready force today and a
    modern force tomorrow, while working to ensure the world's best Air
    Force is the most capable at the lowest possible cost to the
    taxpayer.'' The Air Force is sacrificing modernization of equipment
    (upgrading current equipment) and divesting older equipment to acquire
    the capabilities needed to defend against future challenges to U.S.
    national security interests. The ANG, as the operator of much of that
    older or legacy equipment, has a slightly different challenge: we must
    make sure the older equipment lasts long enough to be traded in; not
    only lasts, but is capable of successfully accomplishing the mission if
    called upon in the intervening years. The Air Guard is not looking to
    make a Cadillac out of our old Fords, but we simply want to make sure
    our old Fords are up to the tasks of responding to international and
    domestic emergencies. For example, there are currently 139 H-model C-
    130s in the ANG inventory that do not have the air traffic control
    systems required to operate in much of U.S. and European airspace by
    2020. If we do nothing, these aircraft will sit on the ramp,
    essentially useless, when there is an emergency requiring rapid
    airlift.
        Military Construction (MILCON) Projects. The Air National Guard
    budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 includes $94,600,000 for military
    construction projects. The Air Guard gave priority to MILCON projects
    supporting new missions and Air Force directed mission re-alignments;
    in fact, all the major MILCON projects in the fiscal year 2015 budget,
    $78.6 million, support new missions. While this policy has caused
    current missions to suffer, the Air Guard is working to address
    functional space deficiencies by consolidating functions and
    recapitalizing aging infrastructure, especially those with safety
    deficiencies.
        National Guard & Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). NGREA funding
    is supporting Air National Guard force structure management and
    domestic capability response. The program begins at the unit level as
    operators from each weapon system meet to identify weapon system
    requirements to improve the Air National Guard's capability to respond
    to Combatant Commanders' needs. The Air National Guard fiscal year 2014
    NGREA funding strategy directed 70 percent towards modernization
    projects on legacy major weapon systems and 30 percent towards
    improving domestic response capabilities.
    building tomorrow's air national guard--four pillars of the total force
        The U.S. is unique in its ability monitor world events and to shape
    those events through global power projection. This ability is dependent
    upon airpower and its inherent domains of air, space, and cyber.
    Whether showing resolve by flying through self-proclaimed controlled
    airspace, or supporting friends with reconnaissance and surveillance of
    potential enemy movements, or delivering critical relief supplies to
    disaster areas, our Nation requires an Air Force that is ready now to
    go anywhere and succeed at whatever is asked of it. We must ensure our
    Air Force does not fall victim to post-war apathy even as it struggles
    with the near-term challenges of sustaining readiness against declining
    budgets, weighed against the need to continually improve the
    capabilities to provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global
    Power. To face these challenges, I believe the Total Air Force must
    continue to invest and focus its efforts on what I refer to as the Four
    Pillars of the Total Force--Standards; Inspections; Operational
    Engagements; and Resources.
        The men and women of the Total Air Force must continue to maintain
    the highest personal and professional standards centered on our Core
    Values: Integrity First, Service Before Self; and Excellence In All We
    Do. Standards are not simply the rules by which we do our jobs, but how
    we act everyday--the pride with which we wear our uniforms, the way we
    treat others. The men and women in the U.S. armed services must be held
    to a higher standard than our fellow citizens because the trust our
    Nation places upon us is considerably greater. It is our duty to
    sustain that trust by maintaining higher personal and professional
    standards, on and off duty. Put simply: We must do the right thing all
    the time.
        Inspections, the second of Four Pillars of the Total Force, are
    critical to Total Air Force readiness. Inspections are designed to
    measure how well we perform our missions. They improve teamwork and
    unit cohesion. They allow us to measure ourselves and provide the
    feedback necessary for constant improvement. Inspections are also an
    opportunity to evaluate the rules, processes, and procedures we use to
    accomplish our missions. Finally, by ensuring all components of the
    Total Air Force use common language and procedures, inspections are the
    link between Standards and the third element of the four pillars:
    Operational Engagements.
        All three components of the Total Air Force must continue to
    participate in Operational Engagements, be they exercises, routine
    deployments, or crisis responses. Operational Engagements help us to
    ensure the three air components continue to operate as One Air Force--
    ensuring we all speak the same language, maintain the same standards,
    and operate with the same procedures. Total Air Force Operational
    Engagements alone are not enough; however, we must continue to hone our
    capabilities to operate with our sister services, allies, and friendly
    forces. Finally, ``Operational Engagements'' are a mindset. It is
    continuing to think as the warriors we have become. It is the
    realization that every time we go to work, we are preparing ourselves
    and our units to successfully answer our Nation's call.
        Resources, the fourth Pillar, are fundamental in everything we do.
    We must have the necessary Resources to succeed, be it funding,
    manpower, equipment, or spare parts. While others may be responsible
    for appropriating and allocating the necessary Resources for us to
    maintain Standards, conduct Inspections, and participate in Operational
    Engagements, it is every Airman's responsibility to ensure the
    Resources are used effectively and efficiently. Therefore, it is only
    proper that the Air Guard recapitalize on par with the Active Air
    Force.
                                   conclusion
        Managing a declining budget is one of the most challenging things
    the Department of Defense ever does. For the U.S. Air Force, it comes
    down to making difficult decisions between capability, capacity,
    readiness, and modernization. The Total Air Force decided to take
    increased risk in the near-term to ensure its future warfighting
    capability. It also decided to increase reliance on the Air Reserve
    Components by cutting their end-strength and force structure
    proportionally less than the reductions in the Active Component. These
    decisions, while agreed to, create challenges for the Air National
    Guard primarily in the area of near-term risk management. Because much
    of the older or legacy systems are operated by the Air Guard, we have
    the responsibility to ensure that the Total Air Force can meet today's
    defense commitments while waiting for tomorrow's capabilities.

        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        General Jackson.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES F. JACKSON,
                CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE
        General Jackson. Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran,
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for
    the opportunity to testify. I will do the same and keep my
    remarks very brief.
        Your Air Force Reserve is a combat-ready force stationed
    locally and serving globally in support of every combatant
    command in air, space, and cyberspace.
        One of the key strengths of our Air Force Reserve is the
    flexibility of your force. In my eyes, and we have heard this
    mentioned before, we are no longer a strategic Reserve; we are
    daily an operational Reserve. But instead of using those terms,
    I like to use operational capability that your Air Force
    Reserve brings to the Nation every day, the strategic depth,
    and the surge capacity, all three of those bins are how we
    provide our Nation's defense.
        We have wide-ranging operational capability in every
    combatant command. Today, over 4,000 Air Force Reserve members
    are doing exactly that. And, of course, we do it in every
    mission set. Global capability deployed at home, such as space,
    cyberspace, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance); not to mention support of homeland, with
    capabilities as aerial firefighting, aerial spray, and a shared
    mission with the Air National Guard in firefighting; and
    weather reconnaissance, known as the Hurricane Hunters.
        The strategic depth we provide is the 70,000 selected
    Reserve members that make up your Air Force Reserve, most of
    which, 75 percent of those are part time. This includes our
    individual reservists on all combatant commander tasks and
    major commands available for your leadership and support at
    every level of conflict.
        And then the surge capacity, which we saw during operations
    Tomodachi and Odyssey Dawn and other recent events, allow us to
    serve, train, and integrate every single day with the Active
    Duty, as General Clarke mentioned. And the majority of our
    reservists are alongside our Active Duty members since the
    preponderance of associations are within your Air Force
    Reserve.
        Integrating through association delivers significant
    taxpayer value both in cost savings and improved mission
    effectiveness.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Lastly, committee members, I would like to thank you for
    your support of the NGREA (National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriation). Without it, your continued support there, we
    cannot continue to transform the Air Force Reserve and
    modernize it, which is critical.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James F. Jackson
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you. I'm honored to represent
    America's Citizen Airmen as the Chief of the Air Force Reserve and
    Commander, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC). The Air Force Reserve is a
    combat-ready force, composed of more than 70,000 Citizen Airmen,
    stationed locally at over 60 locations throughout the United States and
    serving globally for every Combatant Command in air, space and
    cyberspace.
        Today's Air Force Reserve is a cost-efficient and mission-effective
    force, providing the Nation with operational capability, strategic
    depth and surge capacity, both overseas and here at home. The inherent
    flexibility of the Air Force Reserve is further enhanced by being an
    integrated Total Force partner in every Air Force core mission: Air and
    Space Superiority; Global Strike; Rapid Global Mobility; Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR); and Command and Control. By
    building upon over six decades of history, especially from the past two
    decades of sustained combat operations, the Air Force Reserve is
    incorporating the lessons learned from yesteryear to be ready for
    today's joint fight, while preparing for tomorrow's.
        In my statement, I will discuss today's Air Force Reserve and its
    direction for the future. However, first I would like to briefly
    revisit our history in order to address a recent report to the
    President and Congress by the National Commission on the Structure of
    the Air Force (NCSAF). Specifically, I wish to address the Commission's
    recommendation to ``disestablish Air Force Reserve Command'' and
    ``inactivate the Reserve Numbered Air Forces, wings, and squadrons.''
    \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. Report
    to the President and Congress of the United States. Washington, DC,
    January 30, 2014, 32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             historical perspective
        In recent history, after almost every major period of conflict, a
    defense budget drawdown has occurred. Many times, this coincided with a
    change to the Air Force Reserve to cost-effectively help preserve our
    Nation's combat capability. In each subsequent conflict, our Nation
    reaped the benefits of these thoughtful changes and deliberate
    investments in the Air Force Reserve.
        Following WWII, Government spending was cut from a high of 44
    percent of the Gross National Product in 1944 to less than 8 percent in
    1947. This historic shift marked a strategic turning point and led to
    the formal establishment of the Air Force Reserve in 1948 by President
    Harry Truman.\2\ Veterans had training and experience that could be
    captured and organized in a Reserve unit, for a relatively small cost,
    thus generating a greater return on taxpayer investment. Two years
    later, this investment paid off when 146,000 Air Force Reservists were
    called to duty in support of the Korean War.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Gerald T. Cantwell, Citizen Airman: A History of the Air Force
    Reserve, 1946-1994, (Air Force History and Museums Program, 1997), 67.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the Cold War, we witnessed the 1961 Berlin Crisis and the
    Cuban Missile Crisis during which President Kennedy mobilized the Air
    Force Reserve. Congress, recognizing the importance of Reserve
    contributions, passed the Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and
    Vitalization Act (Public Law 90-168), which established the Office of
    the Air Force Reserve in 1968, led by the Chief of the Air Force
    Reserve.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ibid, 238.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Air Force Reserve participated in the Vietnam War from January
    1965 when it extended transpacific missions for the Military Airlift
    Command through June 1975 when the Reserve flew thousands of sorties
    supporting the Indochina Refugee Airlift. The end of the Vietnam War
    resulted in the adoption of the Total Force concept, further validating
    the value of the Reserve Component. As then Secretary of Defense Melvin
    Laird recognized in the August 21, 1970 ``Support for Guard and Reserve
    Forces'' memorandum, ``Application of the [Total Force] concept will be
    geared to recognition that in many instances the lower peacetime
    sustaining costs of reserve force units, compared to similar active
    units, can result in a larger total force for a given budget or the
    same size force for a lesser budget.'' \4\ The Total Force concept
    further ensured the combat capacity required by our Nation.
        The 1990s marked another defense budget drawdown, and in
    conjunction, an increased operational tempo for the Air Force Reserve.
    Reserve forces deployed for the 1990 Gulf War, with more than 38,000
    Air Force Reservists serving. Recognizing the increased reliance on the
    Reserve Components, and the need to effectively organize, train and
    equip this critical force structure, Congress directed the Secretary of
    the Air Force to establish an Air Force Reserve Command with the 1997
    National Defense Authorization Act.
        Formalizing the functions to organize, train, equip, command and
    control under Air Force Reserve Command would pay off throughout the
    next decade. In the hours after the September 11, 2001 attack, the Air
    Force Reserve helped patrol the skies over America. In the opening
    hours of Operation Enduring Freedom, Air Force Reservists flew the
    first fixed-wing aircraft into Afghan airspace in direct support of
    special operations forces, demonstrating our high level of readiness
    and, once again, our ability to answer the Nation's call.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Ibid, 412 (Reprint in Appendix).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          national commission on the structure of the air force report
        This brief historical perspective is provided to demonstrate how,
    over time, Congress and the Nation's leadership have improved the Air
    Force Reserve's organizational structure, resulting in increased
    operational readiness levels of both our Citizen Airmen and equipment,
    such that today's Air Force Reserve is a cost-efficient and mission-
    effective force for our Nation. While the NCSAF report proposed
    numerous recommendations for the betterment of the Air Force, some of
    which were previously proposed and are currently being implemented, the
    notion of disestablishing Air Force Reserve Command and inactivating
    the Numbered Air Forces, wings and squadrons would, in my opinion, undo
    six decades of lessons learned and result in an unsustainable Air Force
    Reserve.
      today's air force reserve--operational capability, strategic depth,
                                 surge capacity
        A key strength of today's Air Force Reserve is the flexibility of
    the force, which in my eyes, is no longer defined as an ``operational''
    or ``strategic'' reserve, but instead by the operational capability,
    strategic depth and surge capacity we bring to the Nation. On any given
    day in 2013, approximately 5,000 Air Force Reservists were actively
    serving in support of deployments, contingency taskings, exercises and
    operational missions. For instance, this past year, the Air Force
    Reserve's Force Generation Center (FGC) successfully filled over 4,000
    Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) requirements, or approximately 8 percent
    of the Air Force's total forces supporting AEF missions, making AFRC
    the fourth largest Major Command contributor.
        The FGC is the ``one-stop shop'' offering access to Air Force
    Reserve forces to fill Combatant Commander requirements. The FGC
    executes requests for capability from force providers, monitors current
    Combatant Commander support, and tracks the individuals and units who
    volunteer or are mobilized. The FGC provides simplified and streamlined
    access to Title 10, Air Force Reserve forces and is foundational to the
    administrative control of the force.
    Operational Capability
        Over the past two decades, and especially since 9/11, the Air Force
    Reserve has served as a critical Total Force partner in delivering
    Global Vigilance, Global Reach and Global Power. The Air Force
    Reserve's wide-ranging operational capability serves the diverse needs
    of every Combatant Commander, whose requirements are as varied as the
    geographic and functional areas they support. We operate in an
    expansive environment including a global air domain, a vast space
    domain, and an ever-evolving cyberspace domain. In some cases, the Air
    Force Reserve provides our global capability while ``deployed at
    home,'' such as for space, cyberspace and ISR.
        Besides the Air Force Reserve's global responsibilities, we also
    routinely support the homeland with unique missions, such as 100
    percent of the Air Force's weather reconnaissance (better known as the
    ``Hurricane Hunters'') and aerial spray missions, along with a shared
    mission of aerial firefighting with the Air National Guard. Our
    relationship with other Federal agencies, including the National
    Weather Service and U.S. Forest Service, demonstrates how Federal
    military and civilian organizations can work together to support the
    entire Nation. Dual-use capabilities such as airlift, aeromedical
    evacuation and personnel recovery are especially valuable, both in-
    theater and for homeland support. Additionally, the new mobilization
    authority commonly known as ``12304a'' guarantees access to the Federal
    Reserve Component, which can be mobilized to respond to a national
    emergency or major disaster. Finally, the Air Force Reserve supports
    with volunteers first, not necessarily requiring mobilization, as we
    did for last year's Colorado wildfires when we demonstrated, once
    again, our Citizen Airmen continue to raise their hand and serve when
    the Nation calls.
        Below is a chart outlining the Air Force Reserve's support to all
    of the Air Force Core Functions, an indicator of how the Air Force
    values the taxpayer dollar, by putting a diverse portfolio of
    capability in the cost-efficient Air Force Reserve to take care of the
    Nation's needs.

            AIR FORCE RESERVE SUPPORT TO THE AIR FORCE CORE FUNCTIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Air Superiority & Global Precision Attack        Global Integrated
    --Air Superiority: F-22                     Intelligence, Surveillance &
    --Bomber: B-52                                      Reconnaissance
    --Close Air Support: A-10                   --Acquisition Intelligence
    --Precision Attack: F-16                    --Airborne Crypto-Linguist
                                                --Distributed Common Ground
                                                 System
                                                --HUMINT, SIGINT, GEOINT/
                                                 MASINT
                                                --Remotely Piloted Aircraft:
                                                 MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4
                                                --Targeting
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rapid Global Mobility                Agile Combat Support
    --Aeromedical Evacuation                    --Acquisitions, Contracting
    --Aerial Port                                & Finance
    --Aerial Firefighting: C-130H MAFFS         --Civil Engineering & RED
    --Aerial Spray: C-130H 2MASS                 HORSE
    --Air Refueling: KC-10, KC-135R             --Force Support
    --Contingency Response Mobile C2            --Law, Chaplain Corps &
    --Hurricane Hunters: WC-130J                 Historian
    --Operational Support Aircraft: C-40C       --Logistics, Fuels, &
    --Strategic Airlift: C-5, C-17A              Maintenance
    --Tactical Airlift: C-130H, C-130J          --Medical, Nursing & Dental
                                                --OSI & Security Forces
                                                --Public Affairs & Combat
                                                 Camera
                                                --Safety
                                                --Test & Evaluation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Special Operations                   Personnel Recovery
    --C-145A, U-28                              --HC-130N/P, HH-60G &
                                                 Guardian Angel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Space Superiority                 Cyberspace Superiority
    --GPS                                       --Cyberspace Command &
    --Joint Space Operations Center              Control
    --Missile Warning                           --Cyberspace Defense--Active
    --Space Control                              and Passive
    --Space Professional Education              --Cyber Protection Teams
    --Weather                                   --Extend the Net (Combat
                                                 Communications)
                                                --Information Network
                                                 Operations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nuclear Deterrence Operations             Command and Control
    --Air Refueling: KC-135R                    --Air & Space Operations
    --Bomber: B-52                               Center
                                                --AWACS: E-3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Education & Training                 Building Partnerships
    --Aeromedical Evacuation Training           --Combatant Commander Staffs
    --AF Academy Flying and Jump Programs       --Security Cooperation &
    --Basic Military Training                    Exercises
    --Flight Training: T-1, T-6, T-38, AT-38,   --Special Operations
     F-15E, F-16, A-10, B-52, C-5, C-17, C-
     130, KC-135, KC-10, MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4, C-
     145A
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Strategic Depth
        The Air Force Reserve's strategic depth is found in the more than
    70,000 who make up the Selected Reserve. Additionally, in a time of
    crisis, the President and Secretary of Defense have the ability to call
    upon an additional 790,000 Airmen from the Individual Ready Reserve,
    Standby Reserve, Retired Reserve and Retired Active Duty. Over 75
    percent of our Citizen Airmen serve part-time, making us an exceedingly
    cost-efficient force, even more so when factoring in the intrinsic
    value derived from the dual-experience gained from a civilian and
    military career.
        Additionally, approximately 10 percent of the Air Force Reserve
    serves as individual reservists throughout the Department of Defense.
    These Citizen Airmen serve on over 50 staffs, including the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Air Staff, Combatant
    Commands, Air Force Major Commands, and Intelligence and Defense
    Agencies. Integrating individual reservists throughout the DOD provides
    valuable experience and staff continuity. Collectively, the Citizen
    Airmen of the Air Force Reserve support the decisionmakers, joint
    warfighters and force providers at the tactical, operational and
    strategic levels of conflict.
    Surge Capacity
        The surge capacity of the Air Force Reserve is derived from our
    readiness, training and integration with the Active Duty. First, the
    Air Force Reserve is a Tier 1 ready force, capable of responding within
    72 hours to ``fight tonight.'' This is critical as speed is a decisive
    factor when crisis erupts. By maintaining daily operational readiness,
    and by training and being inspected to the same standard as the Active
    Duty, the Air Force Reserve can quickly respond to Combatant Commander
    requirements.
        The majority of Air Force Reservists serve alongside our Active
    Duty counterparts in association constructs. Approximately two-thirds
    of the Air Force's Total Force Integration (TFI) associations are with
    the Air Force Reserve, a relationship first forged in 1968, with the
    number of TFIs accelerating after the Base Closure and Realignment
    Commission of 2005. Associations between the Active Component and
    Reserve Component represent significant taxpayer value, both in cost
    savings and improved mission effectiveness, through the sharing of
    facilities, equipment and aircraft. Integrating with the Active Duty in
    this way yields numerous synergistic benefits and adds to the Air
    Force's strength, including an improved ability to respond with surge
    capacity at a moment's notice.
                          tomorrow's air force reserve
        The Air Force Reserve is an integral partner of our three-component
    Air Force, always evolving to provide our Nation the world's premier
    air, space and cyberspace force. To maintain our readiness and posture,
    the Air Force Reserve continues to transform itself in four key areas:
    Mission, manpower, modernization and military construction.
    Mission
        In 2013, the Air Force Reserve had several ``firsts,''
    demonstrating our support not only for today's joint fight, but how we
    continue to evolve for the joint fight of tomorrow.
        Warfighters around the globe are constantly in need of more
    intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support. This past year,
    the Air Force Reserve activated the 655th ISR Group at Wright-Patterson
    AFB, Ohio to support ever-evolving combatant commander requirements.
    The 655th ISR Group now has units covering the full spectrum of
    intelligence support, from tactical, full-motion video and signals
    intelligence exploitation to strategic, higher level analysis and
    reporting functions.
        Also in 2013, the Air Force Reserve helped establish the Air Force
    Special Operations Air Warfare Center at Hurlburt Field, Florida. This
    newly created center brings together more than 500 Active Duty and
    Reserve Airmen for the special operations mission. The synergistic
    benefit of this new organization will pay huge dividends for the Nation
    and serves as another valuable example of integrating the Total Force
    team.
        Another one of our successes last year involved the cyberspace
    mission area. The 960th Cyberspace Operations Group at Joint Base San
    Antonio-Lackland, Texas stood up as the ``center of gravity'' for
    cyberspace operations in the Air Force Reserve. Cyberspace is a manmade
    domain where the rules and technology continually change at a rapid
    pace. In this realm, our highly experienced Citizen Airmen leverage
    their civilian cyberspace knowledge and military experience to stay on
    the cutting edge.
        Finally, a significant milestone is the 307th Bomb Wing at
    Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, became the first Reserve unit in Air Force
    history to be nuclear certified, after they excelled during their
    initial nuclear surety inspection. Our Citizen Airmen, in close
    partnership with the Active Duty, demonstrated their expertise and
    strong Total Force experience in becoming qualified to perform the Air
    Force nuclear mission.
        These are just a few examples of what the Air Force Reserve
    provides our Nation every day. As the Air Force Reserve looks to the
    future, we are guided by our Strategic Planning Process, which is an
    in-depth analysis of missions to best support the Defense Strategic
    Guidance, as well as other planning and strategic guidance. In today's
    fiscal environment, there continues to be more Combatant Commander
    requirements than the Air Force can provide. Our Strategic Planning
    Process aids in determining the best missions to grow and where to
    divest, within our end strength. ``Top-tier'' missions for potential
    growth include rapidly evolving mission areas such as Space, Cyberspace
    and ISR, as well as more traditional mission sets including Rapid
    Global Mobility and Global Precision Attack. A significant part of our
    analysis also includes how to best leverage our core strengths,
    primarily that of our people.
    Manpower
        The Citizen Airmen of the Air Force Reserve are our greatest
    strength. Their Air Force ``service before self'' attitude is
    unwavering. More than three-fourths of our Citizen Airmen joined the
    Air Force Reserve since 9/11, demonstrating their desire to serve in
    today's fast-paced operational environment. Our average retention rate
    over the past 7 years is close to 90 percent. Approximately half of our
    Citizen Airmen served in the military prior to 9/11, most as Active
    Duty members, indicating not just their experience, but also their
    long-term commitment as ``Airmen for Life.''
        As we look to the future, the Air Force Reserve will strive to
    capture the experience and training costs incurred during a member's
    Active Duty service. Our ability to leverage civilian experience from a
    variety of career fields, from pilots and nurses to space and
    cyberspace professionals, also adds to the Air Force Reserve's
    intrinsic value. Retaining pilot experience remains a priority, but we
    must also remember the combat-tested warriors across many disciplines
    and career fields. Lower lifecycle costs further add to our value and
    are an important consideration when determining component end strength.
    With sufficient end strength, the Air Force Reserve can retain the
    years of experience and the Nation's investment in separating Active
    Duty Airmen.
        I wish to highlight to the subcommittee a manpower cost simulation
    tool called ICAM (Individual Cost Assessment Model) that is used to
    estimate burdened lifecycle and annual manpower cost for each component
    of the Air Force. The Air Force Reserve teamed with the Air National
    Guard and the Headquarters Air Force staff to develop this tool, which
    was formally adopted by the Air Force. Additionally, ICAM was
    highlighted in the NCSAF report for its ability to model ``individual
    Airmen over time along the myriad possible career paths beginning with
    accession and ending at separation from the Air Force (prior to earning
    retirement benefits) or death.'' ICAM's potential lies not in just its
    modeling capability, but in the ability to move toward a ``common
    ground'' on manpower costs, allowing for more focused effort on the
    subjective factors, such as capacity and capability, in determining the
    Air Force's future force structure.
        To best utilize our current manpower, Congressional authority to
    mobilize up to 60,000 members of the Reserve Components for preplanned
    and budgeted missions in support of Combatant Commands (known as
    12304b) will be an important factor in the future use of the Air Force
    Reserve. By utilizing 12304b authority and receiving adequate Military
    Personnel Appropriation (MPA or ``man-day'') funding, predictability
    can be increased for the Reserve Component, which is important for
    Combatant Commanders, Reservists, and their families and employers.
    This is why we would like to see a separate budget activity code or
    specific funding line in MPA for ``operational support by the Air
    Reserve Component'' as recommended by the NCSAF.
    Modernization
        Continually transforming the Reserve Component through
    modernization is critical to ensuring we are a mission-effective and
    combat-ready partner across the spectrum of conflict. The Air Force
    Reserve requires on-going equipment modernization and uses the National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) to maintain leading-
    edge combat capability on aging equipment. This appropriation enables
    modernization of critical equipment for our force.
        The current top Air Force Reserve procurement priorities are:
                1. Defensive Systems
        Air Force Reserve aircraft require self-protection suites that are
    effective against modern anti-aircraft systems. Large Aircraft Infrared
    Countermeasures (LAIRCM), Aircraft Defensive Systems (ADS) and Missile
    Warning Systems (MWS) greatly enhance protection and survivability
    rates for aircraft while conducting operations in high-threat areas.
                2. Data Link and Secure Communications (Battlefield
                        Situational Awareness)
        The information demands of modern warfare require a fully
    integrated data link network. A robust, persistent airborne gateway
    system and secure line-of-sight (SLOS)/beyond line-of-sight (BLOS)
    voice and data communications systems support that integrated data link
    requirement. NGREA funds are being used to install SLOS/BLOS
    communications in all Air Force Reserve combat-coded aircraft.
    Military Construction (MILCON)
        MILCON is also a critical component in the Air Force Reserve's
    ability to be combat ready for tomorrow's joint fight. The Air Force
    Reserve is a tenant at over 50 installations, where we maximize
    taxpayer value by sharing facilities whenever possible. Nevertheless,
    the Air Force Reserve is in need of MILCON to modernize and consolidate
    existing infrastructure, as well as accommodate growth into new mission
    areas. We currently face a validated $1.4 billion backlog of unfunded
    MILCON requirements. For fiscal year 2015, there are three Air Force
    Reserve MILCON projects:
      --AFRC Consolidated Mission Complex at Robins Air Force Base,
            Georgia.
      --Tanker Apron Expansion at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North
            Carolina.
      --Explosive Ordinance Disposal Training Facility at Naval Air Station
            Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas.
        The Air Force Reserve, like the Active Duty, is counterbalancing
    some risk in military construction through operation and maintenance
    facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization funding. We are
    recapitalizing aging facilities, promoting consolidation, and
    demolishing unnecessary, resource-draining facilities to make the best
    use of our facility footprint.
                    citizen airmen--our most valued resource
        The men and women of the Air Force Reserve are our most valued
    resource. Our Citizen Airmen have consistently demonstrated their
    commitment to answer our Nation's call. The Air Force Reserve remains
    committed to these dedicated Airmen, with a constant focus on their
    well-being and continued success.
        We ask America's Citizen Airmen to maintain a unique ``reserve-
    work-life balance'' between their Air Force duties, their civilian
    employer and their families. Maintaining this balance can sometimes be
    a challenge. Programs such as the Employer Support of the Guard and
    Reserve (ESGR) and ``Hero2Hired.jobs'' are critical in helping our
    Airmen deal with life-changing events such as deploying and
    transitioning to or from the civilian workforce.
        The importance of the Yellow Ribbon Program for our deploying
    members was demonstrated last fiscal year as 2,273 Air Force Reserve
    members attended 57 events, along with 3,685 family members. Our member
    satisfaction rate of 92 percent is a testament to the value of the
    Yellow Ribbon Program in supporting our Citizen Airmen, their families
    and employers throughout the deployment cycle. In 2013, the Air Force
    Reserve's Yellow Ribbon Program was the first to begin using a scanner
    system to track events and their attendees. Coupled with pre- and post-
    event surveys, this provides Yellow Ribbon administrators information
    to build more effective future events. The result is better programming
    for breakout sessions and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
        Additionally, the Air Force Reserve is leveraging today's
    technology to further support our reserve-work-life balance by offering
    the Wingman Toolkit, found at http://AFRC.WingmanToolkit.org/. The
    Wingman Toolkit is our online resource designed around comprehensive
    fitness and the four areas of physical, mental, spiritual and social
    wellbeing. Resources include articles, videos, website links,
    resiliency training, a mobile phone app, a sexual assault resource
    page, and a ``Get Help'' bell with the National Suicide Prevention
    Lifeline for those that may need immediate help. The Wingman Toolkit is
    one of many efforts to ensure our Citizen Airmen's comprehensive
    fitness, by building a strong Wingman culture of Airmen proactively
    taking care of themselves and each other.
        In addition to the Wingman Toolkit, the Air Force Reserve provides
    the Psychological Health Advocacy Program (PHAP) to aid Airmen and
    families. PHAP assists our members and their families by locating
    appropriate resources through free and confidential regional teams,
    available 24/7. Our Nurse Case Facilitators offer resource referrals
    for any life stressor, from family counseling and deployment support to
    suicide prevention and substance abuse. In fiscal year 2013, only the
    second year of the program, the cases increased by 91 percent to more
    than 1,100, and the number of mental health cases increased by 142
    percent to over 300. These increases are a result of more members
    taking advantage of this important service, which is making a direct
    impact on our member's lives. Our Citizen Airmen have come to
    appreciate the PHAP motto that ``you and your family are not alone.''
        Finally, a continual focus of the Air Force Reserve is to
    ``strengthen the team'' and give people the tools to succeed.
    Professional force development, in both officer and senior enlisted
    ranks, is vital to growing leaders for the Air Force and our Nation.
    The Air Force Reserve team is working diligently to increase
    opportunities and options for those seeking to be considered as
    potential senior leaders, while preserving the Citizen Airmen culture
    of being stationed locally and serving globally. This is another reason
    why, in my opinion, I disagree with the recommendation from the
    National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force report to
    disestablish Air Force Reserve Command and inactivate the Reserve
    Numbered Air Forces, wings, and squadrons. If enacted, the
    recommendation would eliminate leadership pathways to develop our
    Citizen Airmen, especially for our Air Reserve Technicians and
    Traditional Reservists.
                                   conclusion
        The Air Force Reserve is a proud and indispensable member of the
    three-component Air Force team, dedicated to mission accomplishment for
    Combatant Commanders and our Nation. I sincerely appreciate the
    enduring support of this subcommittee and all you do for America's
    Citizen Airmen. I look forward to working with each of you to ensure
    that your Air Force Reserve remains postured and ready to serve in
    today's and tomorrow's joint fight.

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, General.
        We will have 7-minute rounds, and I will start.
        Madam Secretary, it is no secret that we have had some
    differences with Russia in the last few months. Some have even
    suggested our relationship is getting colder. And yet in at
    least one important area, we are still dependent on Russia in
    terms of our American national defense, which might come as a
    surprise to many people. The United Launch Alliance (ULA) uses
    Russian-made RD-180 engines in its Atlas V Launch Vehicles. ULA
    has told this committee it has 2 years' worth of engines, so I
    shouldn't be concerned. But a recent article in Bloomberg
    magazine stated that Pentagon officials have asked the Air
    Force to review whether the use of Russian engines on rockets
    creates a national security risk.
        Another article in Aviation Week points out that U.S.
    coproduction of the RD-180 engine would cost $1 billion over 5
    years to accomplish. If we decided to produce this engine
    domestically, clearly, we have a big bill to pay.
        I would like to ask you what your take is on this potential
    challenge, something we need to at least look ahead and
    anticipate in the hopes it never happens.
        Ms. James. Mr. Chairman, my take is I, too, find it
    worrisome. I, too, have read these reports. I have talked to my
    own people just in the first couple of months here.
        We did, as you mentioned, initiate a review, which is due
    at the end of May, so it is a fairly quick review, to get to
    the bottom of some of these questions and, more importantly, to
    provide some answers that if we did have it shut off, what
    would it mean.
        Again, I, too, have heard 2 years of supply. I have learned
    spare parts are very important, so that is a question that the
    review is also going to look at: Do we have spare parts for the
    2 years?
        I will tell you that if anything would go wrong in the
    immediate future, we could also go to the Delta option, so we
    have that as a fallback in the immediate future. But I, too, am
    interested in what the domestic production would look like, and
    the costs. So we are studying it. We are studying it quickly.
    We hope to have some more answers shortly.
        Senator Durbin. Well, it is no secret that we have
    anticipated a competition, which will engage another company in
    this process. And I believe the President's budget diminishes
    that competition in years to come, which seems to be moving in
    the opposite direction, really putting most of our faith in the
    ULA project to continue despite the question mark about Russian
    sources.
        Ms. James. So here is the way I would describe the EELV
    (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program: It is comprised
    of, to use very simple language, heavy launches and lighter
    launches. So we want competition for all of the launches. And
    by 2017, under the process that has been laid out, we expect
    that we will have new entrants to compete for all of it.
        By the end of this year, we hope to have people qualified--
    other companies qualified--to compete for the light launches.
    So there are heavies, and there are lights.
        So what you are referring to is the fact that in terms of
    the light launches, some of those launches have gotten deferred
    beyond the 5-year plan. Why? The answer is: Those launches
    involve Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, and it
    turns out that the existing GPS satellites are lasting longer
    than we originally anticipated. Therefore, we don't need to
    launch them as quickly.
        Now with that said, we anticipate eight of these launches
    to occur over the 5-year period of the light ones, and seven of
    the eight will be competitive, assuming the new entrants
    qualify, and everything I am hearing tells me they will.
        Senator Durbin. General Welsh, I would like to ask you
    about two specific decisions that are part of this budget. The
    first decision calls on the Air Force Guard to give up the
    Apache helicopters, to transfer those to the Active Air Force.
        It is my understanding that the Air Force Guard has now
    taken those helicopters into combat and has combat-hardened
    crews that are currently serving and protecting our Nation. The
    future of those crews may be in jeopardy if we trade the Apache
    for the Black Hawk.
        I would like to ask you why, since it is only a small
    portion of the Apache helicopter fleet, you would want to
    eliminate the Air Guard commitment in that area?
        Secondly, I may have mentioned this to you, I think I did,
    reading an article when it came to an aircraft that you are
    familiar with, the Warthog, the A-10. It was a Harper's article
    that talked about actual battlefield decisions being made by A-
    10 pilots who were close in, viewing a potential target, and
    then transferred to a B-1 bomber at high altitude that made a
    different decision, which turned out to be a fatally wrong
    decision.
        So the notion of retiring the A-10 fleet, the Warthogs, at
    this point, I would like to ask you if you have taken into
    consideration the versatility and capability of that aircraft
    that might be sacrificed in this change.
        General Welsh. Thank you, Chairman.
        On the first issue, the Apaches are probably a better topic
    for General Grass to address.
        Senator Durbin. I said Air Force Guard. I am corrected. It
    is the Army Guard.
        General Welsh. But on the A-10 side of the house, the
    discussion for us, really, is about the mission of close air
    support, not specifically about platforms that fly it.
        We are making choices, as I mentioned in my brief opening
    comments, that are no fun for any of us. Everything is
    affecting capability now. We are going to affect our mission
    areas with any decision we make in this budget.
        The combatant commanders, the service chiefs, are all part
    of this conversation. The Air Force provides a series of things
    to a ground force commander and a combatant commander, not just
    close air support. And our attempt, in our recommendations in
    this budget, is to balance those mission areas.
        There are terrible stories about mistakes that are made in
    combat in every platform we fly, every one of them. The
    specific article you are referring to, sir, I would love to
    walk through the article with you. There are some things in
    there that I don't believe are completely factual, or there is
    more to the story that the reporter just didn't have access to.
    I would love to talk in detail about this topic with you and
    explain that analysis. For example, we looked at options on the
    operational side of divesting the A-10 fleet, divesting the B-1
    fleet, divesting X number of F-16s, probably 350 or so, to make
    the same amount of savings as the A-10 fleet. We looked at an
    option of divesting the F-15Es to a certain level to pay that
    same bill. We looked at the deferring more F-35s outside the
    FYDP (Future Years Defense Plan). We looked at grounding
    current squadrons and giving up readiness in order to pay the
    bill to keep the A-10 fleet active. So we looked at a number of
    different ways to create the $4 billion or so of savings in
    budget, and then we did a very detailed operational analysis
    against the standard DOD scenarios that we are required to
    prepare for. And the operational result was that the best
    operational military answer was to divest the A-10 fleet.
        I would love to have that discussion in detail. It is
    probably not the forum for it. But, sir, this is about much
    more than a particular airplane. The A-10 is a great airplane.
    We have many other airplanes that fly close air support (CAS)
    very, very well and have been doing it for a long time. This is
    a much broader discussion than that, because it is a balance,
    and what an Air Force brings to the theater.
        Senator Durbin. I look forward to that discussion.
        General Grass, if you could clarify, I made a mistake
    earlier, in reference to the Apache. But if you would clarify
    that?
        General Grass. Chairman Durbin, we have been working
    closely with the Army to try to find a solution. The Army has
    some major issues they have to deal with right now in rotary
    wing aircraft, both the training aircraft, as well as the scout
    vehicle.
        We agree with the Army divesting of those two platforms.
    What we are concerned about though is taking all of the Apaches
    from the Guard and putting them on Active Duty. We have units
    with thousands of flying hours in combat. We also provide an
    opportunity for Active pilots coming off to come into the Guard
    to maintain that capability.
        At the same time, our proposal would actually put some of
    our Apaches back into the Active side to pay part of the bill.
    So we have a proposal on the table we are waiting for a
    response to, to see if we can come up with a solution with the
    Army.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, General.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        My thanks to the panel for being here today to discuss the
    Air Force budget request.
        We are concerned about the situation in our State at
    Keesler Air Force Base, which is one of the sources of pride we
    have in our close connection with military training activities.
    Keesler is well-known throughout the Air Force and, certainly,
    throughout our State as a wonderful place to work and to live,
    to raise a family and to serve.
        We are concerned that we keep getting mixed signals about
    exactly what the budget request contains for funding of the
    training mission at Keesler, and any other needs for funding
    that exist and are not reflected in the submission to the
    committee.
        So I direct my question to Secretary James and General
    Jackson. I am concerned about the justifications that we find
    in the Total Air Force plan for 2015. Included in the proposal
    is an indication that there will be a relocation of 10 C-130Js
    from Keesler Air Force Base to some other location.
        It seems to be inconsistent with comments that we have had
    in the past. General Jackson, I appreciate your briefing us
    yesterday on your plan, but we haven't heard any real
    justification for this decision.
        And I would like to have some update from the panel, either
    in writing or later, or any comments that you care to make now,
    to clarify what the intentions are and what the budget request
    contains with respect to Keesler Air Force Base.
        Ms. James. So, Senator, maybe I could just begin and then
    General Jackson could provide some additional details.
        Senator Cochran. That is fine.
        Ms. James. From sort of the big picture perspective, as we
    put the budget together and we look at the strategy and we look
    at what the requirements are, we have too many C-130s in the
    inventory vis-a-vis the requirements. So that is kind of the
    big picture first point. So we are looking to reduce some C-
    130s, trying to keep the newer ones in the inventory, retire
    the older ones, and so things are moving around as a result.
        Now as to what is moving where and why, there is--where I
    think General Jackson would be better to answer that.
        Senator Cochran. Okay. General.
        General Jackson. Thank you, ma'am.
        Senator Cochran, thank you for the opportunity to comment
    on the C-130s. As we discussed yesterday, this is a
    comprehensive C-130 plan that we had to put together with the
    Air Force in concert with the Air National Guard and Active
    Duty on where we are going to put a C-130 fleet.
        The Air Force Reserve part of that discussion was to bring
    to the table the 11 locations that we currently operate C-130s
    and have the discussion on where we should try to consolidate
    to achieve the savings that we need to achieve for the Air
    Force.
        The Air Force Reserve has currently lost approximately from
    104 down to 66 C-130s, and we need to make sure those are
    located at exactly the locations where we can get the most
    benefit for the Air Force and the Total Force.
        Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas is the location that
    we have determined that would be a good place to go ahead and
    take and try to consolidate that C-130 schoolhouse, the two
    Active Duty squadrons, the Air Force Reserve squadron, and, of
    course, the C-130J and, of course, the C-130H schoolhouse at
    that location, because it allows us to provide backshop
    synergy. We have some manpower savings from that location,
    change also through reduction in North Carolina at Pope Field.
    And that is what we are seeking to achieve, is to go ahead and
    pay the bill that we need to pay when it comes to that
    airframe, sir.
        Senator Cochran. One of the missions of that facility is
    the so-called Hurricane Hunters. Who is going to end up being
    responsible for providing information to the people who live in
    the Gulf of Mexico area with respect to the hurricanes that
    sometimes come up through the gulf? And isn't Keesler located
    in ground zero and probably the best place to have vigilance
    missions flown from there rather than going inland some several
    hundred miles to Little Rock to get you out of the picture? You
    might be going to the coast and a hurricane will be over, and
    everybody has lost everything by the time the planes get to the
    gulf.
        What is your reaction to that? Does that make sense? It
    doesn't sound like it makes good sense to me.
        General Jackson. Senator, there is absolutely no intention
    of removing the 403rd Wing or the Hurricane Hunters mission
    from Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. As you are probably
    aware, we currently have 10 C-130Js that are part of the 403rd
    that do that mission and the other 10 C-130Js that the Air
    Force Reserve has assigned to them are the ones that we would
    be looking to move to Little Rock to achieve the synergy that
    we want to achieve, and the savings we would like to achieve.
        We have looked at it really hard to make sure that the
    403rd and Frank Amodeo, the wing commander, has everything he
    needs to continue to conduct that mission for the Nation. And I
    do not see any adverse impact to the mission at all.
        Senator Cochran. Very good. Thank you for that explanation.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Durbin. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman asked
    a couple questions I was thinking about, on the Apache and
    others, so I won't repeat that.
        But I think we all know we have to not only rethink our
    approach to security because of the changes in the world and
    our fiscal policy, but it is probably something that we should
    do all the time anyway.
        I remember 2 years ago when the Air Force proposed some
    changes that were found unacceptable to both parties here on
    the Hill. It turned into a real battle between the Active and
    Reserve components. Now 2 years later, the Air Force is a model
    for cooperation. General Welsh and Secretary James, I talked
    with both of you about this. And I just wanted to compliment
    you publicly for that. It is a great change in tone, and
    cooperation is so rare sometimes to see around here. I am
    delighted to see it.
        I know, General Grass, that the Army is going through some
    questions on that. I am sure Senator Graham and I will probably
    have further questions, because I am concerned that as we draw
    down dramatically our Guard and Reserves, that if we try to
    bring them back up because of an emergency, there is not going
    to be any there. If we are going to be able to do the kind of
    recruiting they need to do, I hope there will be an
    understanding that sometimes these cuts are pennywise and pound
    foolish. And I hope you would agree with me.
        I don't mean to put you on the spot. But I just want you to
    know how I feel about it.
        The Commission on the Structure of the Air Force showed the
    right destination for a Total Force and how we should get it
    done.
        Secretary, will you continue to make use of the expertise
    of the commissioners and their staff?
        Ms. James. So, Senator, I think they delivered just a fine,
    fine body of work overall, so I would like to just say that
    publicly. And I know many of the commissioners, and I am
    certain that we are going to continue to call upon their
    expertise in the future. And there is an awful lot about that
    report that we absolutely agree with. There are a couple points
    of disagreement, which we can talk about if you would like. But
    overall, it is an excellent report.
        Senator Leahy. I look at our Active association with our
    fighter wing in Vermont. Nobody would ever be parochial in
    their questions from this panel, so I will not break that. But
    I don't think it is as active as would be possible.
        I hear from Active pilots their concerns about careers
    after service with the National Guard, so we should look at
    increasing the number of airmen in Active associations and the
    incentives about serving a tour in a different component.
        Ms. James. So going forward, in perpetuity, I will say, we
    in the Air Force have what we call our Total Force Continuum
    teams. So this is a team of Active, Guard, and Reserve officers
    who are forever now going to be helping us move forward in
    terms of looking at: Can we rely more and more on the Guard and
    Reserve?
        And the area of association has been a great success story
    for us over all. I think we now have more than 100 different
    types of associations in the Air Force, and I think the key
    next step there is to capture the lessons learned from those
    associations. So as we take it forward in the future, we can
    apply those lessons learned and do an even better job of it.
        Senator Leahy. Well, as you work for Total Force
    integration, it means that you have to make some tough
    decisions, and I am confident that you will. But I would hope
    that as you go on some of those, and it is going back and
    forth, don't ever hesitate to call us up here on the Hill. You
    have a lot of people in both parties who care greatly about
    where we are not only today, but where we are going to be 10
    years from now. And you continuously have to plan for that 10
    years from now.
        If I have further questions, I will submit them for the
    record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Leahy and I will be getting back with the Active
    Duty and Guard to see if we can help you come together. And I
    would suggest you take us up on it.
        Now, General Welsh, if you took the United States out of
    NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), in terms of airlift
    capability for NATO troops, what would we have left?
        General Welsh. It would be dramatically reduced, sir, with
    limited capability in a few countries. And there is a
    consortium that does support NATO occasionally and the
    strategic airlift wing in Hungary, not just NATO countries,
    NATO----
        Senator Graham. Would you lose like 90 percent of the
    capability?
        General Welsh. Sir, I don't know the number. A lot of the
    capability.
        Senator Graham. Yes. A vast majority?
        General Welsh. In the strategic airlift, we would. In the
    tactical airlift with A-400 acquisition by a number of the
    countries, they are actually improving their capabilities. But
    it is a large number, Senator.
        Senator Graham. A large number. So the NATO countries
    outside the United States, are they ramping up their defense
    spending or not?
        General Welsh. No, sir, they are not.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So when you look out over the next 10
    years, would you say that our allies are going to be spending
    less money, not more, on defense?
        General Welsh. There are a lot of allies, sir.
        Senator Graham. NATO.
        General Welsh. I know the general trend is down in Europe.
    There are a few exceptions where percentage GDP (gross domestic
    product) on defense spending is actually going up, but there
    are a very few numbers of those countries.
        Senator Graham. How many countries in NATO spend more than
    2 percent of GDP on defense?
        General Welsh. The last I can accurately tell you is 18
    months ago was the last time I looked, and there were four.
        Senator Graham. Four. Okay.
        I just want the committee to know that we are entering into
    a world where we have less capable allies. I am sure it is
    budget-driven, too.
        Secretary James, Madam Secretary, I want to applaud you and
    General Welsh and the whole Air Force team for taking the
    sexual assault issue head on. And I understand that our pilot
    project in the Air Force is spreading to the other services,
    where a sexual assault victim would be assigned an individual
    judge advocate. Is that correct?
        Ms. James. That is correct.
        Senator Graham. Do you have the money you need in this
    budget to continue the progress you are making in terms of
    dealing with the sexual assault problem?
        Ms. James. I believe that we do, yes. And as you said, we
    are on it, and it requires constant vigilance and leadership,
    and we are committed to it.
        Senator Graham. To our Reserve components, at the height of
    the Afghan-Iraq conflict, what percentage of C-17s and C-130s
    missions were being flown by either Air Guard or Air
    reservists? Do you know?
        Let's start with the C-17.
        General Clarke. Sir, I don't have the numbers. I would have
    to get back to you with the actual numbers.
        [The information follows:]

        The Air Force Reserve deployed individuals to the Afghan-Iraq
    conflict 15,524 times in support of C-17 and C-130 operations,
    compiling a total of 713,855 Active Duty man-days served from 2003-
    2013.
        The Air Force has not calculated the specific percentage of C-17 or
    C-130 missions flown by Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve members
    at the height of the Afghan-Iraq conflict since no one central office
    tracks this data or adjudicates the credit for missions flown. The data
    requested is embedded in archived databases and requires a significant
    amount of time to recall, sort, filter, analyze and adjudicate to
    present in the format requested.
        In addition, for the United States Transportation Command missions,
    some sorties may have contained a crew complement of both Regular Air
    Force and Air Force Reserve aircrew members.

        General Jackson. Senator, I have to report back on the
    Reserve piece of that also. But I will tell you that progress
    is being made to actually capture all of that data.
        [The information follows:]

                                tactical airlift
        The Air Reserve Component as a whole flew the following during
    calendar year 2011:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Percentage
                                             -------------------------------
                                                Air Reserve     Active Duty
                                              Component flew       flew
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C-5.....................................              53              47
    C-17....................................              23              77
    C-130...................................              49              51
    KC-135..................................              53              47
    KC-10...................................              15              85
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General Jackson. One of the things we are doing is to do an
    electronic capability to look at every single member and each
    component to capture that data.
        Senator Graham. And the reason that is important, because I
    think it is over 50 percent, over half the aircrews during the
    height of the war were reservists and Guard members.
        General Welsh, does that sound about right?
        General Welsh. Senator, it does. Just from the perspective
    of well over 50 percent of our airlift fleet of C-130s are in
    the Reserve component.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Is there a statutory cap on how long
    you can bring somebody onto Active Duty? Is there a time limit?
        General Jackson. If I may, sir, currently, the 1,095
    limitation is if you have someone on Active Duty and MPA
    (military personnel appropriation) status, Reserve or Guard
    members, that is one of the first milestones, if you achieve
    that. Now we have the capability to go past that two other
    numbers, but there is a limitation as to how long you can keep
    a member on.
        Senator Graham. Is it 2 years?
        General Clarke. Yes, sir. It is 1,095 days consecutive that
    would be counted against you as a part of the end strength. But
    there are some places where you can change that number a little
    bit. But that is the basic number.
        Senator Graham. How many people crossed that number, but
    decided to serve anyway?
        General Clarke. Sir, I would have to get back to you with
    the numbers. I don't have those.
        [The information follows:]
                      statutory cap on active duty service
        From the beginning of October 2011 through the end of September
    2013, there were a total of 1,965 Air Force Reserve members who crossed
    the 1,095 day threshold and continued to serve in support of
    operational missions.
                      statutory cap on active duty service

              FISCAL YEAR 2008-2014 APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL STATISTICS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fiscal Year              Processed     Approved   Disapproved
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008.............................          186          181            5
    2009.............................          182          169           13
    2010.............................          385          354           31
    2011.............................           30           30            0
    2012.............................           25           23            2
    2013.............................           23           18            5
    2014.............................            4            2            2
                                      --------------------------------------
          Overall Totals.............          835          777           58
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Graham. It is a lot.
        So the point is, if they all decided that I am tired, I
    don't go back, I think we need to look at that, because if
    half, at least half, of the missions being flown are Guard and
    reservists, and you have a statutory limit on how long they can
    serve, we need to make sure--do you agree that could be a
    conflict?
        General Clarke. I can just tell you in my time in the Air
    Guard, it has changed quite a bit. In the Air Guard I joined,
    people built their Guard life basically around their civilian
    life. And I noticed over time that people have built their
    civilian life around their Guard life.
        Senator Graham. I think that is well-said. And that is a
    fundamental shift, and we need to address that and understand
    that this is a fundamental shift in the way people serve.
        Back to our favorite subject, the A-10, the idea of losing
    the A-10, General Grass, is that a good thing or bad thing from
    your point of view?
        General Grass. Senator, as a ground forces guy, it is bad.
    But General Welsh and I have worked through this and he has
    explained why and I totally support his answer.
        Senator Graham. And I understand, General Welsh, the
    dilemma you face. I mean, we created this problem, not you. You
    didn't pass sequestration; we did.
        I believe that what Senator Durbin was saying, that the A-
    10 is unique. The F-15 and F-16 are great airplanes, no doubt
    about that, but the ability to get back on the target is
    faster. The ability to survive in a close air support
    environment is at least equal if not superior. And it will be
    2021 before we have any large numbers of F-35s; is that
    correct, General Welsh?
        General Welsh. That is when a full operational capability
    is reached.
        Senator Graham. If everything goes well.
        General Welsh. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So for about $3.5 billion over the
    next 5 years, if we could find the money, you could afford to
    keep the A-10 on board; is that correct, if you have the money?
        General Welsh. Sir, this will probably inflame you a bit, I
    don't think that is the issue.
        Senator Graham. No, I understand.
        General Welsh. The issue is what Air Force do you want at
    the end of sequestration. Is it the Air Force you need against
    the threat and the scenarios at----
        Senator Graham. Are you retiring the A-10 because it is no
    longer relevant to the fight, or because of budget problems?
        General Welsh. No, sir. Because of budget problems,
    clearly.
        Senator Graham. All right.
        General Welsh. But we have other airplanes that can do
    close air support. There other things that if you give up those
    airplanes, you cannot do with an A-10. That is the balance that
    I am referring to.
        Senator Graham. I got it. But if you think that airplane is
    a good fit for the Army for the next few years to come, and the
    reason you are retiring the airplane is because of budget
    problems, what if we fix the budget problem? Would you keep the
    airplane?
        General Welsh. Sir, as I mentioned, I think it is a bigger
    issue. The pilots, for example, from the A-10, will help
    populate other systems like the emerging of F-35 squadrons. The
    maintenance folks from the----
        Senator Graham. But if you use the squadron, it doesn't
    exist. A-10s exist. F-35s are not around. So it is hard to
    deploy a squadron you don't have.
        The last question about space launch vehicles, the Evolved
    Expendable Launch Vehicle, the Air Force was directed to open
    that up to more competition. It is my understanding that in
    2015, the Air Force is not going to allow any competition. And
    between 2015 and 2017, instead of 14 launches subject to
    competition, you are going down to 7. Is that true, Secretary
    James?
        Ms. James. So the numbers that you quoted, Senator, in
    terms of the decrease, it is because those 14 launches now some
    of them are beyond the 5-year plan. So we are still projecting
    them, but we have pushed them out because it turns out those
    particular launches are for GPS satellites, and those
    satellites are lasting longer than anticipated, so we don't
    need to do those launches as early on as possible.
        Senator Graham. So I am confident that the Air Force is not
    reducing competition. We are just having fewer launches because
    of the lack of need; is that right?
        Ms. James. Absolutely not reducing competition. We are in
    favor of it. And the quicker----
        Senator Graham. Senator Durbin and I are going to make sure
    that withstands scrutiny, because that is the right answer.
        Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to take up where you left off on the United Launch
    Alliance.
        I was first visited by them on May 23, 2012, and they told
    me about the fact that two big American defense companies were
    going to come together, and instead of competing, that they
    could lower costs through this alliance.
        Well, it turned out that year, they couldn't. The cost went
    up 60 percent. At the end of that year, Frank Kendall wrote a
    memorandum, which I ask be included in the record, which
    essentially said that these launches would be competed. And
    since then, costs have continued to go up.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Feinstein. The GAO (Government Accountability
    Office) pointing out enormous cost increases, and the budget
    document points out how costs actually have increased. And I
    gather on a per core basis, the price has increased about $186
    million from 1 year to the next.
        Candidly, I find that unacceptable. If I understand what
    you told the committee through Senator Durbin's question, the
    Air Force was directed to compete up to 14 cores with an
    initial contract award as early as 2015. Today, you are saying
    that is eight.
        The thing of it is: You are still allowing 35 cores to ULA
    with only 8 competed. And so it seems to me that what Frank
    Kendall wanted, opening the program to competition, is really
    not happening. You are really reducing the ability for
    competition.
        And I recognize that outside companies may be looked at
    differently than two big huge defense companies, but the cost
    just continues to go up.
        So I have a very difficult time understanding the Air
    Force's resistance to say anticipated costs, which have gone
    up, we are going to really compete these cores and allow for
    free and open competition for just as many as people qualify
    for.
        Ms. James. So, if I may: First of all, I agree with
    everything you said in terms of the desire for competition. And
    I tell you that is absolutely what I want.
        Now, this particular contract I think that you are talking
    about, which was the so-called sole-source to ULA, which locks
    in, I believe it is 36 cores----
        Senator Feinstein. Rather than 35, okay.
        Ms. James. Or it might be 35. So let me come back on the
    record on that. But that is about the order of magnitude.
        [The information follows:]
                                  engine cores
        The Launch Vehicle Production Services contract with the United
    Launch Alliance is for 35 cores out of the 36 cores used in pricing the
    deal. The other core was procured in fiscal year 2012 using the
    previous contract.

        Ms. James. That was signed in December actually before I
    got there. But I am told that that particular contract locked
    in cost savings of $1.2 billion to the taxpayers, as compared
    to what the ``should cost'' analysis said.
        So in other words, your information is a little bit
    different from my information. It sounds to me like the costs
    are getting better.
        But with that said, there is no doubt in my mind that even
    the threat of competition probably helped those numbers come
    down.
        So the quicker we can get other companies qualified to
    compete, the better, as far as I am concerned.
        And again, by the end of 2014, I believe they will be
    qualified to compete for the lights. And by 2017, they will be
    able to compete for the heavies as well, which means the whole
    thing would be opened up to competition.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just quote a sentence from
    the GAO report of last week: ``The program is estimated to cost
    over $70 billion through 2030. EELV program officials are
    currently conducting activities to certify new launch providers
    and signed a contract modification to procure additional EELV
    launches.''
        Now, if those launches are almost 3-to-1 in cost to a
    competitor, why would this make sense?
        Ms. James. Well, I have to believe the $70 billion is their
    extrapolation taking the data of today and simply going to
    2030. And if we can't do better than that, then shame on us.
    And I am convinced that competition will help us as we move
    forward, and as we get these new competitors qualified to be
    part of that competition.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I have watched this now for some
    time. Six of us are sending a letter to the Secretary of
    Defense, and asking him to take a look at this program. I am
    very worried that the costs are not going to be lower in any
    way, shape, or form. Over time, of course, costs go up. But I
    am worried about the costs going up exponentially.
        And what this has said to me, that when you put two big
    defense contracts together, it is a problem. The costs don't
    drop.
        And, as you know, there was a huge upfront payment to them,
    as I understand it, as well. And so my view is that there
    should be full and free competition, and additionally, the main
    competitor, let's put it on the table, is SpaceX. It is all an
    American rocket. That has a great deal of attraction, I think,
    to the American people.
        If it can come in competitively, what this says about
    American ability is enormous.
        So to lock them out by reducing the number of launches that
    they can qualify for, which is my understanding of what has
    just been done, I don't think it is the right thing.
        Ms. James. And I totally agree with you on competition, and
    that is absolutely the way I want to move as well. And I am
    going to be pressing for that.
        The launches that are reduced, they are not reduced in the
    absolute. They are just delayed, and the reason for that delay
    was because we don't need them as quickly because the existing
    satellites are lasting longer. It had nothing to do with
    locking someone out of competition. That is the absolute last
    thing that it related to.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, when will the first competitive
    launches begin? And how many launches, for the record, will be
    competitive at that time?
        Ms. James. So may I come back to you on the record for
    that? But my understanding is, in terms of the overall numbers,
    there are eight in that light category over the next 5 years;
    seven of those eight will be competitive.
        Senator Feinstein. Beginning when?
        Ms. James. That is what I need to come back to you on,
    please.
        [The information follows:]
                              competitive launches
        Seven of the eight light missions will be competed in the next 3
    years beginning in fiscal year 2015. One competitive launch service
    opportunity will be procured in fiscal year 2015 for launch in 2017,
    assuming that the SpaceX Falcon 9 v 1.1 is certified before the planned
    award of National Reconnaissance Office Launch-79 in December 2014.
    There are six more competitive launch opportunities spread across
    fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Durbin. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to all of you.
        General Welsh, I want to give a special thank you for your
    leadership and decision as it related to the F-16 Aggressor
    Squadron there at Eielson. I think I speak for the entire
    Alaska community in thanking you for that decision.
        I want to address my comments this morning to you, though,
    as it relates to the F-35s and basing in the Pacific. It is my
    understanding that PACAF is going to be the second operational
    location for the F-35s.
        I, certainly, see that benefit. We have had this
    conversation before. But I would like you to just briefly
    explain to the subcommittee why it is so important to expedite
    placement of this fifth-generation fighter into the Pacific.
        And then if you can also address this concern: We were told
    at the briefing, the USG staff briefing, that if sequestration
    funding levels continue, we might see the F-35 buys reduced by
    17 aircraft. What, if anything, would that do to the Air Force
    basing strategy in the Pacific?
        General Welsh. Senator, the importance of the F-35 in both
    the Pacific and European theaters, number one, we have partners
    in both theaters who are going to buy airplane as well, and
    being able to work and train with them side-by-side develops
    greater coalition warfighting capabilities for the future, so
    that the U.S. doesn't have to do as much on their own. We can
    get support from partners in contingency operations in the
    future.
        It also promotes other kinds of understanding and
    cooperation between nations.
        The F-35's technical and warfighting abilities are also
    very well-suited for a very highly technical threat in that
    part of the world, and it will be important for us to train in
    that environment.
        The actual basing process, this summer, we should announce
    the preferred and alternative choices for the Pacific beddown.
    As you know, the site surveys are ongoing now for the bases
    that were nominated by the Pacific air forces to be included
    for the Pacific beddown. And so we should have the next
    decision point this summer.
        Senator Murkowski. And, of course, you know that I will
    continue to maintain that when we are talking about the
    proximity to the Pacific theater, the polar considerations,
    that Alaska and particularly Eielson is the ideal location for
    the F-35s there when it comes to the PACAF basing. So we will
    await the outcome of the site surveys the summer.
        General Grass, I wanted to ask you, again, some sensitive
    issues as it relates to sexual misconduct and allegations
    involving our Alaska National Guard.
        Last week, our Governor asked the National Guard Bureau to
    initiate an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations.
    Unfortunately, this isn't new. This was revealed in our State's
    largest newspaper last fall. I spoke about this on the Senate
    floor. These were, in fact, the same allegations that my office
    forwarded to the Department of Defense Inspector General on
    June 19 of last year.
        This, of course, is a great concern. The issues that we
    have been debating here in the United States Senate is to the
    process and how we move forward with the chain of command.
        From Alaska's perspective, and what we have seen and the
    failure to find closure with respect to these allegations,
    really leaves a cloud out there. The question to you this
    morning is whether or not the National Guard Bureau is
    coordinating its investigation with others who may also be
    conducting investigations at this time? What is the status of
    these investigations? When will we know something? And will the
    outcomes be transparent, because I think that is absolutely
    critical along the way?
        General Grass. Yes, Senator. About 2 years ago, we stood up
    an office of complex investigations with trained investigators,
    trained out of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. And what we have
    done at request from the State is sent up an investigation team
    about 3 weeks ago. That was the first visit.
        We are looking at a broad brush of complaints, and we will
    do the analysis. I am free to come and brief you in more detail
    on where we are in that and how much time it might take.
        Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. But I would
    also like assurance that when the investigation is concluded,
    that there again be a level of transparency with reports with
    the outcomes.
        General Grass. Yes, ma'am. And the reason we did stand up
    the office of complex investigation was exactly for that
    reason, that we could bring someone from the outside the State
    and provide a report back to the Governor.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Secretary James, in your opening remarks, you confirmed
    that a return to sequestration in fiscal year 2016 could
    potentially kill the Combat Rescue Helicopter.
        As you know, in Alaska, we have amazing men and women
    within our Air National Guard Rescue Squadrons. They do some
    amazing rescues in some pretty incredible places. Last year
    alone, they saved 101 lives; over 2,000 lives saved since 1991.
    What they do is, again, just amazing.
        But in order to do amazing things, they need to have
    equipment. They need to have helicopters that are state-of-the-
    art.
        We are told through our adjutant general, he says that the
    HH-60s with all the punishment that it takes up North and on
    the battlefields, he figures they have about 3 years left in
    them. And they are stretching this even with great maintenance
    and all that they do. But the mission capable rate is falling.
        So with the decision to move forward with the Combat Rescue
    Helicopter, know how much I support this and think that this is
    the right step. I think it is great that the Air Force is
    moving forward with the program, but you have this gap in
    funding across the Future Years Defense Plan. Assuming that we
    can fix the burden of sequestration, what are your plans to
    cover this gap and ensure the program remains on track going
    forward?
        Ms. James. So we estimate that we will need to shift about
    $430 million or so within the 5-year defense plan. So we are
    talking about options for doing just that.
        Of course, there are monies beyond the 5-year defense plan
    that will also be coming due eventually, but what we need to do
    is figure out in the fairly near term that $430 million bill.
        And if I could just say, I agree with everything you just
    said about the Combat Rescue Helicopter. And to me, having to
    reopen that and all of these other decisions that we would have
    to be faced with, if we return to sequestration levels, would
    just be really bad. And I really, really hope that we don't
    come to that.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we need to work with you, of
    course, on that.
        But what I am hearing you say, though, is that you are
    preparing as to how you would address this gap if we are able
    to address the sequestration issue.
        Ms. James. Yes. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    your leadership on this.
        General Welsh, let me start with you and say thank you for
    coming to Fort Smith, Arkansas, whenever that was, to look at
    the 188th down there and the A-10 situation. We appreciate your
    efforts on that.
        And just as a refresher, the A-10s--the last two A-10s--we
    think, will leave around June 2014, and the MQ-9 doesn't hit
    that fully operational capability status until sometime in
    fiscal year 2020. So that is a pretty big gap there. And, of
    course, I have some concerns there about personnel and what the
    folks in Fort Smith and the 188th will be doing in the interim.
        Can you walk me through that gap and tell me about
    personnel and just the capabilities they have there, during
    that gap period?
        General Welsh. Senator, as you know, we delayed the
    departure of the A-10s to make it a little slower departure and
    transition for the unit. We built the timeline based on that
    desire. And so we do have crews that have already gone through
    some of initial training in the new platform.
        They are actually operating on a TDY basis with other
    units, so they are building their experience level. We
    anticipate these folks will be the instructor cadre at Fort
    Smith as we do the full transition.
        It will take a couple years to go from initial operating
    ability to full operating capability as hardware, software, and
    people are trained and arrive.
        But the game plan right now, as far as I know it--I will
    check with General Clarke here to confirm it--is on track. It
    is on the schedule we built a year ago and ran by you.
        Senator Pryor. Great. I know that in the fiscal year 2014
    defense appropriations bill, we had some report language about
    beginning the RSO training and whatnot in that 2014 timeframe.
    Just a quick status report on that, are you happy with where
    that is? Do you think that is progressing as it should be?
        General Welsh. Senator, let me defer briefly to General
    Clarke on the specifics, but, yes, I got that we are on track.
        Senator Pryor. Great. General Clarke.
        General Clarke. Yes, Senator, Arkansas guardsmen are
    remarkably resilient going through this mission change, and
    that takes really good leadership to make sure that happens,
    giving the people a picture of what the future looks like and
    where they are going, and they are doing a good job of that.
        All of the different parts that you are talking about, what
    is key to that is that they get the appropriate training and
    opportunity to do the tech schools, and a little bit of
    flexibility built into the system to ensure that when they hit
    the ground, they hit the ground running.
        That is one thing we do in Air National Guard very well.
    When we are given a new mission, we take it on with a lot of
    gusto and we do a great job of picking it up. And I know the
    Arkansas Guardsmen will do the same thing.
        Senator Pryor. I think ``resilient'' is a good word,
    because they just went through that F-16 to A-10 transition,
    and now they are going from A-10 to the RSO transition. So I
    think they are very resilient. And they have a lot of pride
    about what they do down there.
        General Clarke. Yes, sir.
        Senator Pryor. So that whole community is very, very
    committed to making sure this gets done. And it is something
    they are very proud of.
        Now, one other question, and I don't know General Clarke,
    if you are the best one, or General Welsh, I am not quite sure.
    But just one of the local matters we have there with losing the
    A-10s is our crash and rescue there at the airport. It is the
    Fort Smith Municipal Airport.
        Now, that may be a little bit below your pay grade, but it
    is not below my pay grade to worry about things like that.
        So do we know when we might anticipate that those funds, if
    they do dry up, when they might dry up for the crash and
    rescue? Do we know that?
        General Clarke. Sir, typically, after the mission goes
    away, where it requires the crash and rescue personnel, there
    is a transition period built in there. And whenever that date
    is set, we will give them an opportunity to transition.
        Our concern remains that for years we provided that
    capability there for the local airport. It is one of our great
    partnerships that we have around all of the communities that we
    serve. What we hope is that there is a good transition. And
    oftentimes, we find the equipment to allow the locals to
    transfer the equipment, if you will, for them to use and
    continue to sustain that, but they use different personnel,
    obviously, to do that mission.
        Senator Pryor. Yes, I would like to work with you on that.
    So we will circle back around after this to talk through some
    of that. So thank you for that. We will see if we can find the
    best landing spot for everybody there.
        And let me also, General Welsh, while I have you here, let
    me change gears and talk about the Little Rock Air Force Base.
    I know that Senator Cochran a few moments ago made a mention of
    the C-130s down in Mississippi, and some of the J models are
    coming to Little Rock. Certainly, we are proud of that. But we
    are also losing some H models.
        Let me just say this while I am thinking about it. The
    leadership at Little Rock Air Force Base is top notch. They are
    great. There are a number of folks there who are in leadership
    positions. I was with Colonel Brewer this weekend and I mean,
    just really just top-notch, well-motivated. Everybody on that
    base is really great. And again, the whole community supports
    that.
        But let me ask about that sort of change there, where we
    are getting 10 new C-130Js. We are losing, I believe, it is 12
    C-130Hs. I know there is always going to be some change and
    transition there.
        My understanding is we are losing some personnel there as
    part of this. Do you have a sense of what those numbers are and
    what that timetable is like?
        General Welsh. Sir, we can get you the exact numbers of
    people who are affected by this. It is not a very large number.
    JJ will probably know in the Reserve unit because he was
    looking at this yesterday, so let me let him answer that.
        General Jackson. Thank you, Chief.
        Senator Pryor, it is approximately 60 positions, most of
    those are part-time positions. Sixty positions total at Little
    Rock from the Air Force Reserve footprint that we currently
    have there, as Archie Frye, Colonel Frye, transitions from the
    Field Training Unit (FTU) into the combat-coded
    responsibilities there.
        Senator Pryor. So does that mean that all the loss will be
    in the Reserve component? Or will there be some Active Duty
    loss?
        General Jackson. Well, sir, currently, we are taking 60 out
    of the Air Force Reserve component. We are working with the
    Active Duty side, because that association is outstanding, like
    you mentioned.
        We have an Active association that is tied to that Active
    Air Force Reserve unit equipped squadron and group there. So as
    we work through that part of that, we are looking for the
    synergy to find where we can go ahead and take the backshop and
    whether it has to be a full-time or can be a part-time type of
    situation, and how we integrate every level of that, so we are
    still working through that.
        Sir, I will have to get you any answer on the Active Duty
    manpower numbers.
        [The information follows:]
                              competitive launches
        The Active Component at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas will reduce by
    -70 positions as the Active Association converts to C-130Js.

        Senator Pryor. That would be great.
        General Welsh. Senator, I would offer that Little Rock is
    the home of tactical airlift for us. It is one of the gems of
    the United States Air Force.
        What we are trying to do is make it more efficient, in ways
    that we can, not figure out how to get rid of anything in
    Little Rock.
        Senator Pryor. No, I recognize that, and I recognize your
    commitment to Little Rock Air Force Base and the important role
    it plays for you. So don't take that as a complaint.
        But, of course, the community reaches out to me and says
    what should we expect here? What is this we hear? Those types
    of things. So I thought I would ask you about that directly.
    And again, we will follow up afterward.
        But again, thank you for all of your service to this great
    country and just thank you for what you do. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Pryor.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Thank you to the panel, Secretary James, and the general
    officers who have joined us today. We will have some questions
    in writing, which I know you are really familiar with, in the
    hopes that you can respond on a timely basis. We will add those
    to the record.
        [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. Deborah Lee James
                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
             national commission on the structure of the air force
        Question. Secretary James, will you provide a list of the
    recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air
    Force that you have already implemented or are planning to implement,
    and how you have or will do so? Will you also provide a list of other
    initiatives you have already implemented or are planning to implement
    to pursue Total Force Integration?
        Answer. The Air Force believes the Total Force cannot succeed
    without all three components--the Active, Guard and Reserve--each
    providing its unique value to the Nation. Each component is equally
    represented within the Total Force--Continuum (TF-C) working group, in
    its efforts to address two lines of effort (LOE) initially established
    by the Total Force Task Force (TF2). Through these LOEs the TF-C will
    strive to develop recommendations that maximize the contributions of
    the Total Force, eliminate cultural and organizational barriers to
    effectiveness, and provide cost-savings opportunities that minimizing
    risk to Air Force capability.
        The TF-C identified 10 National Commission on the Structure of the
    Air Force (NCSAF) recommendations as initiatives currently being
    implemented, or planned for implementation. These recommendations are:
        1-Cost Approach (DOD tasking).--The Department of Defense (DOD)
    should formally adopt the ``fully burdened cost'' approach to
    calculating military personnel costs, and it should apply analytic
    methods that focus on appropriate outputs along with life-cycle costs.
        6-Staff Integration.--The Air Force should integrate the existing
    staffs of Headquarters Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air
    National Guard.
        8-Full-Time and Part-Time mix.--The combination of full-time and
    part-time positions should be determined for each unit depending on
    weapon system requirements, deployment, and rotation schedule based on
    optimum matching of the needs of the Air Force, family, and employers.
        18-TF Competency Standards.--Commander, Air Education and Training
    Command (AETC) in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Air
    Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and AF/A1, should develop a
    Total Force competency standard for officers, non-commissioned
    officers, and enlisted Airmen across all specialties and career fields
    before the end of fiscal year 2016.
        19-Access to Non-Residence Education.--Commander, AETC should
    ensure that revised curriculum and competency standards are achievable
    by appropriately structured non-resident education programs equally
    accessible to personnel of all components.
        23-Non-Disclosure Agreements.--The Secretary of the Air Force
    should discontinue use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in the corporate
    process.
        34-Integrated Personnel Management.--The Air Force should unify
    personnel management for all three components under a single integrated
    organization (A1) in the Headquarters Air Staff.
        35-Integrated Pay/Personnel.--The Air Force should accelerate the
    development of an Integrated Pay and Personnel System.
        39-Continuum of Service.--Implement a pilot project of Continuum of
    Service that demonstrates the ability of an Airman to transition more
    seamlessly among the three components.
        40-Active Duty Service Commitment.--The Air Force should revise the
    rules for current Active Duty Service Commitments to enable members to
    meet the commitment in some combination of Active, Reserve, and Guard
    service.
        The Air Force is committed to a comprehensive assessment of NCSAF
    recommendations, sensible application where it makes sense, and
    enduring focus on leveraging the Total Force.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
             national commission on the structure of the air force
        Question. As I reviewed the report and recommendations of the
    National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, I was struck by
    the Commission's thoughts on the proper balance of force and
    capabilities between the active and reserve components. While I
    understand that their end strength recommendations came too late for
    the Air Force to review before it submitted its budget, I was struck by
    how the Air Force could maintain its overall end strength, overall
    capabilities, and its strategic depth, as well as save the taxpayer
    money by shifting more personnel and capabilities into the reserve
    components.
        As the Air Force is reviewing its force balance in light of new
    missions, new priorities, new strategies, and new budget constraints,
    has the Air Force studied and examined ways in which it could implement
    a major rebalancing of its force? If so, how did the Air Force's
    findings concur with or differ from the Commission's recommendations?
        Answer. The Air Force is undertaking a comprehensive review of
    every mission area to determine the optimum Active and Reserve
    Component balance. The foundational data and analytical approach
    applied is highly consistent with what was used by the National
    Commission on the Structure of the Air Force (NCSAF). We strengthen
    this analysis with a recently developed High Velocity Analysis model
    that uses more highly refined data and analysis to arrive at a more
    precise Active/Reserve Component mix recommendation. This enhanced
    precision comes through modeling that better accounts for rotational
    and non-rotational force analyses and the impacts of Active/Reserve
    component rebalancing choices on defense planning scenarios that
    include homeland defense requirements; our initial assessment of all 42
    NCSAF recommendations is highly positive. We expect to have 80 percent
    of the force assessed using the High Velocity Analysis model in time to
    deliver the fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request.
                            air logistics complexes
        Question. As you know, the commercial aircraft industry has
    developed and deployed a variety of new alloys, components, and
    manufacturing processes in recent years that enable the fabrication of
    components and subsystems providing equal or superior performance, with
    dramatically increased reliability, at reduced cost. I was pleased to
    learn that the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Air Force Life
    Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), and private sector industry are
    working closely to develop and certify component parts for legacy
    aircraft, including the KC-135, C-130, B-52, F-15, and C-5 aircraft.
    These initiatives combine private sector research and development with
    commercial materials and manufacturing processes to offer low-risk,
    low-cost methods to address the need for parts that are no longer in
    production. This type of partnership appears to offer a potential
    framework that could in the future be scaled up to support Air Force
    life cycle weapons systems management, depot maintenance, and supply
    chain management objectives.
        Could you provide the subcommittee with an update on these
    collaborations between the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Air
    Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), and the private sector,
    along with the Air Force's plans to implement resulting component
    solutions at the Air Logistics Centers in order to address these
    readiness and sustainment challenges?
        Answer. This response provides an update on these collaborations
    between the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Air Force Life Cycle
    Management Center (AFLCMC), and the private sector, along with the Air
    Force's plans to implement resulting component solutions at the Air
    Logistics Centers in order to address these readiness and sustainment
    challenges. The Air Force initiated an HH-60 pilot program utilizing
    fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 332
    authority. This act authorized appropriations and expenditures for the
    Air Force to utilize working capital funds for product improvement
    covered by a pilot program. Partnering with the Army and Goodrich
    Corporation, the Air Force introduced a joint program to expand the HH-
    60 integrated vehicle health management system. We are striving towards
    full implementation with expectations of improvements in system
    maintenance, reliability, and safety. Further, we are identifying
    additional weapon system sustainment technology needs which fall within
    fiscal year 2013 NDAA criteria such as cadmium and other corrosion
    prevention coatings for the A-10. As we continue to work such
    initiatives, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) will be equipped to
    identify and recommend further changes to enable even greater
    efficiencies for weapon systems support.
        Additionally, AFRL and Alcoa have collaborated through the Legacy
    Aircraft Structures Modernization Opportunity (LASMO) Program providing
    support to several depot-maintained weapon systems. As a result of the
    collaborative effort, the C-5, C-130, F-15, KC-135 and B-52 program
    offices identified and provided prioritized lists of problematic
    aluminum parts. From those efforts, LASMO-developed technology is now
    incorporated into the C-5 and KC-135 with on-going evaluations underway
    for the C-130 and other remaining platforms. Our successful KC-135
    implementation approved multiple stringers, spar chords and wing skins
    for production using commercially available modern alloys with superior
    mechanical and corrosion performance. Also, our successful C-5
    implementation approved the C-5 Batman fitting which is now
    incorporated into the C-5 program, and likewise benefits from superior
    material performance.
        The Aerospace Systems Directorate (AFRL/RQ) via LASMO has
    identified numerous technology options for our weapon systems and
    provided material substitution analysis for priority implementation.
    The technology developed under LASMO is commercialized and readily
    available, enhancing the aluminum material options for future
    investment and contract opportunities.
        The AFSC also works closely with AFLCMC, AFRL, and industry to
    employ new techniques and technologies as the cutting edge of
    manufacturing evolves. AFSC has initiated, within the Air Logistics
    Centers, industry partnerships for rapid incorporation of repair
    technologies. One such partnership will enable us to repair component
    cases and housings utilizing proven additive repair technology.
    Additionally, 3-D printing technology is being employed to support cost
    effective rapid manufacture of maintenance tooling and fixtures. Within
    the supply chain, efforts are underway to qualify non-structural
    aircraft components, such as plastic blower fans, that can be produced
    utilizing 3-D printers at significantly reduced cost.
        Current Air Force acquisition and sustainment processes allow
    opportunities for cooperation with industry and academia to transition
    commercial technologies into Air Force systems. We work closely with
    industry through many collaborative venues such as hosting Industry
    Days and interfacing with industry trade organizations. Furthermore,
    techniques and processes like analyses of alternatives for future
    acquisition programs equip the Air Force to evaluate concepts to best
    meet future requirements. Our industry partners communicate these ideas
    using our Concept Characterization and Technical Description process.
    Additionally, AFMC leverages the Sustainment Technology Process to
    provide visibility and strategic direction to the research,
    development, transition, and implementation of cross-cutting
    sustainment technologies. This process provides a systematic and
    repeatable method for identifying sustainment needs and matching
    existing commercial technologies.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                launch schedule
        Question. Please list the missions that will launch on the launch
    vehicle cores the Air Force has already ordered from ULA in fiscal year
    2013 and fiscal year 2014.
        Answer. The Air Force has already ordered a total of 14 cores in
    fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 supporting 12 National Security
    Space missions. Cores already ordered in fiscal year 2013 support Air
    Force Space Command (AFSPC-5), Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS-7), Space-
    based Infrared System (SBIRS GEO-3), Global Positioning System (GPS
    III-1), and National Reconnaissance Office Launch missions (NROL-35,
    NROL-45, and NROL-55). Cores already ordered in fiscal year 2014
    support AFSPC-6, AFSPC-7, AFSPC-11, WGS-8, and NROL-37 missions.
                              launch capabilities
        Question. During Secretary James' testimony before the SAC-D, she
    indicated that some missions that were sole-sourced to ULA and/or
    previously planned for competitive procurement could not be lifted by
    new entrants. Please specify which missions set to launch from fiscal
    years 2017-2019 the Air Force believes SpaceX's Falcon 9 1.1 is not
    capable of lifting. Please provide the analysis behind such a
    determination.
        Answer. MUOS-5, AEHF-4, AEHF-5, AEHF-6, WGS-8, WGS-9, WGS-10 and
    NROL-42 satellite mass to orbit exceeds the Falcon 9 v1.1 lift
    capability.
        NROL -44, NROL -68 and NROL-71 require the Delta IV Heavy to
    launch. These missions' mass to orbit far exceeds the Falcon 9 v1.1
    lift capability.
        The AFSPC-8 mission is under development and we now understand is
    outside the Falcon 9 v1.1's planned certified launch capability. Two
    classified mission satellites (NROL-52 and -61) are already on fixed-
    price contracts that include provisions for an Atlas V launch vehicle
    provided as government furnished equipment. Additionally, subsequent
    analysis determined that these two missions are beyond the SpaceX
    Falcon 9v.1.1 lift capabilities.
        The planned competitive launch procurements in fiscal years 2015-
    2017 for launch in fiscal years 2017-2019 were based upon assessment of
    New Entrant provided schedule and capabilities data. A New Entrant is
    defined as: any launch services provider other than the current
    provider of evolved expendable launch services (United Launch Alliance)
    that wished to compete for EELV-class NSS missions.
        We would be happy to brief you or your staff on more detailed
    analysis, if that would be helpful.
                                    gps iii
        Question. At what point, specifically, did the Air Force know that
    launches for the GPS III-2 and GPS III-3 satellites would be slipping
    beyond 2017? Please provide specific documentation.
        Answer. As of the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request, both
    GPS III-2 and III-3 are planned for launch in 2017. In the fiscal year
    2014 President's Budget request, GPS III-2 was scheduled for a fiscal
    year 2016 launch and GPS III-3 was scheduled for a fiscal year 2017
    launch. The GPS III-2 move from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017
    was driven by changes in satellite launch requirements.
                           launch capability payments
        Question. The Department of Defense pays the incumbent provider in
    the EELV program upwards of $1 billion per year for launch capability.
    With the imminent introduction of competition into the program, how,
    and when, does the Air Force plan to phase out launch capability
    payments to the United Launch Alliance?
        Answer. The current Launch Vehicle Production Services & Capability
    contract with United Launch Alliance (ULA) funds the capability to lift
    only the missions procured from ULA plus previously ordered missions.
    The Department of Defense is currently in the process of determining
    the best strategy going forward in Phase 2 of the new EELV acquisition
    strategy for a full and open competition between all certified EELV
    providers. We will ensure a best value competition that is in the best
    interest of the American taxpayer and meets the government's
    requirements including readiness to successfully launch national
    security payloads on time to the required orbit.
        Question. Has the Air Force developed a plan to require United
    Launch Alliance to account for these Capability payments when offering
    a price for a launch service in a head-to-head competition with new
    entrants? If so, what is that plan?
        Answer. Both Section 134 of the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act and Section 145 of the fiscal year 2014 National
    Defense Authorization Act direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
    provide the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Acquisition Strategy
    Implementation Plan for Phase 1A competition in a report to the
    congressional defense committees. That plan, currently in the Air Force
    review and approval process, will describe our approach to create
    equitable competition for Phase 1A missions.
                                     rd-180
        Question. Does the United States currently have the approval and
    licensing authority from the Russian Federation and the Russian
    manufacturer, NPO Energomash, to manufacture the RD-180 in the United
    States? If so, how much would this cost?
        Answer. RD AMROSS, a United States joint venture between NPO
    Energomash and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne, which provides the RD-180
    engines for use on the Atlas V vehicle, has all the approval and
    licensing authority from the Russian Federation and the Russian
    manufacturer to manufacture the RD-180 in the United State. No
    additional license, authorities, or approvals are needed to
    domestically produce the RD-180 engine. The license expires in 2022.
        The Air Force does have the cost data for the RD-180 engine.
    However, this information is proprietary. The Air Force can release
    such information to a congressional committee upon written request of
    the committee chair.
        Question. The Air Force mandates that United Launch Alliance must
    comply fully with Government Cost Accounting Standards in an effort to
    determine price reasonableness. Given this insight, does the Air Force
    understand how much each of the RD-180 engines used on the Atlas V
    costs? If so, how much is each engine? Please provide engine costs for
    each RD-180 engine used for the past 3 fiscal years. Approximately how
    much will the Government spend on RD-180 engines, either directly or
    indirectly, in procuring launch services performed on launch vehicles
    using the RD-180 engine from fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2017? Please
    provide this information on a per engine basis.
        Answer. The Air Force does have the cost data for the RD-180
    engine. However, this information is proprietary. The Air Force can
    release such information to a congressional committee upon written
    request of the committee chair.
                     return of air force 3-star to shaw afb
        Question. In July of 2012, we discussed the return of the USAF 3-
    star Combined Force Air Component Commander (CFACC) to Shaw AFB and you
    projected, along with General Mattis, that the summer of calendar year
    2015 was a viable option. However, you also stated you would re-examine
    and reassess the operational environment in the spring of calendar year
    2014 to determine if this ``change of construct'' will support
    projected operations in calendar year 2015. Given our drawdown in
    Afghanistan, where are we in this process? Are we still looking at
    calendar year 2015 for its return?
        Answer. We continue to support General Austin, Commander, U.S.
    Central Command, and his desire to not return the Air Force 3-star
    CFACC to Shaw at this time. CENTCOM relies on the forward presence of
    the CFACC to deal with security concerns emanating from areas beyond
    just Afghanistan, such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Forward CFACC
    presence also provides a critical platform from which to support
    security cooperation initiatives with Gulf Cooperation Council nation
    air forces and other regional partners. This presence and the influence
    of the CFACC is of particular importance in reassuring our regional
    partners and allies facing threats from Iran and serves as a counter to
    concerns over our intended shift to the Pacific and the false
    impression that we are abandoning our security partners in the Middle
    East.
        Regarding the drawdown in Afghanistan, the trajectory of the total
    regional security environment remains ambiguous. Once the post-
    International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) security situation comes
    into greater focus, U.S. Central Command will have a better idea of
    their long-term footprint and will reassess future positioning of the
    CFACC and timing of a potential return to Shaw AFB.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
                                 sexual assault
        Question. Secretary James, I appreciate your leadership in
    addressing military sexual assault. While the Air Force has taken steps
    to increase reporting and assist victims, more must be done to protect
    our men and women in uniform. Can you elaborate on what efforts the Air
    Force is undertaking on the prevention side? Are there ways to prevent
    offenders from entering the military in the first place?
        Answer. Our goal is to eliminate sexual assault in our Air Force;
    therefore, prevention is the cornerstone of our Sexual Assault
    Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. The key elements of prevention
    are the creation of command climates of dignity and respect where the
    contributions of each Airman are valued, where wingmen intervene when
    they see inappropriate behavior and where perpetrators are held
    accountable. To create that culture, we have tasked leadership across
    the Air Force to step forward and deliver that message in person.
    During our on-going force-wide SAPR training, commanders are
    introducing the material and delivering our vision for a respectful
    culture. Initial feedback has been extremely positive.
        The Air Force prohibits the enlistment or commissioning of
    personnel in the active duty Air Force, Air National Guard, and the Air
    Force Reserve when the person has a qualifying conviction for a crime
    or sexual assault. No waivers to this policy are authorized. In
    addition, the Air Force is exploring the idea of an evidence-based
    screening tool for new accessions to identify those with a proclivity
    towards predatory sexual behavior. Our initial review of materials on
    screening options indicates that this is an area in need of further
    study.
        The Air Force is committed to combating sexual assault and will
    continue leadership attention. Even one assault is too many.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            long range strike bomber
        Question. Secretary James, your prepared testimony indicates that
    the Air Force is developing a new long-range, penetrating bomber with a
    focus on affordability. Our experience with the B-1 and B-2 bomber
    programs resulted in very high development and production costs for
    relatively few aircraft. Can you share with the Committee in further
    detail how the Air Force plans to meet requirements while controlling
    costs and maintaining schedule on this new bomber program?
        Answer. The Air Force is developing the program cost estimate, to
    include research and development, production and operation and
    sustainment, as part of the process to support major program decision
    points. The cost estimate is informed by several components including,
    but not limited to, costs from similar programs and contractor
    proposals.
        Additional details pertaining to specifics on the Long Range Strike
    Bomber (LRS-B) program are protected by enhanced security measures. We
    would be happy to provide additional detail at a higher classification
    level.
        The average procurement unit cost (APUC) requirement for LRS-B
    remains $550 million (base-year 2010) for 100 aircraft. By definition,
    the APUC only includes the production costs, and does not include
    research, development or inflation impacts. This target APUC reflects
    the stable requirements that have already been set for the program to
    ensure sufficient production and a sustainable inventory of 80-100
    aircraft. The Air Force is committed to maintaining requirements
    discipline to keep LRS-B on a projected developmental production plan
    that should deliver the program within affordability targets.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                               launch capability
        Question. Secretary James, the Air Force recently announced plans
    to compete seven fewer launches than previously expected, although
    still in keeping with Under Secretary Kendall's competition directive
    which called for competition of ``up to 14 missions.'' I am concerned
    about efforts to pressure the Air Force to open to competition some of
    the launches allocated to the incumbent--which will only increase costs
    to the government because it would require breaking the recently
    negotiated block buy contract.
        How much would it cost the government in termination or other
    liability if the Air Force breaks the block buy contract?
        Answer. If the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase I
    contract with United Launch Alliance (ULA) is broken through a
    termination or breach of contract by the Government the total magnitude
    of cost liability is unknown and dependent on the circumstances. The
    total liabilities are not prescribed in the contact through a special
    contract clause. If the ULA contract is terminated, in whole or part,
    the contractor would submit a termination proposal in accordance with
    the standard Federal Acquisition Regulation termination for convenience
    clause. The termination settlement would be reached following
    negotiations with the contractor.
        In addition to termination liabilities discussed below, if the
    Phase I contract with the ULA is broken, the Government can expect ULA
    to re-price the cores, potentially eliminating much, if not all, of the
    $4.4 billion in savings resulting from this strategy. The ``level unit
    pricing'' for launch services on this contract is based on the 36-core
    deal, and a change would necessitate a re-negotiation of unit prices
    most likely resulting in schedule and cost impacts.
        At a minimum, the contractor would be entitled to a reasonable
    settlement for the work done and the preparations made for the
    terminated portion of the contract, including a reasonable allowance
    for profit for the Launch Capability component of the contract only. We
    expect ULA would seek payment for termination liability of
    approximately $370 million as reported in their March Contract Funds
    Status Report. Due to interdependencies, National Aeronautical and
    Space Administration contracts may also be impacted.
        From a program impact standpoint, and assuming the Phase I contract
    with ULA is terminated for convenience in its entirety on October 1,
    2014, ULA would not be able to complete its launch services for
    National Security Space missions (at least 15) procured under
    previously awarded contracts. This is due to an Interdependency Clause
    associated with Launch Services (i.e., the launch vehicle) previously
    procured through ULA prior to fiscal year 2013 that requires the EELV
    Launch Capability contract line item number be in place to deliver
    launch services. On the date of termination, ULA would stop production
    and launch of rockets in support of national security space
    requirements. This would significantly delay launches for those 15
    missions already on contract, potentially adding substantial storage
    costs to the satellite programs, and delaying critical national space
    capability to the warfighter.
                                 launch prices
        Question. Secretary James, the 2015 total Air Force budget request
    for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) remains essentially
    flat, but the number of launch vehicles being procured is reduced from
    5 in fiscal year 2014 to 3 in 2015. This has led some to mistakenly
    conclude that the price per launch is increasing because they
    incorrectly divide the total request by the number of launches procured
    in 2015. Since we know from the Air Force that the block buy has
    reduced launch prices, can you explain why this way of trying to
    calculate the launch price is not accurate? This inaccurate calculation
    also assumes that all of the EELV money is going to the incumbent
    provider, but isn't a portion of the request intended for new entrants
    as well?
        Answer. Trying to calculate the price per launch by using the total
    request divided by the number of launches is not accurate. Primarily
    this is because the price of the individual launch services can vary by
    more than $100 million depending on the specific configuration of the
    launch vehicle required to lift the payload to the required orbit.
        A portion of the request is intended for new entrants as well.
    Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles' (EELV) mission support activities
    are budgeted in the Launch Services Budget Program Activity Code
    (BPAC). There are no specific entries in the fiscal year 2015 P-docs
    for new entrant. The only new entrant related items in the budget
    justification are ``early integration activities'' which are estimated
    at $14.9 million in fiscal year 2015.
        In fiscal year 2015, additional costs have been budgeted in the
    Launch Services BPAC, such as new entrant mission assurance and new
    entrant early integration studies. The cost of the continued surge in
    new entrant mission support activities in the launch services BPAC is
    estimated as:
        Post Mission Analysis: $3.0 million;
        Mission Assurance: $31.9 million;
        Systems Engineering and Integration: $6.6 million.
                                     rd-180
        Question. Any time we have problems with the Russians I hear
    concerns that the Russians may ban exports of the RD-180 engine we use
    in the Atlas rocket, yet that has not happened. Would it make any sense
    for the United States to institute our own ban on using the RD-180?
    Wouldn't that only increase costs to the U.S. Government and threaten
    our national security, both by jeopardizing our launches and
    incentivizing the Russians to sell the engine to someone else?
        Answer. It would not make sense from a cost and schedule standpoint
    to institute our own ban on using the RD-180. Such a ban would
    significantly increase national security space launch costs, cause
    schedule delays and disruption of the launch manifest. The Atlas V
    launch vehicle, which uses the RD-180, is the workhorse of the Evolved
    Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet, providing critical support to the
    Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office, and National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration. A United States ban would
    effectively negate the significant cost savings already achieved by
    altering the implementation of the current contract strategy. The
    Secretary of Defense directed the Air Force to conduct a review of the
    RD-180 to identify short-term and long-term actions we can take to
    reduce reliance on the RD-180. However, enacting a ban on the use of
    the RD-180 would severely constrain the options available to the
    Department of Defense.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
                                      f-35
        Question. Secretary James, I understand that the unit recurring
    flyaway cost in fiscal year 2012 dollars for the F-35A is predicted to
    be $75 million by 2018 if the current production profile remains in
    place. That is roughly the same price as today's 4th generation
    aircraft, but with 5th generation capabilities. Getting to a full
    production rate is critical in order to meet affordability targets. Can
    you speak to the production cost trends on the F-35 program?
        Answer. The price of an F-35 aircraft is decreasing with each lot
    and we expect that trend to continue into the 2020s. This is welcome
    news for U.S. warfighters and tax payers as well as our international
    partners. The program office has set a target price of $80 million for
    an F-35A aircraft purchased in fiscal year 2019. This target price
    includes both the airframe and the engine. The Air Force will continue
    to work with the Joint Program Office and other stakeholders to keep
    this critical program on track.
        Question. Secretary James, can you speak about the potential cost
    savings by streamlining spare pools, supply chains and infrastructure
    that comes with replacing multiple classes of aircraft with the F-35?
        Answer. Neither the Air Force or the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense has done an in-depth analysis to determine how much, if any,
    savings would accrue through streamlining spare pools, supply chains
    and infrastructure required for the multiple types of aircraft that the
    F-35 will replace.
        Question. Secretary James, if the draconian cuts associated with
    sequestration are allowed to return in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, it
    would be devastating to our national security and defense industrial
    base. We could end up paying more per unit and buy less of the critical
    technologies this country needs to combat a high tech adversary in the
    future. What would be the impact on the F-35 program if sequestration
    returns in fiscal year 2016 and beyond?
        Answer. If sequestration remains in fiscal year 2016 and beyond,
    the Air Force currently plans to defer 15 F-35A aircraft to outside the
    future years defense program. If the force structure and cost reduction
    proposals in the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget submission are not
    approved, that number could grow substantially as the Air Force is
    compelled to close a multi-billion dollar funding gap.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                 c-130j basing
        Question. The Alaska Air National Guard flies the C-130H model. The
    Air Force is moving to eliminate the C-130H from its fleet and will
    replace the H model with the J model. Moreover, the Air Force has what
    I understand to be firm plans to close down the C-130H training
    facility at Little Rock. What do these developments mean for Air
    National Guard wings that fly the H model? Can Alaska expect to see its
    H models replaced with J models? Or is some other plan in the works?
        Answer. Per the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request, the
    Air Force plans to have 194 C-130Hs in the inventory by fiscal year
    2019. Additionally, there are no plans to close down the current C-130H
    training facility at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas.
        The Air Force will continue to evaluate options to right-size and
    recapitalize the C-130H fleet beyond the currently-planned 134 C-130Js.
    However, funding is expected to remain a challenge, limiting the Air
    Force's ability to aggressively recapitalize. By continuing to
    modernize C-130Hs with the Viability and Airspace Access Program
    increments and center wingbox replacements, the Air Force remains
    committed to modernizing the C-130H fleet. This commitment includes
    those aircraft flown by the Alaska Air National Guard, thereby ensuring
    that fleet remains viable to support the nation's needs.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
                     return of air force 3-star to shaw afb
        Question. In July of 2012, we discussed the return of the USAF 3-
    star (CFACC) to Shaw AFB and you projected, along with General Mattis,
    that the summer of calendar year 2015 was a viable option. However, you
    also stated you would re-examine and reassess the operational
    environment in the spring of calendar year 2014 to determine if this
    ``change of construct'' will support projected operations in calendar
    year 2015. Given our drawdown in Afghanistan, where are we in this
    process? Are we still looking at calendar year 2015 for its return?
        Answer. We continue to support General Austin, Commander, U.S.
    Central Command, and his desire to not return the Air Force 3-star
    CFACC to Shaw at this time. CENTCOM relies on the forward presence of
    the CFACC to deal with security concerns emanating from areas beyond
    just Afghanistan, such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Forward CFACC
    presence also provides a critical platform from which to support
    security cooperation initiatives with Gulf Cooperation Council nation
    air forces and other regional partners. This presence and the influence
    of the CFACC is of particular importance in reassuring our regional
    partners and allies facing threats from Iran and serves as a counter to
    concerns over our intended shift to the Pacific and the false
    impression that we are abandoning our security partners in the Middle
    East.
        Regarding the drawdown in Afghanistan, the trajectory of the total
    regional security environment remains ambiguous. Once the post-ISAF
    security situation comes into greater focus, U.S. Central Command will
    have a better idea of their long-term footprint and will reassess
    future positioning of the CFACC and timing of a potential return to
    Shaw AFB.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
                      f-16 service life extension program
        Question. In the recent divestiture decision on the A-10 mission,
    you made announcements that some of the A-10 Fighter Wings will convert
    to the F-16 Block 40 in the future. Do you plan on upgrading these F-16
    aircraft to include service life extensions as necessary to ensure
    these fighter wings have the life necessary to compete for the Joint
    Strike Fighter in the future?
        Answer. The intent is for the three A-10 units that would be
    replaced by F-16s to receive aircraft that are modified with the
    Service Life Extension Program or would have sufficient service life
    for sustained peacetime and combat operations.
                                  f-35 basing
        Question. I feel the JSF ranking given by the Air Force to the
    122nd Fighter Wing needs to be revisited and I'm sure other bases feel
    the same way. When will the basing panel solicit feedback to allow
    units to provide updates to improve their rankings? Also, when will the
    next Air National Guard JSF base be chosen?
        Answer. The next round of F-35A basing will begin in 2016 or 2017
    unless changes to the program of record require a later start. The Air
    Force's strategic basing process uses criteria-based analysis and links
    missions and combatant commander requirements to installation
    attributes, cost considerations and professional military judgment to
    completely inform the decision maker.
        The process begins with the development of basing criteria specific
    to the basing action. For the next round of F-35A basing, the criteria
    used in previous rounds will be reviewed and updated as required.
    Installations are then scored against the criteria, resulting in a
    rank-ordered list of bases. From this list, the Secretary (SecAF) and
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) select candidate bases. Site
    surveys are then conducted at each candidate base, examining a range of
    operational and infrastructure requirements. The results of the site
    surveys are presented to the SecAF and CSAF, who select preferred and
    reasonable alternatives.
        At the conclusion of the Environmental Impact Analysis Process
    (EIAP)--which runs in parallel with the Air Force strategic basing
    process--the SecAF and CSAF make their final basing decision from
    amongst the preferred and reasonable alternatives.
        While there are opportunities for public comment during the EIAP
    process, the Air Force's strategic basing process does not solicit
    feedback or advocacy from installations or units.
                               air force history
        Question. The field of U.S. Air Force History is vast.
    Opportunities for work on unexamined or understudied aspects in U.S.
    Air Force history are as unlimited as the historian's imagination and
    curiosity. What are the specific gaps you have identified in Air Force
    history literature that you would like to see filled particularly as it
    relates to issues of concern to the Air Force today or because they
    relate to things that historians think the Air Force should know about
    itself?
        Answer. With historians assigned at wings, numbered air forces,
    major commands, and Headquarters Air Force, we get most of the raw data
    needed to produce analytical histories, but this often is not true for
    special access programs. Security concerns, classification levels, and
    need-to-know strictly limit the number of people who have access to
    such information. These restrictions are vital, but they make it
    difficult to record the history of these programs, even after they have
    been declassified and dissemination restrictions have been eased.
        In addition to capturing special access program information,
    documentation for our recent operations overseas remains important.
    Throughout its existence, the U.S. Air Force has produced comprehensive
    official histories of major wars, conflicts, and operations. We now
    need to begin producing an official history of Air Force operations in
    Iraq since the beginning of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM up through the
    conclusion of Operation NEW DAWN. Since we are moving closer to
    withdrawal from Afghanistan, work on a comprehensive official history
    of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM is also vital. Unfortunately, due to
    funding restrictions, there is a shortage of historians who can
    dedicate their efforts to this work, which impedes our capability to
    conduct a robust oral history.
        In addition to official histories of specific wars, the Air Force
    has published topical histories, with a practically unlimited menu of
    products. Our newest ``domain'' of combat--that of cyberspace--will
    provide an opportunity to produce topical histories in the same way
    that traditional air and space operations have in the past. If there is
    any broad topical area that seems to be noticeably missing from the
    literature, it is an analytical history of Air Force logistical
    support. The record of how air logistics has evolved to meet changing
    requirements can provide important insight as the U.S. Air Force
    continues its mission of defending our nation and its interests while
    facing drastically reduced funding.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General Mark A. Welsh, III
                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                                  mission sets
        Question. General Welsh, can you provide a list of the stress level
    of the mission sets in the U.S. Air Force? Which of those mission sets
    provide opportunities for a greater role for the Air National Guard and
    the Air Force Reserves?
        Answer. We have a number of mission sets that are stressed, as
    indicated by a steady decline in readiness over the past 13-plus years
    of sustained combat operations. In terms of our service core functions,
    the mission sets most exhibiting a decline in readiness include: Air
    Superiority; Global Precision Attack; Personnel Recovery; Command and
    Control; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; and Special
    Operations.
        We continue to assess which missions are best suited for an
    increased reserve component role. The National Commission on the
    Structure of the Air Force made a number of recommendations related to
    striking the right active/reserve component mix across specific mission
    sets, and we have a full-time office, the Total Force Continuum,
    assessing these options. We will take action where it is operationally
    and fiscally prudent. As we make the assessments, current and
    anticipated deployment rates will be a primary consideration as well as
    the ability to relieve stressed mission sets within fiscal constraints.
                        concurrent fielding of equipment
        Question. General Welsh, you have said the U.S. Air Force is
    committed to fielding new or modified equipment and air frames across
    all components in order to ensure interoperability. Will you pursue
    concurrent fielding of equipment and platforms in all components? If
    equipment or platforms are fielded in the components at different
    rates, what determine those rates?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force is pursuing concurrent fielding of
    equipment and platforms across all components. For example, the current
    F-35 Continental United States basing plan begins with Hill Air Force
    Base (Active), Luke Air Force Base (Active and Reserve) followed by
    Burlington Air National Guard Base (Guard). Additionally, as the Air
    Force begins to take delivery of the new KC-46s, we have developed a
    plan to distribute them across all components. Announced locations
    already include Active and Guard bases (Altus Air Force Base, McConnell
    Air Force Base, and Pease Air National Guard Base). Classic
    Associations with Air Force Reserve Command are also planned for Altus
    Air Force Base and McConnell Air Force Base, while a Reverse
    Association with the Guard is planned for the second major operating
    base location (yet to be determined). Lastly, the Air Force is also
    coordinating a fielding plan with the Guard and Reserve to modernize
    our existing KC-135 fleet with the Block 45 avionics upgrade and to
    ensure an equitable distribution across all three components.
        In general, the Air Force develops its fleet basing strategies
    based on the approved Force Composition Analysis (FCA). The FCAs
    provided the foundational information needed to develop a fielding plan
    that strives to optimize the Active/Reserve component mix by mission
    area.
                                  total force
        Question. General Welsh, you spoke of a desire for better
    integration between all three components of the U.S. Air Force, and
    have publically commented about your desire that in the near future
    Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force will have experience serving in each.
    Can you outline further how you intend to pursue an integrated end-
    state during the remainder of your tenure, and hand-off a Total Air
    Force with momentum towards that end-state to your eventual successor?
        Answer. The Air Force currently has Active Duty officers serving on
    the staffs of the National Guard Bureau and the Headquarters of the Air
    Force Reserve, as well as many members of the Air Reserve Component
    (ARC) who serve on active duty staffs. We absolutely need to be as
    accomplished at integrating our Total Force at the headquarters level
    as our Airmen are at the operational and tactical levels. Many of those
    Airmen, who have been fighting side by side for years, do not perceive
    a meaningful difference in serving as an active duty, National Guard,
    or Air Force Reserve member. Our three-in-one initiative is currently
    underway; this initiative aims to help us manage the total Active and
    Reserve component Airmen through one personnel system and process. We
    are now beta testing this approach at three bases: one Active, one
    Guard, and one Reserve. Furthermore, we have already integrated senior
    Reserve component officers into key Air Staff positions, active duty
    officers into wing command slots in Guard units, and Reserve component
    officers as vice commanders in active units.
        We are currently evaluating our staffs and units for even greater
    integration opportunities at all levels of staff and unit leadership.
    Ideally, service with an ARC unit, or on an ARC staff, should be part
    of the broader spectrum of experience expected of future Air Force
    senior leaders.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
                         powder river training complex
        Question. General Welsh, what is the current status of the proposed
    expansion of the Powder River Training Complex? When does the Air Force
    anticipate issuing a Record of Decision? Will this be issued jointly
    with the Federal Aviation Administration?
        Answer. The Air Force remains committed to and is progressing
    toward completion of the National Environmental Policy Act, National
    Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and interagency requirements needed to
    finalize and chart the Powder River Training Complex. The Air Force is
    currently nearing completion of consultations under the NHPA Sec. 106
    with the North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming State
    Historic Preservation Offices, Tribes, the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA), and National Park Service. The final adjustments
    to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are underway in preparation
    for the Record of Decision (ROD). The Air Force expects to complete the
    final EIS and ROD this summer, to enable a final charting by the end of
    2014. Once the Air Force signs its ROD, the FAA, as a cooperating
    agency, can adopt the EIS to support its Special Use Airspace
    decisions. Our synchronized efforts have been effective in reducing the
    overall charting timeline. Finalizing this expansion will provide
    enhanced training for our military to improve Air Force mission
    readiness.
                                 sexual assault
        Question. General Welsh, I appreciate your leadership in addressing
    military sexual assault. While the Air Force has taken steps to
    increase reporting and assist victims, more must be done to protect our
    men and women in uniform. Can you elaborate on what efforts the Air
    Force is undertaking on the prevention side? Are there ways to prevent
    offenders from entering the military in the first place?
        Answer. Our goal is to eliminate sexual assault in our Air Force;
    therefore, prevention is the cornerstone of our Sexual Assault
    Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. The key elements of prevention
    are the creation of command climates of dignity and respect where the
    contributions of each Airman are valued, where wingmen intervene when
    they see inappropriate behavior and where perpetrators are held
    accountable. To create that culture, we tasked leadership across the
    Air Force to step forward and deliver that message in person. During
    our on-going force-wide SAPR training, commanders are introducing the
    material and delivering our vision for a respectful culture. Initial
    feedback has been extremely positive.
        The Air Force prohibits the enlistment or commissioning of
    personnel in the active duty Air Force, Air National Guard, and the Air
    Force Reserve when the person has a qualifying conviction for a crime
    or sexual assault. No waivers to this policy are authorized. In
    addition, the Air Force is exploring the idea of an evidence-based
    screening tool for new accessions to identify those with a proclivity
    towards predatory sexual behavior. Our initial review of materials on
    screening options indicates that this is an area in need of further
    study.
        The Air Force is committed to combating sexual assault and will
    continue leadership attention. Even one assault is too many.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
        Question. General Welsh, what is the Air Force's plan for
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance operations after we
    conclude actions in Afghanistan, and how does your budget support the
    pivot to the Pacific, a transition to non-combat operations and reduced
    budget certainty?
        Answer. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
    capabilities have focused mainly on delivering decisive advantage in
    permissive combat environments. For the duration of Operation ENDURING
    FREEDOM, the air threat has been negligible. We cannot expect this to
    be the case in future conflicts. We recognize that counter-terrorism
    will continue, but we must free resources to fund ISR platforms,
    sensors, and communications paths to operate in contested and highly
    contested environments. To accomplish this, the Air Force accepted
    additional risk in ISR capability in the fiscal year 2015 budget
    request to better meet ISR requirements in 2023 and beyond, as part of
    an overall rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. The Air Force plans to
    use some of those harvested savings to improve the RQ-4 fleet, which is
    an important platform for future operations.
        To free up near-term resources, the fiscal year 2015 President's
    budget request reduces the planned growth of the MQ-9 combat air
    patrols from 65 to 55, retires the MQ-1 fleet in 2017, and retires the
    U-2 fleet in 2016. In total, the Air Force requested $6.9 billion for
    Global Integrated ISR in fiscal year 2015 to develop, integrate, and
    operate ISR capabilities across the spectrum of military operations.
    Please note that our combatant commanders value ISR, so we are working
    diligently to meet their needs while simultaneously dealing with Budget
    Control Act limits and reduced Overseas Contingency Operations funding.
                                     ______

                 Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
                                     kc-135
        Question. I was disappointed last May when the Air Force did not
    select Bangor as one of the first three bases at which to station the
    new KC-46A refueling tanker. I am hopeful, however, that Bangor will be
    one of the final ten operational sites selected. Last year Secretary
    Donley testified that ``if we want to modernize the tanker force, we're
    going to have to do more than we're doing in the KC-46 program. We have
    to buy more tankers, and we have to buy them faster.'' This budget
    preserves the KC-46 tanker program as one of the top three
    recapitalization programs for the Air Force, procuring seven aircraft
    this fiscal year. General Welsh, you have emphasized before the
    importance of continuing KC-135 modernization efforts and have stressed
    that those KC-135 aircraft not replaced with the KC-46A will continue
    to fly for the foreseeable future
        Can you explain what KC-135 modernization efforts are included in
    this budget that will ensure the fleet of KC-135 aircraft is available
    to provide continued support for current and future combatant commander
    requirements?
        Answer. The following modernization efforts are being conducted for
    the KC-135 fleet:
        Block 45 is the third and final scheduled major avionics upgrade.
    This modification addresses anticipated airspace restrictions within
    the global CNS/ATM environment and will improve overall reliability,
    availability, maintainability and supportability issues. It replaces
    the analog flight director, auto pilot, radio altimeter, and engine
    instruments with digital instruments.
        Mode 5 will incorporate Identify Friend or Foe Mode 5 capability
    during Air Defense Operations, reducing risk of loss of aircrew and
    aircraft.
        VHF Omnidirectional Radio/Instrument Landing System Antennae
    replaces antennae with commercial off-the-shelf antennae due to
    obsolescence.
        Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures provides autonomous
    protection against Man-Portable Air Defense Systems for Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve Command aircraft.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                 sequestration
        Question. General Welsh, the Air Force carries on numerous
    significant missions in Alaska including the Red Flag exercises
    involving our allies that launch from Eielson Air Force Base. Last year
    the Air Force was only able to afford one of the Red Flag Alaska
    exercises. I trust that you would agree that this was less than
    satisfactory. I wonder if you would speak to the importance of the Red
    Flag Alaska exercises both from the perspective of our own preparedness
    and that of our allies. How would these exercises fare in the future if
    Congress does not provide sequestration relief?
        Answer. Without sequestration relief, U.S. Pacific Command's
    exercise program will be less robust in frequency and attendance.
    Decreased funding will force difficult prioritization of exercises and
    may result in some RED FLAG-Alaska exercises being curtailed or even
    cancelled. This will have a negative impact on U.S. Air Force readiness
    training in the Pacific, and diminish engagement with key partners and
    allies around the region at a time when we need to be cultivating
    partnerships.
                               military suicides
        Question. General Welsh, lately the majority of attention has been
    focused on the military sexual assault dilemma, and rightly so, but the
    suicide issue has continued to plague our military and veteran
    populations. In the Air Force alone, suicide has taken the lives of
    almost 100 Airmen a year since 2010. This year, there have already been
    over 15 suicides in the first two and a half months, more than double
    the rate over the same period last year. This is extremely alarming and
    something that needs to be addressed now.
        What is the Air Force doing to address this problem and how can we
    help you get this horrible epidemic under control? (Note: Same question
    to General Grass, Lieutenant General Jackson, and Lieutenant General
    Clarke)
        Answer. As you are aware the nation's suicide rate is gradually
    increasing and the Air Force is not exempt from this problem. Our rates
    vary month-by-month and year-by-year, but there is no doubt that after
    a decline several years ago when we first launched our nationally
    recognized and evidence based Air Force Suicide Prevention Program
    (AFSPP), our rates have started to slowly increase again. The Air Force
    lost an average of 95 Total Force Airmen per year since 2010. This
    number includes Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and
    Air Force Civilians (4 year average for AD = 49, ARC = 26, and AF Civ =
    21).
        I assure you the Air Force remains vigilant in our suicide
    prevention efforts and determined to prevent as many suicides as
    possible; suicide remains a top priority for the Air Force.
        In conjunction with AFSPP, the Air Force prioritized the
    development of the Comprehensive Airmen Fitness (CAF) program to
    address the high operations tempo, and the potential increased self-
    defeating behavior. Through the use of Master Resilience Trainers
    (MRTs) CAF uses a holistic approach to inject resilience
    characteristics and develop morale into our Total Force, enabling
    Airmen to learn coping skills. When Airmen face significant emotional
    events, both positive and negative, these skills can help them
    recognize stress and cope with challenging live events. Given the
    overwhelming support of Air Force leadership towards the program, we
    have committed to increasing the number of MRTs until every squadron
    has one, or units have a minimum of one per 200 Airmen.
        In April we also directed every commander in our Air Force to meet
    with his or her command and discuss current suicide trends, common
    characteristics of at-risk personnel, and best approaches to identify
    those people struggling with personal issues and get them the help they
    need.
        As we move forward, we need a serious national dialogue on this
    issue without giving the public the impression that suicide in the
    military is a runaway problem, because research is clear that the wrong
    message can unintentionally increase suicide rates.
        Thank you for your continued assistance in keeping the focus on
    this terrible problem.
                                 sequestration
        Question. General Welsh, I know the Air Force is pleased with the 2
    years of sequestration relief that was provided by this year's budget
    agreement. I think you would agree that this funding was urgently
    needed. It is troubling to me that we would invite our allies to Alaska
    for exercises and then tell them it's cancelled due to budget issues.
    It is troubling to me that our pilots can't fly because money isn't
    available and it's troubling that depot maintenance must be deferred
    because we don't have the money to keep our fleet mission ready. But
    sequestration relief lasts only two fiscal years.
        I wonder if you might tell the subcommittee what relief from
    sequestration you need to meet mission requirements in the coming years
    and what the consequences to our Air Force will be if you do not get
    that relief.
        Answer. An immediate end to the strict funding caps established by
    the Budget Control Act of 2011 is needed. The consequences of not
    getting this relief will be a reduction in tanker and intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance capacity (e.g., retiring the KC-10 and
    RQ-4 Block 40 fleets), and investment in modernization accounts (e.g.,
    KC-46A, F-35A, and MC-130J), reversal of our current preferred
    munitions stockpile recovery effort and readiness recovery, cuts in
    weapon system sustainment and ranges, further erosion of existing
    facilities and infrastructure, and deferral of legacy fighter
    modernization.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to General Frank J. Grass
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                   furlough of guard and reserve technicians
        Question. General Grass, one of the things that really pained me
    during last summer's furloughs and the government shutdown that
    followed was that the civilian technicians were not exempted from the
    furlough nor were they as a group deemed essential during the shutdown.
    Earlier this year I had an opportunity to speak with an Alaska Air
    Guard technician who serves as an Operations Officer with the rescue
    squadron. In spite of the importance of his job he was neither exempted
    from furlough nor deemed essential in the early days of the shutdown.
    None of this makes sense to me. It seems to me that the mission
    responsibilities of the technician workforce are so intimately tied to
    the military personnel who work alongside them that the technicians as
    a group should be exempted from furlough and deemed essential in the
    case of a lapse in appropriations.
        Would you disagree with this proposition? (Same question to
    Lieutenant General Jackson)
        Answer. I would not disagree with your assertion about the
    important role that our technicians play in our ability to respond in
    crisis. We believe our military technicians should be treated the same
    as other uniformed personnel. If they are exempted from furlough,
    military technicians should be as well. Furthermore, it has long been
    established Department of Defense policy that the military aspects of
    technician service are paramount over all other concerns. Our military
    technicians are critical to keeping planes in the sky and our people
    properly trained. Military technicians provide day-to-day ground and
    aviation maintenance and training, pay and property accountability,
    personnel action processing, medical administration and readiness,
    sexual assault response capability, suicide prevention, and resiliency
    and education counseling, among other duties. Our National Guard
    military technicians perform those core functions that build and
    maintain the nation's ability to respond to both State and Federal
    missions and emergencies.
                               military suicides
        Question. General Grass, Lately the majority of attention has been
    focused on the military sexual assault dilemma, and rightly so, but the
    suicide issue has continued to plague our military and veteran
    populations. In the Air Force alone, suicide has taken the lives of
    almost 100 Airmen a year since 2010. This year, there have already been
    over 15 suicides in the first two and a half months, more than double
    the rate over the same period last year. Unfortunately, the Reserve
    component has mirrored the active component in this tragic area, with a
    significant number of suicides every year and trending upwards. I have
    heard from numerous Veteran and military support groups in Alaska and
    it sounds like there is a disconnect in suicide awareness and
    prevention efforts between the active component and the Reserve
    Component. Like the active force, your operations tempo has been
    extremely high over the last decade plus of war and our Reserve
    Component forces have answered the call in tremendous fashion. But
    unlike the active force, the Reserve Component has a limited ability to
    reach out to their forces and ensure they are cared for after
    deployments.
        What are you doing to address this horrific problem and where can
    we help you get things under control? (Note: Same question to General
    Welsh, Lieutenant General Jackson, and Lieutenant General Clark)
        Answer. The Air National Guard Psychological Health Program (PHP)
    began in October 2010 to address psychological health needs of Air
    National Guard (ANG) Airmen and their families. The PHP placed a
    licensed behavioral health provider at each of the ANG's 89 wings
    throughout the 54 states, territories, the District of Columbia and 5
    additional licensed behavioral health providers in areas with high
    geographically separated unit populations. The program provides three
    categories of service: leadership advisement and consultation;
    community capacity building; and direct services, including assessment,
    referral, crisis intervention, and case management services that are
    available daily. The wing directors of psychological health are
    available 24/7 to operational leadership and provide services to Air
    National Guard Airmen and their family members regardless of whether
    they are at home or on duty status. In addition, Military OneSource is
    a nonmedical counseling option available to active duty, reserve
    component members and their adult family members.
        There are less than 20 evidence-based ``best practices'' in the
    Suicide Prevention Resource Center national registry, and Air Force
    Suicide Prevention Program (AFSPP) is one of them . . . the only
    military program in the registry. The ANG is implementing the AFSPP.
        In 2007, ANG Safety launched the ANG Suicide Intervention program
    known as the Wingman Project. In 2009, Headquarters Air Force
    designated ANG Wingman Project a Best Practice. Wingman Project will
    sunset shortly and will be rolled into ``Ready54''. Ready54 is a
    collection of web based resilience tools which connects service-members
    and their families to important local resources, as well as provides
    them informative ANG-centric videos and articles to help keep them
    ready and resilient.
        The ANG has partnered with active component to establish a Master
    Resilience Training (MRT) Program. A total of 52 MRTs and 8 MRT
    facilitators have been trained to date.
        The Air Force works collaboratively with the Guard and Reserve
    through the Community Action Information Board (CAIB) and the
    Integrated Delivery System (IDS) at each level of the Air Force
    (Headquarters Air Force, Major Command, and installation). CAIBs are
    cross-functional forums created to identify and resolve or elevate to
    the next appropriate level those community issues that impact readiness
    or affect the quality of life of Air Force members and their families.
    The IDS functions as the action arm of the CAIB and develops a
    comprehensive, coordinated plan for integrating and implementing
    community outreach, prevention, and resiliency programs, such as
    suicide prevention.
        Also, all components of the Air Force (Active Duty, Guard, and
    Reserve) are actively engaged with the Defense Suicide Prevention
    Office (DSPO) in helping shape suicide prevention efforts across the
    Department of Defense through the Suicide Prevention and Risk Reduction
    Committee, the General Officer Steering Committee on Suicide
    Prevention, and other working groups and committees.
        The Yellow Ribbon Program offers resources on behavioral health
    issues and suicide mitigation and is offered to Reserve and Air
    National Guard Airmen and their families pre-deployment, during
    deployment, and post deployment.
        TRICARE Reserve Select is available for Reserve Component Airmen
    and their family members and provides coverage for both outpatient and
    inpatient treatment. Access to military medical care is available to
    service members with duty-related conditions through TRICARE and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        Finally, the Military (or Veterans) Crisis Line, 1-800-273-8255
    (TALK), Press #1, www.militarycrisisline.net, or text to 838255 is
    available 24/7 to all service members and their families. It is a joint
    venture between the Department of Defense and the Department of
    Veterans Affairs' call center, which is associated with Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Service Administration's National Suicide Prevention
    Lifeline. Resources include an online ``Veteran's Chat'' capability and
    the call center's trained personnel provide crisis intervention for
    those struggling with suicidal thoughts or family members seeking
    support for a Veteran.
        In fiscal year 2012 the ANG implemented PHP during highest death by
    suicide rates in known ANG history (calendar year 2011: 16.1/100K,
    calendar year 2012: 21.1/100K, calendar year 2013: 10.4/100K). The ANG
    reduced it suicides by 37 percent for calendar year 2013 and will
    continue seeking and executing meaningful strategies to driving down
    suicide rates.
                                     ______

        Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Stanley E. Clarke III
                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
             national commission on the structure of the air force
        Question. Lieutenant General Clarke, will you provide a list of the
    recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air
    Force that the Air National Guard has already executed the
    implementation of or are planning to execute, and how you have or will
    do so? Will you also provide a list of other initiatives you have
    already executed or are planning to execute to pursue Total Force
    Integration?
        Answer. The Air Force believes the Total Force cannot succeed
    without all three components--the Active, Guard and Reserve--each
    providing its unique value to the nation. Each component is equally
    represented within the Total Force--Continuum (TF-C) working group, in
    its efforts to address two lines of effort (LOE) initially established
    by the Total Force Task Force (TF2). Through these LOEs the TF-C will
    develop recommendations that maximize the contributions of the Total
    Force, eliminate cultural and organizational barriers to effectiveness,
    and provide cost-savings opportunities that minimizing risk to Air
    Force capability.
        The TF-C identified ten National Commission on the Structure of the
    Air Force (NCSAF) recommendations as initiatives currently being
    implemented, or planned for implementation. These recommendations are:
        Cost Approach (DOD tasking).--The Department of Defense should
    formally adopt the ``fully burdened cost'' approach to calculating
    military personnel costs, and it should apply analytic methods that
    focus on appropriate outputs along with life-cycle costs.
        Staff Integration.--The Air Force should integrate the existing
    staffs of Headquarters Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air
    National Guard.
        Full-Time and Part-Time mix.--The combination of full-time and
    part-time positions should be determined for each unit depending on
    weapon system requirements, deployment, and rotation schedule based on
    optimum matching of the needs of the Air Force, family, and employers.
        TF Competency Standards.--Commander, Air Education and Training
    Command (AETC) in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Air
    Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and AF/A1, should develop a
    Total Force competency standard for officers, non-commissioned
    officers, and enlisted Airmen across all specialties and career fields
    before the end of fiscal year 2016.
        Access to Non-Residence Education.--Commander, AETC should ensure
    that revised curriculum and competency standards are achievable by
    appropriately structured non-resident education programs equally
    accessible to personnel of all components.
        Non-Disclosure Agreements.--The Secretary of the Air Force should
    discontinue use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in the corporate process.
        Integrated Personnel Management.--The Air Force should unify
    personnel management for all three components under a single integrated
    organization (A1) in the Headquarters Air Staff.
        Integrated Pay/Personnel.--The Air Force should accelerate the
    development of an Integrated Pay and Personnel System.
        Continuum of Service.--Implement a pilot project of Continuum of
    Service that demonstrates the ability of an Airman to transition more
    seamlessly among the three components.
        Active Duty Service Commitment.--The Air Force should revise the
    rules for current Active Duty Service Commitments to enable members to
    meet the commitment in some combination of Active, Reserve, and Guard
    service.
        The Air Force agrees in principle with most of the recommendations
    outlined by the NCSAF. In fact, many of these recommendations closely
    mirror those initially identified for action by the TF2. Others require
    additional study to fully understand feasibility and cost savings or
    they require congressional legal review and changes to the current U.S.
    Code.
        The Air Force is committed to a comprehensive assessment of NCSAF
    recommendations, sensible application where it makes sense, and
    enduring focus on leveraging the Total Force.
                            national guard equipment
        Question. Lieutenant General Clarke, the U.S. Congress has made
    substantial investments in Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves
    equipment to ensure readiness and interoperability. Will you describe
    how you manage that funding so as to achieve maximum value for the
    Total Force, as well as any examples of that value?
        Answer. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) is
    managed to maximized innovative, affordable, and technically sound
    capabilities based upon validated Air Force and combatant commander
    requirements. The requirements are vetted through a forum of Reserve
    Component and Active Duty warfighters at our annual weapons and tactics
    conference. Critical requirements derived from the weapons and tactics
    conference are matched against our spend plan to ensure weapon systems
    remain relevant and viable.
        Well managed NGREA funds have resulted in critical capabilities.
    Some examples are:
      --C-130 real time in the cockpit program provides comprehensive
            networked battlespace awareness
      --KC-135 Large Aircraft Counter Measures provide protection for
            operations in hostile environment
      --A-10/F-16 Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting offers rapid target
            acquisition and improved battlefield situational awareness
      --F-15C Passive Attack Sensor System provides for nighttime visual
            identification during aerospace control alert missions
      --F-16 center display unit dramatically enhances capability to
            identify and engage targets
        Bottom line, we value NGREA and the operational benefits resulting
    from innovative, affordable, technically sound initiatives originating
    from NGREA efforts.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                       air national guard airlift future
        Question. General Clarke, I am proud that the Mississippi National
    Guard was the first to stand up a Guard unit containing C-17 transport
    aircraft. The eight aircraft based out of Thompson Field in Jackson
    have airlifted over 58,000 patients and they continue to evacuate
    wounded warriors from the war zone. With the drawdown and budget
    restrictions, what do you see as the future for the Guard's airlift
    force and how will these Guard units be tasked moving forward?
        Answer. In the future, the forces in Jackson, Mississippi and at
    our other strategic airlift bases, will continue their organize, train
    and equip mission, to be ready if called. To maintain the same level of
    experience and expertise in world-wide operations as our Active Duty
    counterparts, we certainly desire for our C-17 crews to continue being
    used as an operational reserve force, but our participation in global
    operations is contingent upon taskings from U.S. Transportation
    Command.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                               military suicides
        Question. Lieutenant General Clarke, lately the majority of
    attention has been focused on the military sexual assault dilemma, and
    rightly so, but the suicide issue has continued to plague our military
    and veteran populations. In the Air Force alone, suicide has taken the
    lives of almost 100 Airmen a year since 2010. This year, there have
    already been over 15 suicides in the first two and a half months, more
    than double the rate over the same period last year. Unfortunately, the
    Reserve component has mirrored the active component in this tragic
    area, with a significant number of suicides every year and trending
    upwards. I have heard from numerous Veteran and military support groups
    in Alaska and it sounds like there is a disconnect in suicide awareness
    and prevention efforts between the active component and the Reserve
    Component. Like the active force, your operations tempo has been
    extremely high over the last decade plus of war and our Reserve
    Component forces have answered the call in tremendous fashion. But
    unlike the active force, the Reserve Component has a limited ability to
    reach out to their forces and ensure they are cared for after
    deployments.
        What are you doing to address this horrific problem and where can
    we help you get things under control? (Same question to General Welsh,
    General Grass, and Lieutenant General Jackson)
        Answer. The Air National Guard Psychological Health Program (PHP)
    began in October 2010 to address psychological health needs of Air
    National Guard (ANG) Airmen and their families. The PHP placed a
    licensed behavioral health provider at each of the ANG's 89 wings
    throughout the 54 States, territories, the District of Columbia and 5
    additional licensed behavioral health providers in areas with high
    geographically separated unit populations. The program provides three
    categories of service: leadership advisement and consultation;
    community capacity building; and direct services, including assessment,
    referral, crisis intervention, and case management services that are
    available daily. The wing directors of psychological health are
    available 24/7 to operational leadership and provide services to Air
    National Guard Airmen and their family members regardless of whether
    they are at home or on duty status. In addition, Military OneSource is
    a nonmedical counseling option available to active duty, reserve
    component members and their adult family members.
        There are less than 20 evidence-based ``best practices'' in the
    Suicide Prevention Resource Center national registry, and Air Force
    Suicide Prevention Program (AFSPP) is one of them . . . the only
    military program in the registry. The ANG is implementing the AFSPP.
        Ready54 is a collection of web based resilience tools which connect
    service-members and their families to important local resources, as
    well as provides then informative ANG-centric videos and articles to
    help keep them ready and resilient.
        The ANG has partnered with the active component to establish a
    Master Resilience Training (MRT) program. A total of 52 MRTs and 8 MRT
    facilitators have been trained to date.
        The Air Force works collaboratively with the Guard and Reserve
    through the Community Action Information Board (CAIB) and the
    Integrated Delivery System (IDS) at each level of the Air Force
    (Headquarters Air Force, Major Command, and installation). CAIBs are
    cross-functional forums created to identify and resolve or elevate to
    the next appropriate level those community issues that impact readiness
    or affect the quality of life of Air Force members and their families.
    The IDS functions as the action arm of the CAIB and develops a
    comprehensive, coordinated plan for integrating and implementing
    community outreach, prevention, and resiliency programs, such as
    suicide prevention.
        Also, all components of the Air Force (Active Duty, Guard, and
    Reserve) are actively engaged with the Defense Suicide Prevention
    Office (DSPO) in helping shape suicide prevention efforts across the
    Department of Defense through the Suicide Prevention and Risk Reduction
    Committee, the General Officer Steering Committee on Suicide
    Prevention, and other working groups and committees.
        The Yellow Ribbon Program offers resources on behavioral health
    issues and suicide mitigation and is offered to Reserve and Air
    National Guard Airmen and their families pre-deployment, during
    deployment, and post deployment.
        TRICARE Reserve Select is available for Reserve Component Airmen
    and their family members and provides coverage for both outpatient and
    inpatient treatment. Access to military medical care is available to
    service members with duty-related conditions through TRICARE and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        Finally, the Military (or Veterans) Crisis Line, 1-800-273-8255
    (TALK), Press #1, www.militarycrisisline.net, or text to 838255 is
    available 24/7 to all service members and their families. It is a joint
    venture between the Department of Defense and the Department of
    Veterans Affairs' call center, which is associated with Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Service Administration's National Suicide Prevention
    Lifeline. Resources include an online ``Veteran's Chat'' capability and
    the call center's trained personnel provide crisis intervention for
    those struggling with suicidal thoughts or family members seeking
    support for a Veteran.
        In fiscal year 2012 the ANG implemented PHP during highest death by
    suicide rates in known ANG history (calendar year 2011: 16.1/100K,
    calendar year 2012: 21.1/100K, calendar year 2013: 14.7/100K). The ANG
    reduced its suicides by 37 percent for calendar year 2013 and will
    continue seeking and executing meaningful strategies to driving down
    suicide rates.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James F. Jackson
                 Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
             national commission on the structure of the air force
        Question. Lieutenant General Jackson, will you provide a list of
    the recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the
    Air Force that the Air Force Reserve has already executed the
    implementation of or are planning to execute, and how you have or will
    do so? Will you also provide a list of other initiatives you have
    already executed or are planning to execute to pursue Total Force
    Integration? (Same question went to NGB)
        Answer. The Air Force believes the Total Force cannot succeed
    without all three components--the Active, Guard and Reserve--each
    providing its unique value to the nation. Each component is equally
    represented within the Total Force--Continuum (TF-C) working group, in
    its efforts to address two lines of effort (LOE) initially established
    by the Total Force Task Force (TF2). Through these LOEs the TF-C will
    develop recommendations that maximize the contributions of the Total
    Force, eliminate cultural and organizational barriers to effectiveness,
    and provide cost-savings opportunities that minimizing risk to Air
    Force capability.
        The TF-C identified 10 National Commission on the Structure of the
    Air Force (NCSAF) recommendations as initiatives currently being
    implemented, or planned for implementation. These recommendations are:
        1-Cost Approach (DOD tasking).--Department of Defense (DOD) should
    formally adopt the ``fully burdened cost'' approach to calculating
    military personnel costs, and it should apply analytic methods that
    focus on appropriate outputs along with life-cycle costs.
        6-Staff Integration.--The Air Force should integrate the existing
    staffs of Headquarters Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air
    National Guard.
        8-Full-Time and Part-Time mix.--The combination of full-time and
    part-time positions should be determined for each unit depending on
    weapon system requirements, deployment, and rotation schedule based on
    optimum matching of the needs of the Air Force, family, and employers.
        18-Total Force Competency Standards.--Commander, Air Education and
    Training Command (AETC) in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of
    the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and AF/A1, should
    develop a Total Force competency standard for officers, non-
    commissioned officers, and enlisted Airmen across all specialties and
    career fields before the end of fiscal year 2016.
        19-Access to Non-Residence Education.--Commander, AETC should
    ensure that revised curriculum and competency standards are achievable
    by appropriately structured non-resident education programs equally
    accessible to personnel of all components.
        23-Non-Disclosure Agreements.--The Secretary of the Air Force
    should discontinue use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in the corporate
    process.
        34-Integrated Personnel Management.--The Air Force should unify
    personnel management for all three components under a single integrated
    organization (A1) in the Headquarters Air Staff.
        35-Integrated Pay/Personnel.--The Air Force should accelerate the
    development of an Integrated Pay and Personnel System.
        39-Continuum of Service.--Implement a pilot project of Continuum of
    Service that demonstrates the ability of an Airman to transition more
    seamlessly among the three components.
        40-Active Duty Service Commitment.--The Air Force should revise the
    rules for current Active Duty Service Commitments to enable members to
    meet the commitment in some combination of Active, Reserve, and Guard
    service.
        The Air Force is committed to a comprehensive assessment of NCSAF
    recommendations, sensible application where it makes sense, and
    enduring focus on leveraging the Total Force.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                815th tactical airlift squadron, keesler afb, ms
        Question. General Jackson, when force moves are recommended, they
    should be based on solid operational and cost analysis. We are still
    waiting to see such analysis for the 815th Tactical Airlift Squadron at
    Keesler. For the record, please provide the committee with the detailed
    analysis used to formulate your recommendation to disestablish the
    815th and to move the 10 C-130Js to the 913th Airlift Group. A side-by-
    side cost comparison between maintaining the aircraft at Keesler and
    the proposed alternative of moving the 10 aircraft to the 913th Airlift
    Group would be appreciated.
        Answer. Decisions regarding C-130 force structure were driven by
    the fact that the Air Force has excess tactical airlift capacity. The
    Mobility Capabilities Assessment-18 published May 1, 2013 determined ``
    . . . there is no surge scenario associated with the current defense
    strategy-even one in which a significant homeland defense event occurs
    concurrently with two warfights requiring a fleet of 358 C-130s. This
    includes accounting for C-130s dedicated to the Army's direct support
    mission.'' In fact, the report finds that the Air Force requires no
    more than 320 C-130s, and as few as 248.
        Framed in this operational context, the fiscal year 2015
    President's budget request proposes retiring 47 C-130Hs and
    redistributing several aircraft and units in an effort to comply with
    the Budget Control Act's fiscal limitations. Inherent in the budget
    request is the Air Force Total Force Proposal (TFP) that directs a
    number of moves, to include actions within the C-130 fleet to
    distribute aircraft and missions across existing Air Force Reserve
    basing infrastructure. The reassignment of 10 Air Force Reserve Command
    (AFRC) owned C-130Js is part of this plan, but is distinct because it
    is a fiscal year 2014 program change notification vice part of the
    fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request. By not moving the 10 C-
    130Js to Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), Arkansas, the AFRC presence
    would go away with the divestment of the 12 C-130Hs and the Air Force
    would lose out on the Total Force benefits of the integration of
    Reserve, Guard, and Active Component Airmen at the ``Home of the
    Herk.''
        The fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act accepted
    the fiscal year 2013 TFP which included the inactivation of the 815th
    Airlift Squadron at Keesler AFB, Mississippi (10  C-130J), divestment
    or transfer of the 440th Airlift Wing's 12 C-130H aircraft at Pope
    Army Air Field, North Carolina, and transfer of (10  C-130J) aircraft
    from the 815th Airlift Squadron to Pope Army Airfield. In February
    2014, the Air Force notified Congress of its intent to alter the
    destination of the 815th Airlift Squadron's aircraft from Pope Army
    Airfield to Little Rock AFB.
        On April 23, 2014, members of the Air Staff briefed the SAC-D
    Subcommittee staff on the analysis behind the movement of the C-130Js
    from Keesler AFB to Little Rock AFB. The data provided detailed the
    facts and background on the shifting of the C-130s to include the
    overall C-130H/J aircraft flow and cost savings realized through the
    total C-130 Enterprise decisions that have been made.
        We continue to assess our plan in light of fiscal year 2015
    National Defense Authorization Act and Defense Appropriations Bill
    language and stand ready to provide further analysis as needed.
                      81st training wing, keesler afb, ms
        Question. General Welsh and Lieutenant General Jackson, in your
    posture statements, you each stressed the importance of training. I'm
    quite proud of the 81st Training Wing at Keesler Air Force Base, which
    offers cutting-edge technical, cyber, and medical training programs and
    was designated as the Center of Excellence for electronics training.
    Can you comment on the extent to which these programs contribute to air
    and space superiority for our Air Force?
        Answer. The Air Force is very proud of the 81st Training Wing along
    with all of our Air Education and Training Command wings. Every Airman
    gets their start in Air Education and Training Command. In fiscal year
    2013, at Keesler Air Force Base alone, the 81st Training Wing graduated
    over 30,000 students from nearly 300 resident and non-resident courses,
    supporting 60 distinct Air Force Specialty Codes (types of technical
    jobs). Keesler Air Force Base trains the full spectrum of service
    members that both directly and indirectly support the Air and Space
    superiority mission including medical professionals, airfield
    operations and maintenance, Battlefield Airmen, personnel, finance,
    weather, and the entire spectrum of initial skills cyber operations.
        Keesler's role in training and developing Airmen is vital to
    maintaining our superiority over any adversary. All of our weapon
    systems use some form of technology for which the 81st Training Wing
    provides trained Airmen across many disciplines, including trained
    cyber Airmen to maintain and operate these complex systems. The wing's
    training directly contributes to operations. For example, our Keesler-
    trained cyber Airmen maintain encryption devices used onboard the F-22
    and F-35 aircraft, our latest generation jet fighters. Without trained
    Airmen from the 81st Training Wing, we could not launch these aircraft
    and maintain our edge in air superiority. More broadly, the 81st
    Training Wing provides the foundational initial cyber skills training
    for producing and establishing the enduring and sustainment portion of
    cyber Airmen required to fill a significant portion of U.S. Cyber
    Command's cyber mission force teams. The on-going standup of the cyber
    mission forces is yet another way we will maintain superiority over our
    adversaries in the future, and the 81st Training Wing is essential to
    training the best Airmen in cyber in how to lead the way.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                               military suicides
        Question. Lieutenant General Jackson, lately the majority of
    attention has been focused on the military sexual assault dilemma, and
    rightly so, but the suicide issue has continued to plague our military
    and veteran populations. In the Air Force alone, suicide has taken the
    lives of almost 100 Airmen a year since 2010. This year, there have
    already been over 15 suicides in the first two and a half months, more
    than double the rate over the same period last year. Unfortunately, the
    Reserve component has mirrored the active component in this tragic
    area, with a significant number of suicides every year and trending
    upwards. I have heard from numerous Veteran and military support groups
    in Alaska and it sounds like there is a disconnect in suicide awareness
    and prevention efforts between the active component and the Reserve
    Component. Like the active force, your operations tempo has been
    extremely high over the last decade plus of war and our Reserve
    Component forces have answered the call in tremendous fashion. But
    unlike the active force, the Reserve Component has a limited ability to
    reach out to their forces and ensure they are cared for after
    deployments.
        What are you doing to address this horrific problem and where can
    we help you get things under control? (Note: Same question to General
    Grass and Lieutenant General Clarke)
        Answer. We are saddened by every loss of life in our Air Force
    Reserve (AFR) family regardless of the circumstances. To combat and
    minimize suicide in the AFR, a tremendous amount of effort has been
    placed into our Air Force Reserve Suicide Prevention Program (AFRSPP).
    AFRSPP is broad-based, multi-faceted and builds on the Air Force's
    Suicide Prevention Program in ways that are specifically designed to
    appeal to Reserve Airmen.
        We ask America's Citizen Airmen to maintain a unique ``reserve-
    work-life balance'' between their Air Force duties, their civilian
    employer and their families. Maintaining this balance can sometimes be
    a challenge. Programs such as the Employer Support of the Guard and
    Reserve (ESGR) and ``Hero2Hired.jobs'' are critical in helping our
    Airmen deal with life-changing events such as deploying and
    transitioning to or from the civilian workforce.
        The AFR is leveraging today's technology to further support our
    reserve-work-life balance by offering the Wingman Toolkit, found at
    http://AFRC.Wingman
    Toolkit.org/. The Wingman Toolkit is our online resource designed
    around comprehensive fitness and the four areas of physical, mental,
    spiritual and social well-being. Resources include articles, videos,
    Web site links, resiliency training, a mobile phone app, a sexual
    assault resource page, and a ``Get Help'' bell with the National
    Suicide Prevention Lifeline for those that may need immediate help. The
    Wingman Toolkit is one of many efforts to ensure our Citizen Airmen's
    comprehensive fitness, by building a strong Wingman culture of Airmen
    proactively taking care of themselves and each other.
        In addition to the Wingman Toolkit, the AFR provides the
    Psychological Health Advocacy Program (PHAP) to aid Airmen and
    families. PHAP assists our members and their families by locating
    appropriate resources through free and confidential regional teams,
    available 24/7. Our nurse case facilitators offer resource referrals
    for any life stressor, from family counseling and deployment support to
    suicide prevention and substance abuse. In fiscal year 2013, only the
    second year of the program, the cases increased by 91 percent to more
    than 1,100, and the number of mental health cases increased by 142
    percent to over 300. These increases are a result of more members
    taking advantage of this important service, which is making a direct
    impact on our member's lives. Our Citizen Airmen have come to
    appreciate the PHAP motto that ``you and your family are not alone.''
        Taking into account the limited ability to reach out to our Airmen
    compared to our active duty counterparts, we continually strive to
    improve our programs, focusing on getting Reservists the help they need
    before a crisis occurs. We constantly advocate prevention and early
    help-seeking with vital resources such as our Chaplains and medical
    professionals. For the past 2 years, the Air Force Reserve Command
    (AFRC) Chaplain Corps' Suicide Prevention Action Plan (SPAP) has
    provided support for resilience and suicide-prevention through targeted
    Reserve Personnel Appropriation supported funding ($1.2 million in
    fiscal year 2013 and $1.1 million in fiscal year 2014). We currently
    have 19 chaplains and chaplain assistants supporting 11 AFRC units. In
    addition, the AFR funded 29 director of psychological health positions
    across the United States in fiscal year 2013. To date, 13 of the 29
    positions have been filled or have candidates identified, with another
    three in the hiring process. These directors are fully credentialed
    mental health providers who are immediately available to Air Force
    Reserve members at risk.
        We also have developed a very successful Yellow Ribbon Program,
    which promotes the well-being of Airman and the people who support
    them. Furthermore, it connects them to local resources before, during,
    and after deployments. The importance of the Yellow Ribbon Program for
    our deploying members was demonstrated last fiscal year as 2,273 AFR
    members attended 57 events, along with 3,685 family members. Our member
    satisfaction rate of 92 percent is a testament to the value of the
    Yellow Ribbon Program in supporting our Citizen Airmen, their families
    and employers throughout the deployment cycle. In 2013, the AFR's
    Yellow Ribbon Program was the first to begin using a scanner system to
    track events and their attendees. Coupled with pre- and post-event
    surveys, this provides Yellow Ribbon administrators information to
    build more effective future events. The result is better programming
    for breakout sessions and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
        We sincerely appreciate your offer to assist with our suicide
    prevention efforts. In addition to your support of the Yellow Ribbon
    Program, one suggested area of focus is on the part-time Airmen who are
    struggling with the stress involved in obtaining full-time civilian
    employment. Anything Congress can do to improve the employment
    situation for Reservists and Guardsmen in need would be welcomed.
                   furlough of guard and reserve technicians
        Question. Lieutenant General Jackson, one of the things that really
    pained me during last summer's furloughs and the government shutdown
    that followed was that the civilian technicians were not exempted from
    the furlough nor were they as a group deemed essential during the
    shutdown. Earlier this year I had an opportunity to speak with an
    Alaska Air Guard technician who serves as an Operations Officer with
    the rescue squadron. In spite of the importance of his job he was
    neither exempted from furlough nor deemed essential in the early days
    of the shutdown. None of this makes sense to me. It seems to me that
    the mission responsibilities of the technician workforce are so
    intimately tied to the military personnel who work alongside them that
    the technicians as a group should be exempted from furlough and deemed
    essential in the case of a lapse in appropriations.
        Would you disagree with this proposition? (Note: Same question to
    General Grass)
        Answer. Our Air Force dual status technicians serve in a wide range
    of occupations from engineering and logistics to healthcare and
    personnel support. While in an active duty status, technicians are not
    subject to furlough. While in a civilian status, they are covered by
    Title 5 regulations and, like all other Federal civilian employees, are
    subject to furlough as a result of any lapse in appropriations.
        Federal activities are significantly curtailed during lapse in
    appropriations. As a well settled matter of law, a Federal agency may
    not incur a financial obligation unless (1) it has statutory authority
    to obligate funds in advance of appropriations; (2) such actions are
    necessary to address threats to life, property, or national security;
    or (3) the functions are necessary to discharge the President's
    Constitutional duties and powers. Activities deemed to fall under one
    of these categories are called ``exemptions.'' Additionally,
    undertakings funded through monies not appropriated or by
    appropriations not affected by the lapse may also continue. Failure to
    abide by the rules would constitute an acceptance of voluntary services
    and a potential Antideficiency Act violation.
        In determining exemptions from the 2013 furlough necessitated by
    lapse in appropriations, the Air Force followed the Department of
    Defense (DOD) Contingency Guidance for Continuation of Essential
    Operations in the Absence of Available Appropriations, September 2013.
    This document provided detailed guidance for identifying those missions
    and functions of the Department that may continue to be carried out in
    the absence of available appropriations. According to this guidance,
    DOD appropriated-fund civilian personnel, including military
    technicians serving in a civilian capacity, who are not necessary to
    carry out or support excepted activities, are to be furloughed. Only
    the minimum number of civilian employees necessary to carry out
    excepted activities will be exempt from furlough. To apply these
    provisions, the law requires that an agency look at the activities a
    given employee is performing. In this way, it is the activity that a
    particular employee is performing that is ``excepted,'' not the
    employees themselves. In following this guidance, the Air Force
    determined that not all military technicians were necessary to carry
    out excepted activities. Therefore, dual status technicians serving in
    Operations Officer civilian positions were subject to furlough, on a
    case by case basis, during the 2013 government shutdown.
        The Air Force Reserve (AFR) shares your concerns and seeks to
    ensure dual status military technicians are exempt from furloughs
    during a lapse in appropriations to the greatest degree authorized
    under the law. The AFR is currently staffing a request for the
    Department to reconsider its government shutdown policies in order to
    better manage its dual status technicians during a lapse in
    appropriations.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Durbin. We will be working closely with you as we
    face the challenge of the next fiscal year budget. Thank you
    very much. This meeting of the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, April 2, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]