[Senate Hearing 113-762]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Leahy, Feinstein, Murray, Reed,
Pryor, Collins, Graham, Coats, and Blunt.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of Defense
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROBERT HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
COMPTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Good morning.
The subcommittee meets this morning to receive testimony on
the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of
Defense (DOD).
I am pleased to welcome the leadership of the Department,
Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, to present
their views on both the strategic and budgetary challenges
facing our armed forces.
Mr. Hale, thank you for your expertise, as well. Your
continuing contributions make a big difference.
Let me congratulate the Department on the capture of Ahmed
Abu Khatallah, a key figure in the September 2012 attack on
U.S. facilities in Benghazi, an attack which cost us four
American lives. I want to commend the professionalism of our
men and women in uniform who worked alongside law enforcement
and intelligence counterparts to ensure that this man will be
brought to justice.
We're also following several other recent events which have
underscored the many challenges to American security and
interests around the world. The shocking events in Iraq this
past week demonstrate the threats posed by continuing chaos in
Syria which has given rise to dangerous new extremist groups.
Deterioration of security in Yemen shows that established
terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, remain a serious threat. The aggressive moves by
Russia in Ukraine recall the importance of U.S. security
commitments to our allies, partners, and friends. And finally,
the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan raise serious
questions about our future posture and commitments to that
country. Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, I hope you can
address these situations in your remarks.
Along with these security threats, the Department has a
longer-term challenge when it comes to the budget. I've said,
many times, sequestration was a threat that was never supposed
to happen. But it did. The shrinking budgets have meant that
many important programs, such as large headquarter staffs,
generous contractor support contracts, and generous travel
policies, have been changed and cut back.
But it's not clear that the Department is making all of the
tough choices required in this budget environment. The fiscal
year 2015 Defense budget plan includes $115 billion in spending
between 2016 and 2019 above the BCA (Budget Control Act) caps,
meaning that more tough choices are ahead if we do not
eliminate sequestration next year. The Department also proposed
$26 billion in additional programs that it could not fit within
its budget constraints but were viewed as high priorities for
readiness, modernization, and key needs. And the service chiefs
proposed an additional $36 billion in programs also viewed as
high priorities.
Lastly, it's been 3\1/2\ months since the 2015 budget was
submitted, and Congress has yet to see the overseas contingency
operations budget request. I'm the first to say that we need to
do something about sequestration, provide a responsible budget
plan that balances investments in national defense, education,
healthcare innovation, and other national priorities, but I am
concerned that the Department of Defense cannot continue to
count on tens of billions of extra dollars arriving each year
outside of the budget process, and I'd like to know how the
Department intends to further tighten its budget process in
light of the continuing unknowns about sequestration.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Despite these challenges, we can still afford to make
critical investments in the Defense budget within available
resources. Many Defense leaders have embraced competition to
get more bang from the taxpayer's buck, and there is even more
that can be done to accelerate competition in Defense programs.
Investments in science and technology are critical, not only to
national defense, but also to innovation across America. DOD
investments in GPS satellites, the Internet, and medical
research have literally touched the lives of every American,
whether or not they've ever worn a uniform. Work going on today
at DARPA, the Army Research Laboratory, the Air Force Research
Lab, and the Office of Naval Research could improve our
national security, revolutionize medicine, technology, and
business for years to come. Even in these tough budget times,
we have to work to afford investments in medical research for
breakthrough technologies and to increase investments in key
areas. I look forward to working with you, Secretary Hagel, to
make this happen.
[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 Department of Defense.
I am pleased to welcome the leadership of the Department of
Defense, Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, to present their views on
both the strategic and budgetary challenges facing our Armed Forces.
Several recent events have underscored the many challenges to
American security and interests around the world.
First, let me congratulate the Department of Defense on the capture
of a key figure in the attack on September 2012 attack on U.S.
facilities in Banghazi, named Ahmed Abu Khatallah. In particular, I
commend the professionalism of our men and women in uniform, who worked
alongside their law enforcement and intelligence counterparts to ensure
this man was brought to justice.
We are also following a number of other events:
--The shocking events in Iraq this past week demonstrate the threats
posed by continuing chaos in Syria, which have given rise to
dangerous new extremist groups.
--Deterioration of security in Yemen shows that an established
terrorist organization, such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, remains a serious threat.
--The aggressive moves by Russia in Ukraine recall the importance of
U.S. security commitments to our allies, partners, and friends.
--And finally, the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan raises
questions about our future posture and commitments to that
country.
Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, I hope you can address some of
those situations in your opening remarks.
Along with these security threats, the Department has a longer term
challenge in how to budget for its priorities.
I've said many times that sequestration was never supposed to
happen, but it did.
The shrinking budgets have meant that many nice-to-have programs,
such as large headquarters staffs, generous contractor support
contracts, and generous travel policies, have been cut back.
But it is not clear that the Department is making all of the tough
choices required in this new budget environment. The fiscal year 2015
defense budget plan includes $115 billion in spending between 2016 and
2019 that is above the BCA caps--meaning that more tough choices are
ahead if sequestration is not eliminated next year.
The Department also proposed $26 billion in additional programs
that it could not fit within its budget constraints, but were viewed as
high priorities for readiness, modernization, and other key needs. And
the Service Chiefs proposed an additional $36 billion in programs that
are also viewed as high priorities.
Lastly, it has been three and a half months since the 2015 budget
was submitted, and Congress has yet to see an Overseas Contingency
Operations budget request.
I am the first to say that we need to do something about
sequestration and provide a responsible budget plan that balances
investments in national defense, education, healthcare, innovation, and
other national priorities.
But I am concerned that the DOD cannot continue to count on tens of
billions of extra dollars arriving each year outside of the budget
process, and I would like to know how the Department intends to further
tighten its budgeting process in light of the continuing unknowns of
sequestration.
Despite these serious challenges, we can still afford to make
critical investments in the defense budget within the available
resources. Many defense leaders have embraced competition to get more
bang from the taxpayer buck, and there is even more than can be done to
accelerate competition in defense programs.
Investments in science and technology are critical not only to our
national defense, but to innovation across our country. DOD investments
in GPS satellites, the Internet, and medical research have touched the
lives of every American, whether or not they have ever worn a uniform.
Work going on today at DARPA, the Army Research Laboratory, the Air
Force Research Lab, and the Office of Naval Research could improve our
national security and revolutionize medicine, technology, and business
for years to come. Even in these tough budget times, we can afford to
target medical research and breakthrough technologies for increased
investment, and I look forward to working with you, Secretary Hagel, to
make that happen.
Senator Durbin. Chairwoman Mikulski is not here and Ranking
Member Shelby is on the floor, so at this point, I'm going to
proceed to our witnesses and ask Secretary Hagel if he would
like to open up and make a statement. Your written statement
will be made an official part of the record.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL
Secretary Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Good morning.
Members of the committee, good morning. And thank you for the
opportunity to talk about our fiscal year 2015 budget and, as
you have noted, the other issues that are before us in the
world today in this country. We are prepared to respond to
questions regarding those specific issues.
I also, on behalf of the Defense Department, want to thank
this subcommittee, in particular, for your continued support of
our troops and what is required in order to keep our troops
modern, ready, capable. And that is much the focus of this
budget and much of what we'll be talking about this morning,
and why we presented the budget we have, and why we need the
budget that we will present.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly appreciate being here, as
always, when I am with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
General Marty Dempsey. This country is very fortunate to have
General Dempsey's leadership, as well as all the chiefs that
not only represent our services so well, but are very effective
in their leadership and very wise in their advice they give to
the President, give to me.
I also want to note that Bob Hale, as you have recognized
already, our Comptroller for DOD over the last 5 years. This, I
believe, will be his last budget hearing. I know he's greatly
distressed by that, but he's a great admirer of the Congress,
and never gets enough time with all of you.
And I want to particularly acknowledge Bob Hale, because he
has really been particularly important to DOD and this country
over the last year, 2 years, when we have had Government
shutdowns, abrupt, steep cuts, sequestration, which you've
mentioned. He has been the architecture and the chief operating
officer to guide us through that.
So, Bob, we will miss you, your leadership and what you've
contributed, but you deserve to escape. And you all know very
well his successor, Mike McCord, who served for many years as a
senior staff member on the Armed Services Committee. This body
confirmed him recently, and we appreciate that, so he will
replace Bob.
Mr. Chairman, you have noted, and I just recognized, that
recent crises in Iraq, Ukraine, remind us all how quickly
things can change in the world, and not for the better. And
they underscore why we must assure the readiness and the
agility and the capability of our military. That's what we will
address today.
My lengthier submitted statement, Mr. Chairman, describes
our budget in detail and the rationale behind the decisions
that we have come forward with, presented in our budget.
You mentioned our overseas contingency operations budget,
OCO, for fiscal year 2015. It is being finalized now. I know
it's late. There are some reasons for that. This OCO
presentation will reflect the President's decision on a couple
of new initiatives that he has announced that he's taken and
certainly the continuation of our enduring presence in
Afghanistan, as well.
The President, as you know, recently announced a $5-billion
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which would be funded
through OCO, and a $1-billion European Reassurance Initiative,
also funded out of OCO. I strongly support both of these, for
the reasons that we will define more clearly this morning.
This budget reflects, I believe, the threats, the
uncertainties, and the opportunities facing our country today,
but also probably is important in the future. Everyone on this
committee knows that decisions made today have immense impact
on what kind of a military we're going to have down the road.
You mentioned science and technology. That is one of the
foundational dynamics of keeping our technological edge, our
capability, our modernization ahead of what's out there. It
also, Mr. Chairman, reflects the tough fiscal realities facing
us here today. And you mentioned one, of course: Sequestration.
The tremendous uncertainty that DOD has had to deal with
the last 12 months, but really the last 24 months--do we have a
budget? We don't have a budget. What kind of a budget? That
kind of uncertainty, when you're trying to put together and
operate in the interest of our national security, an enterprise
this big, has been difficult. But because of the kind of
leadership in people like Bob Hale and Marty Dempsey, we've
been able to do it.
Last year, DOD's budget was cut $37 billion. It was cut $37
billion because of sequestration. And I might remind this
committee, as you all know, that's in addition to the $487-
billion 10-year reduction under the Budget Control Act of 2011
that DOD was already implementing. December's Bipartisan Budget
Act gave DOD some temporary relief from sequestration for
fiscal years 2014 and 2015. But it still imposes more than $75
billion in cuts over the fiscal year this year and fiscal year
2015.
Mr. Chairman, unless Congress changes the law, as you all
know, before fiscal year 2016, sequestration will be back as
the law, and that will take another $50 billion from our budget
each year through fiscal year 2021, damaging the military's
readiness, undercutting our Defense strategy and our
capabilities.
The President's 5-year budget plan provides a realistic
alternative to sequestration, projecting, as you note, $115
billion more than current law allows from 2016 to 2019. This is
the minimum amount of additional spending that our military and
our civilian leadership believe is needed to successfully
execute the Defense strategy.
Since my submitted statement explains in detail our budget
request and the rationale behind those key decisions, I want to
focus on two critical areas.
First, our decision to reduce the size of the military's
force structure and retire older platforms in order to invest
in training and modernization. Under the strict budget limits
being imposed on DOD, we cannot keep our current force
structure adequately ready and modernized. Readiness is our
main concern. I know it's a concern of this committee.
Readiness is our main concern, as it must be for anyone who
cares about our national security and the men and women who
defend it. We cannot place our men and women in situations if
they are not ready. It would be a failure, the worst failure
leadership could make.
So, we made a strategic decision to reduce the size of our
force to ensure our troops are trained, ready, capable. These
decisions were based on strategic priorities in detailed
analysis, and agreed to by all--by all the service chiefs.
After 13 years of long war and stability operations, we must
shift our focus onto future requirements shaped by enduring and
emerging threats, much like we're seeing today. We must be able
to defeat terrorist threats and cyber attacks and deter
adversaries with increasingly modern weapons and technological
capabilities. That's why we protected funding for cyber and
special operations.
For the Active Duty Army, we propose drawing down by 13
percent over the next 5 years, to about 440 to 450 soldiers,
which we believe is adequate for future demand, Chief of Staff
of the Army, General Odierno, believes is adequate for future
demand.
Army National Guard and Reserve units will remain, and have
to remain, a vibrant part of our national defense. We've
proposed drawing the Reserves and the National Guard down by 5
percent. We will continue investing in high-end ground
capabilities to keep our soldiers the most advanced, ready, and
capable in the world.
The Navy will have 11 carrier strike groups under the
President's budget plan, keeping our carrier force at the level
approved by Congress. We've protected investments in
submarines, afloat staging bases, guided-missile destroyers,
and other lethal survivable platforms, ensuring our
technological edge and enabling our naval forces to operate
effectively, regardless of other nations' capabilities.
But we had to make some tradeoffs, Mr. Chairman. We had to
make some realistic tradeoffs. To help keep its ship inventory
ready and modern at reduced budget levels, the Navy will set
aside 11 cruisers for modernization and retrofitting, then
return them to service with greater capability and longer
lifespans. This will also support a strong defense industrial
base, itself a national strategic asset.
The Marine Corps will continue its planned drawdown to
182,000 and will devote about 900 more marines to increased
Embassy security.
The Air Force will continue investing in advanced
capabilities that are most relevant to maintaining our aerial
dominance in confronting new threats, including the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, the new long-range bomber, and the KC-45
refueling tanker. But we choose--chose to replace the 50-year-
old U-2 with the unmanned Global Hawk and phase out the 40-
year-old A-10, which lacks the multi-mission capabilities of
more advanced survivable aircraft.
Let me address compensation reform as the second issue.
Taking care of our people, as everyone on this committee knows,
means providing them with fair compensation as well as the
training and tools they need to succeed in battle and to return
home safely. To meet those obligations under constrained
budgets, we need some modest reforms and structural
adjustments. We need these to slow the grow in pay and certain
in-kind benefits.
Let me clarify what these adjustments are and are not.
First, we'll keep recommending pay increases, but the rate
of growth of those increases would be slow.
Second, off-basing housing--off-base housing subsidies,
they will continue. Today's 100-percent benefit would be
gradually reduced, but only to 95 percent, phasing in over
several years. And I would remind us that, in the 1990s, the
housing allowance was about 80 percent.
Third, we're not closing commissaries. We recommended
gradually phasing out some subsidies, but only for domestic
commissaries in large metropolitan areas. We'll continue fully
subsidizing all commissaries overseas and in remote locations.
Fourth, we recommend simplifying and modernizing our three
TRICARE systems by merging them into one system, phasing in
modest increases in copays and deductibles for retirees and
family members to encourage the most affordable means of care.
Active Duty personnel's healthcare will remain free. We will
not compromise on access and quality of healthcare. Under our
plan, 100 percent of the savings from compensation reform will
go toward ensuring--that our troops have the training and tools
they need to accomplish their missions.
Readiness. If Congress blocks these changes without
adjusting current budget caps, or if sequestration remains the
law, it will jeopardize the readiness and capability of our
armed forces and shortchange America's ability to effectively
and decisively respond when global offense--events demand it.
My submitted statement, Mr. Chairman, details how sequestration
would compromise our national security.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget supports our Defense
strategy, it defends this country and keeps our commitment--all
of our commitments to our people. The Chairman, the chiefs, and
I strongly support it. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cochran, members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget submission for the
Department of Defense fully reflects the historic transition taking
place as America winds down the longest war in its history. This is a
defining budget that will begin adapting and reshaping our defense
enterprise for years to come. Recent crises in Iraq and Ukraine are
reminders of how dangerous, volatile, and unpredictable the world can
be--and they underscore the absolute need to assure the readiness,
agility, and capability of the United States military.
With this budget, we are repositioning the military for the new
strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new
technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more
volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to
the United States. We are also helping navigate through a period of
great uncertainty regarding the future level of resources DOD will have
to defend the Nation.
I have no illusions about the fiscal realities facing DOD. It was 1
year ago that $37 billion in sequestration cuts were being imposed for
fiscal year 2013--cuts that came in addition to the $487 billion, 10-
year defense spending reductions required by the Budget Control Act of
2011 that DOD has been implementing.
We had to implement this $37 billion cut in a matter of months
while trying to avoid damage to national security. Our people and our
mission suffered because of these abrupt and deep cuts.
Today, DOD is in a better place as a result of the Bipartisan
Budget Act passed last December. It provided DOD with some relief in
this fiscal year and for fiscal year 2015. And it gave us some budget
certainty for the next fiscal year.
The Bipartisan Budget Act was possible because Members of Congress,
both Republican and Democrat, worked together with this Administration
for the greater interests of our country.
But we're not yet where we need to be. So our partnership must
continue.
Under the spending limits of the Bipartisan Budget Act, DOD's base
budget is roughly $496 billion in fiscal year 2014--or $31 billion
below what the President requested last year. The law also meant
cutting DOD spending in fiscal year 2015 to $496 billion, which is $45
billion less than was projected in the President's budget request last
year. And sequestration-level cuts remain the law for fiscal year 2016
and beyond.
Defense budgets have long included both a 1-year budget request,
and a 5-year plan that indicates expectations for the future. Over the
years from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2019, the President's plan
projects $115 billion more in spending than at sequestration levels.
Some have asked why the President continues to request budgets
above sequestration levels. The reason is clear. President Obama and I
are not going to ask for a level of funding that would compromise
America's national security interests. We never would. Continued
sequestration cuts would compromise our national security both for the
short and long term.
That said, if sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016 and beyond,
or if we receive funding levels below the President's request, we are
prepared to specify the cuts we would have to make, and the risks we
would then have to assume. These cuts are described in this testimony
and have been sent over to Congress in a detailed report.
However, the President, the Chairman, and I do not expect Congress
to push us further down a path that has clear risks to our national
security. Instead, we expect that all of us can continue working
together, as partners, to find a balance . . . and to assure
America's national security. If Congress is going to require us to
operate under increasingly constrained budgets, Congress must partner
with us so that we can make the right decisions.
The President's budget matches resources to the updated defense
strategy in this year's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which builds
on the President's January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The QDR is
not budget-driven; rather, it is resource-informed, defining the risks
assumed under the President's budget as well as the risks that would be
assumed under the return of sequestration. A QDR that completely
ignores fiscal realities would be irrelevant.
The QDR outlines our top strategic priorities, which weighed
heavily on the choices presented in this budget:
--Defending the homeland against all threats;
--Building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and
deterring aggression; and
--Remaining prepared to win decisively against any adversary should
deterrence fail.
To fulfill this strategy DOD will continue to shift its operational
focus and forces to the Asia-Pacific, sustain commitments to key allies
and partners in the Middle East and Europe, maintain engagement in
other regions, and continue to aggressively pursue global terrorist
networks.
As a whole, this budget allows DOD to implement the President's
defense strategy, albeit with some increased risks, which I specify
later in my testimony.
The reality of reduced resources and a changing strategic
environment requires us to prioritize and make difficult choices. Given
the uncertainty about funding levels, our current 5-year plan reduces
selected end strengths and forces to levels consistent with
sequestration-level cuts. Those additional reductions could be reversed
if funding rises above sequestration levels. I explain this in greater
detail later in my testimony. The way we formulated our budget gives us
the flexibility to make difficult decisions based on the likely range
of potential fiscal outcomes.
budget top-lines: balancing readiness, capability, and capacity
Consistent with the strict spending limits of the Bipartisan Budget
Act, President Obama is requesting $495.6 billion for DOD's fiscal year
2015 base budget. Since last year's plans called for $541 billion for
fiscal year 2015, this represents a $45 billion cut. Our fiscal year
2015 budget will allow the military to protect U.S. interests and
fulfill the updated defense strategy--but with increased levels of
risk. DOD can manage these risks under the President's fiscal year 2015
budget plan, but risks would grow significantly if sequestration-level
cuts return in fiscal year 2016, if proposed reforms are not accepted,
and if uncertainty over budget levels continues.
In formulating this budget, our priority was balancing readiness,
capability, and capacity--making sure that whatever size force we have,
we can afford to keep our people properly trained, equipped,
compensated, and prepared to accomplish their mission. That's the only
reasonable course under constrained budgets. We must be able to keep
our military ready and capable.
Accordingly, about two-thirds of DOD's fiscal year 2015 budget--
$341.3 billion--funds its day-to-day costs, what a business might call
its operating budget. These funds pay for things like fuel, spare
parts, logistics support, maintenance, service contracts, and
administration. It also includes pay and benefits for military and
civilian personnel, which by themselves comprise nearly half of the
total budget.
The remaining third of our budget--$154.3 billion--pays for
investments in future defense needs, or what a business might call its
capital improvement budget. These funds are allocated for researching,
developing, testing, evaluating, and ultimately purchasing the weapons,
equipment, and facilities that our men and women in uniform need to
accomplish their mission.
Broken down in a more specific way, our budget includes the
following categories:
--Military pay and benefits (including healthcare and retirement
benefits).--$167.2 billion, or about 34 percent of the total
base budget.
--Civilian pay and benefits.--$77 billion, or about 16 percent of the
total base budget.
--Other operating costs.--$97.1 billion, or about 19 percent of the
total base budget.
--Acquisitions and other investments (Procurement; research,
development, testing, and evaluation; and new facilities
construction).--$154.3 billion, or about 31 percent of the
total base budget.
So far I have focused on DOD's base budget. We will soon propose an
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget for fiscal year 2015. The
OCO budget will cover costs related to Afghanistan and other operations
and will reflect the President's decision regarding the enduring
presence in Afghanistan and U.S. commitments made at the 2012 NATO
Summit in Chicago. Specifically it will assume that at the beginning of
calendar year 2015, the United States will have 9,800 U.S.
servicemembers in different parts of Afghanistan, in addition to troops
from our NATO allies and other partners, to conduct two limited
missions: training and advising Afghanistan's security forces, and
counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al-Qa'ida. By the
end of 2015, we would reduce the U.S. presence by roughly half,
consolidating our troops into two locations in Kabul and Bagram
Airfield. By the end of 2016, we will draw down to a more conventional
Embassy-based security assistance presence in Kabul. As the President
has made clear, this enduring presence is contingent on the Afghans
signing a Bilateral Security Agreement.
The OCO budget request will also cover other costs related to
CENTCOM operations in the Mideast. In addition, the President has
announced that the fiscal year 2015 OCO request will include up to $5
billion for a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund designed to allow the
United States to train, build capacity, and facilitate operations of
partner countries assisting on the front lines of our efforts to combat
terrorism. These funds will give us the flexibility to fulfill
different missions such as training security forces in Yemen,
supporting a regionally led force to help keep peace in Somalia,
working with European allies to train a security force and border
patrol in Libya, and facilitating French operations in Mali.
The fiscal year 2015 OCO request will also include the President's
one billion dollar European Reassurance Initiative that would allow us
to take measures to reinforce Allies and Partners in Europe. These
measures could include:
--increasing exercises, training, and rotational presence across
Europe, especially on the territory of our newer NATO allies;
--as we have done in Poland, deploying small detachments of U.S.
planners to augment the capability of our allies to design and
host a broad range of training and exercises;
--increasing the responsiveness of U.S. forces to reinforce NATO
through the prepositioning of equipment, and improvements to
other reception facilities and infrastructure in Europe; and
--increasing U.S. Navy participation in NATO naval force deployments,
including deployments to the Black and Baltic Seas.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request sent to Congress in March
included a placeholder of $79 billion for OCO. It would be premature
for me to provide right now a specific number for the fiscal year 2015
OCO request. However, we expect that the proposal will be substantially
smaller than the placeholder figure.
being more efficient
Because we are asking taxpayers for more than half a trillion
dollars for defense spending, DOD must make every $1 count--
particularly during a period when we are under stringent budget
constraints across the Federal Government. So we're continuing to find
new ways to use our resources more wisely and strategically, be more
efficient, reduce overhead, and root out waste, fraud, and abuse.
This year, a new package of reforms in these areas--the second-
largest submitted by this Administration--produced $18.2 billion in
savings for fiscal year 2015, and some $93 billion in savings through
fiscal year 2019. This enabled us to make smaller cuts in other areas.
Building on a 20-percent cut in management headquarters operating
budgets--which we began implementing in December for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff, and which the services and
agencies are implementing during the 5-year defense plan--this package
includes savings from reducing contractor costs and civilian personnel;
terminating or delaying some troubled weapons and procurement programs
in favor of higher priorities; and cutting back on costs at certain
defense agencies. It also includes healthcare savings that we found by
cutting back lower-priority research projects and construction and by
taking advantage of slower growth of healthcare costs in the private
sector.
We are also continuing to monitor previous years' initiatives to
use our resources more efficiently, as well as making progress toward
auditability on our financial statements. DOD expects most of its
budget statements to be audit ready by this September, and remains
committed to becoming fully audit-ready by 2017. This is an ambitious
goal for an organization of our size and complexity, and there is still
much more work to do. But we are making significant progress. Several
DOD organizations have achieved important, positive audit results. Last
year, for example, the Marine Corps became the first DOD military
service to receive a clean audit opinion--in this case for the current
year of its budget statement.
In addition to these efforts, we must take a serious look at
responsible procurement and acquisition reforms that will further
increase the buying power of defense dollars. This is particularly
important if we're going to protect investments in modernized
capabilities. DOD officials are already working closely with
Congressional Committee staff to go over defense acquisition and
procurement laws line-by-line, and we hope to start implementing
legislative reforms this year.
No reasonable discussion of allocating our resources more
efficiently can avoid the need to reduce excess facilities. With this
submission, we are asking Congress to authorize a round of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to begin in fiscal year 2017.
I understand Congress' concerns about BRAC, including your desire
to reduce overseas infrastructure first and your frustrations with BRAC
2005. That's why this round will be focused on finding savings rather
than reorganization and will feature a rapid payback of up-front costs,
and why DOD will continue to reduce excess overseas infrastructure.
But we must also divest ourselves of excess domestic facilities,
and BRAC is the most responsible path. I am fully aware that Congress
has not agreed to our BRAC requests of the last 2 years, and that both
authorizing committees have denied our request for a BRAC round in
2017. If Congress continues to block these requests while reducing the
overall budget, we will have to consider every tool at our disposal to
reduce infrastructure.
We can't keep financing overhead that we don't need, because we're
taking that money away from areas that we do need. The more we delay
now, the more we'll have to spend later on unneeded installations
instead of on training, equipping, and compensating our people--robbing
our troops of the resources they need to be able to fight and win
decisively when we send them into harm's way.
This issue is only going to get more difficult. Future Congresses
and administrations will be dealing with it, with fewer and far less
attractive and far more painful options. Congress and DOD must work
together to make these decisions wisely--because no matter what, we
must reduce force structure and end strength in order to sustain a
ready and capable force under constrained budgets.
sustaining a ready and capable force--now and in the future
This is the lesson of every defense drawdown over the past 70
years. Whether after World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War, the
U.S. military retained more force structure than it could afford to
train, maintain, and equip--giving too much weight to capacity over
readiness and capability. Because readiness and modernization were
sacrificed, it took much more money for the military to recover and be
sufficiently trained and equipped to perform assigned missions. And
conflict ultimately did resurface after every war.
We can't afford to repeat those mistakes, which is why we decided
to trade some capacity for readiness and modernized capabilities, in
order to ensure that our military will be well-trained and supplied.
All of our force structure decisions were made strategically--
protecting investments in the forces that would be uniquely suited to
the most likely missions of the future, and minimizing risk in meeting
the President's defense strategy.
Our decisions for investing in a modernized and capable future
force were made in a similar way. With the proliferation of more
advanced military technologies and other nations pursuing comprehensive
military modernization, we are entering an era where American dominance
on the seas, in the skies, and in space--not to mention cyberspace--can
no longer be taken for granted. Because it is essential for deterring
aggression, and because the risk of failure against those potential
adversaries would be far greater than against any others, the
President's budget puts a premium on rapidly deployable, self-
sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced
adversaries.
Sustaining these critical investments under restrained budgets
required setting strategic priorities and making difficult tradeoffs.
That's why each service's budget allocations were made based on
strategy and with the goal of maintaining balance in the readiness,
capability, and capacity of the force.
Army: (24 Percent of the President's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget)
The Army's $120.3 billion will support 32 active-duty brigade
combat teams in fiscal year 2015. Since we are no longer sizing the
force for large and prolonged stability operations, the Army will
accelerate the pace and increase the scale of its post-war drawdown--
reducing by 13 percent between now and 2017, from about 520,000
soldiers to a range of 440,000-450,000 active-duty soldiers instead of
490,000. To maintain a balanced force, the Army National Guard and
Reserves will also draw down, but by a smaller percentage and by a
smaller amount than the active Army--reducing by an average of 5
percent between now and 2017, from about 355,000 Guardsmen and 205,000
Reservists to 335,000 Guardsmen and 195,000 Reservists.
Analysis conducted by the QDR indicated that under the President's
budget, the U.S. military's resulting post-war ground force will be
sufficient to meet the updated defense strategy: capable of decisively
defeating aggression in one major combat theater--as it must be--while
also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged
in another theater. I am aware that pending legislation would establish
yet another commission on the size and shape of the Army, and would
also limit the size of the Army drawdown in the years beyond fiscal
year 2015. We don't need to wait for another commission. We know what
we have to do based on the continued deep resource restraints. Under
current budget limits, maintaining an Army larger than the one we
propose will lead to forces that do not have enough funds for proper
training and modern equipment.
In terms of capabilities, we chose to terminate and reevaluate
alternative options for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program, which
had become too heavy and needed an infusion of new technology. The Army
will also streamline its helicopter force from 7 to 4 airframes. Aging
Kiowa helicopters and older training helicopters will be retired and
replaced with more advanced Apache helicopters that will move from the
National Guard to the active force. In return, the Guard will receive
much more versatile Blackhawk helicopters, which are not only critical
for warfighting, but also more adaptable for the missions the Guard
conducts most frequently, such as disaster relief and emergency
response.
The past decade of war has clearly shown that Apaches are in high
demand. We need to put the Apaches where they will be ready to deploy
fast and frequently when they're needed. This decision will also help
the Guard's helicopter force more closely adhere to state and Federal
requirements for homeland defense, disaster relief, and support to
civil authorities while still serving as an important operational and
strategic complement to our active-duty military. The Guard's
helicopter fleet would only decline by 8 percent compared to the active
Army's decline by 25 percent, and the overall fleet will be
significantly modernized under the President's budget plan.
In making these difficult decisions on the Guard and Reserves, we
affirmed the value of a highly capable reserve component, while keeping
the focus on how our military can best meet future demands given fiscal
constraints. I know that pending legislation would prohibit some or all
of these changes. Let me emphasize that we made these proposals based
on strategic priorities, clear facts, unbiased analysis, and fiscal
realities . . . and with the bottom line focus on how we can best
defend the United States. If Congress prohibits the changes, then we
run a serious risk of reducing our combat capability.
Navy and Marine Corps: (30 Percent of the President's Fiscal Year 2015
Budget)
The Navy and Marine Corps are allocated $147.7 billion for fiscal
year 2015. The Navy's $124.9 billion will support a fleet approaching
300 ships and some 323,600 active-duty sailors, as well as help
preserve the fleet's modernization programs. The President's budget
plan protects our investments in attack submarines, guided missile
destroyers, and afloat staging bases--all of which we will need to
confront emerging threats. Specifically:
--Virginia-Class Attack Submarines.--We are requesting $5.9 billion
for fiscal year 2015, and $28 billion over the FYDP, to support
buying two submarines a year through fiscal year 2019.
--DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers.--We are requesting $2.8 billion
for fiscal year 2015, and $16 billion over the FYDP, to support
buying two DDG-51 destroyers a year through fiscal year 2019.
This will grow our destroyer inventory from 62 at the end of
fiscal year 2014 to 71 (68 DDG-51s, 3 DDG-1000s) at the end of
fiscal year 2019.
--Afloat Forward Staging Bases.--We are requesting $613 million over
the FYDP to support buying one afloat forward staging base
between now and fiscal year 2019.
--Aircraft Carriers.--The President's budget plan enables us to
support 11 carrier strike groups, including the USS George
Washington and its carrier air wing. If we receive the
President's funding levels through fiscal year 2019, we will
keep the George Washington in the fleet and pay for its nuclear
refueling and overhaul. We are requesting $2 billion in fiscal
year 2015 and $12 billion over the FYDP to support completion
of the Gerald Ford, construction of the John F. Kennedy, and
initial procurement of the next carrier.
--F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.--The Department of the Navy is acquiring
two F-35 variants--the Navy carrier-based variant, the F-35C,
and the Marine Corps short-take-off-and-vertical-landing
variant, the F-35B. The Navy is requesting $3.3 billion for
eight aircraft in fiscal year 2015 (two F-35Cs and six F-35Bs),
and $22.9 billion for 105 aircraft over the FYDP.
Again, trade-offs were required to prioritize those investments
under current budget constraints. In order to help keep its ship
inventory ready and modern at reduced budget levels, half of the Navy's
cruiser fleet--or 11 ships--will be placed in a long-term phased
modernization program that will eventually provide them with greater
capability and a longer lifespan. This approach to modernization
enables us to sustain our fleet of cruisers over the long term, which
is important because they're the most capable ships for controlling the
air defense of a carrier strike group. I am aware that some pending
legislation would prohibit placing these ships into this new status. I
believe that, in the long run, such a prohibition would lead to a Navy
that is less modern and capable.
Despite preserving the fleet's modernization programs and providing
for increases in ship inventory over the next 5 years, I am concerned
that the Navy is relying too heavily on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers.
The LCS was designed to perform certain missions--such as mine
sweeping and antisubmarine warfare--in a relatively permissive
environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the
independent protection and firepower to operate and survive against a
more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies,
especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program
to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our
future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must
direct future shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate
in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.
Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go
forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our 5-
year budget plan with no interruptions. Additionally, at my direction,
the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and
lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the
capabilities of a frigate. I've directed the Navy to consider a
completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These
proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year's
budget submission.
While these decisions still keep the Navy on track for a 300-ship
inventory by 2019, finding the money required to modernize older ships
and buy new ones will depend on the Navy's success in its aggressive
and ambitious plans to reduce acquisitions costs and use available
resources more efficiently, particularly in the acquisition of
contracted services. My office will be keeping a close eye on these
efforts.
The Marine Corps' $22.7 billion will support 182,700 Marines,
including about 900 more Marines devoted to increased security at
embassies around the world. It will also support a geographically
distributed force posture in the Asia-Pacific, which will be critical
as we continue rebalancing to the region.
Air Force: (28 Percent of the President's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget)
The Air Force is allocated $137.8 billion in fiscal year 2015. We
chose to protect funding for advanced systems most relevant to
confronting emerging new threats--including the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, the new Long Range Strike Bomber, and the KC-46 refueling
tanker. These platforms will be critical to maintaining aerial
dominance against any potential adversaries for decades to come.
Specifically:
--F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.--We are requesting $4.6 billion for 26
aircraft in fiscal year 2015, and $31.7 billion for 238
aircraft over the FYDP.
--Long Range Strike Bomber.--We are requesting $900 million for
development funds in fiscal year 2015, and $11.4 billion over
the FYDP.
--KC-46 Tanker.--We are requesting $2.4 billion for seven aircraft in
fiscal year 2015, and $16.5 billion for 69 aircraft over the
FYDP.
Because we believe research and development is essential to keeping
our military's technological edge, the President's budget also invests
$1 billion through fiscal year 2019 in a promising next-generation jet
engine technology, which we expect to produce improved performance and
sizeable cost-savings through less fuel consumption. This new funding
will also help ensure a robust industrial base--itself a national
strategic asset.
Protecting these investments required trade-offs. In the next 5
years, in order to free up funding to train and maintain no less than
48 squadrons, the Air Force plans to reduce the number of active-duty
personnel from 328,000 airmen at the end of fiscal year 2014 to 309,000
airmen by the end of fiscal year 2019. The Air Force will also retire
the 50-year-old U-2 in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk system, slow
the growth in its arsenal of armed unmanned systems, and phase out the
aging A-10 fleet.
The A-10 ``Warthog'' is a venerable platform, and this was a tough
decision. But it is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally
designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot
survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft
or air defenses. And as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, the advent of
precision munitions means that many more types of aircraft can now
provide effective close air support, from multirole fighters to B-1
bombers to remotely piloted aircraft, which can all execute more than
one mission. Moreover, the A-10's age is making it much more difficult
and costly to maintain. Analysis showed that significant savings were
only possible through eliminating the entire support apparatus
associated with the aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would
only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere. I
therefore strongly urge the Congress to permit DOD the flexibility to
make difficult changes such as the retirement of the A-10 aircraft.
Defense-Wide: (18 Percent of the President's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget)
The remaining share of the budget--about $89.8 billion--is
allocated for organizations across the Department of Defense.
For fiscal year 2015, this includes about $7.5 billion for the
Missile Defense Agency, which is critical for defending our homeland
and reassuring our European allies. This funding will enable DOD to
increase the number of Ground-Based Interceptors and make targeted
investments in additional defensive interceptors, discrimination
capabilities, and sensors. The budget continues to support the
President's schedule for the European Phased Adaptive Approach.
Since special operations forces play a key role in
counterterrorism, crisis response, and building partner capacity, the
President's budget for fiscal year 2015 allocates $7.7 billion for
Special Operations Command. This is equal to what we requested last
year, a 10-percent increase over what Congress appropriated for fiscal
year 2014, and will support a special operations force of 69,700
personnel.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget increases cyber funding to
$5.1 billion and maintains funding for intelligence agencies and other
support activities. Through funds allocated to the Navy and the Air
Force, the President's budget also preserves all three legs of the
nuclear triad and funds important investments to ensure a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear deterrent.
compensation reform and structural adjustments to some in-kind benefits
For all the money that goes into maintaining a modernized and
capable force, people are the core of our military. In this era of
constrained budgets, ensuring that our people are properly trained,
equipped, prepared, and compensated requires looking at difficult
trade-offs and making some difficult choices. Compensation adjustments
were the last thing we looked at, because you take care of your people
first.
While Congress has taken some helpful steps in recent years to
control the growth in compensation spending, we must do more. At this
point, given the steps we've already taken to reduce civilian personnel
costs in compliance with Congressional direction, no realistic effort
to find further significant savings--savings needed to close serious
shortfalls in training, maintenance, and equipment--can avoid dealing
with military compensation . . . That includes pay and benefits for
active and retired troops, both direct and in-kind.
We could reduce overall payroll spending by further reducing the
total number of people in uniform. But since too small a force adds too
much risk to our national security, we must also address the growth in
pay and benefits for servicemembers so that we can afford to provide
them with the training and tools they need to successfully accomplish
their missions and return home safely.
Since 2000, Congress has in some cases boosted pay increases above
the levels requested by the Department of Defense. Benefits were added
and increased by more than what most active-duty personnel sought,
expected, or had been promised when joining the military. Congress also
added a new healthcare benefit and approved DOD proposals to increase
housing allowances. As a U.S. Senator I supported such proposals. It
was the right thing to do at the time, given the burdens being placed
on our servicemembers, the military's recruiting and retention
challenges, and the fact that we had few constraints on defense
spending.
But today DOD faces a vastly different fiscal situation--and all
the services have consistently met recruiting and retention goals. This
year we're concluding combat operations in America's longest war, which
has lasted 13 years. Now is the time to consider fair and responsible
adjustments to our overall military compensation package.
America has an obligation to make sure servicemembers and their
families are fairly and appropriately compensated and cared for during
and after their time in uniform. We also have a responsibility to give
our troops the finest training and equipment possible--so that whenever
America calls upon them, they are prepared with every advantage we can
give them so that they will return home safely to their families. The
President's budget fulfills both of these promises to our
servicemembers and their families by making several specific proposals.
Basic Pay Raises
For fiscal year 2015 we are requesting 1 percent raise in basic pay
for military personnel--with the exception of general and flag
officers, whose pay will be frozen for a year. Basic pay raises in
future years will be similarly restrained, though raises will continue.
DOD rightfully provides many benefits to our people; however,
finding the money to meet these commitments while protecting training
and readiness under tighter budgets will require some structural
adjustments to three of them--housing, commissaries, and TRICARE.
Housing
In the early 1990s, DOD covered only about 80 percent of
servicemembers' total off-base housing costs. Since then, we increased
that rate to 100 percent.
To adequately fund readiness and modernization under constrained
budgets, we need to slow the growth rate of tax-free basic housing
allowances (BAH) until they cover about 95 percent of the average
servicemember's housing expenses. We would also remove renters'
insurance from the benefit calculation.
This change will happen over several years, to ensure that our
people have time to adjust to it. And, in order to ensure that military
personnel don't have to pay more out-of-pocket after they've signed a
lease, a servicemember's allowance won't be adjusted until they've
moved to a new location. This means that no one currently living in a
particular area will see their housing allowances actually decrease;
only servicemembers moving into the area will receive the lower rate,
which is what already happens under the current rules when housing
market prices go down.
To account for geographic differences in housing costs, we will
also design this adjustment to ensure that all servicemembers in the
same pay grade have identical out-of-pocket costs. That way, once the
overall change has been fully phased-in for all personnel,
servicemembers in the same pay grade but living in different areas
would end up paying the same dollar amount toward their housing costs--
and they'll know exactly how much that will be so that they can make
informed decisions and trade-offs in their own budgets.
All of these savings will be invested back into the force, to help
keep our people trained and equipped so they can succeed in battle and
return home safely to their families.
Commissaries
There's no doubt that commissaries provide a valued service to our
people, especially younger military families and retirees. For this
reason, we're not directing any commissaries to close.
Like our base exchanges, commissaries currently do not pay rent or
taxes. That won't change under any of our proposals. But unlike base
exchanges, commissaries also receive $1.4 billion in direct subsidies
each year. In order to adequately fund training and readiness under
constrained budgets, we need to gradually reduce that subsidy by $1
billion (about two-thirds) over the next 3 years.
Stateside commissaries have many private-sector competitors, and
it's not unreasonable for them to operate more like a business. Since
commissaries still operate rent-free and tax-free, they will still be
able to provide a good deal to servicemembers, military families, and
retirees as long as they continue to shop there. Going forward, only
commissaries overseas or in remote U.S. locations would continue
receiving direct subsidies, which, for example, not only helps pay to
ship U.S. goods to bases overseas, but also helps those who either may
not have the option of a local grocery store or are stationed where
food prices may be higher.
TRICARE
In recent years, Congress has permitted DOD to make some changes
that slow the growth in military healthcare costs; however, these costs
will continue to grow, and we need to slow that growth in order to free
up funds for training and readiness. So we need to make some additional
smart, responsible adjustments to help streamline, simplify, and
modernize the system while encouraging affordability.
Merging three of our TRICARE health plans for those under 65--
Prime, Standard, and Extra--into a single, modernized health plan will
help us focus on quality while reducing complexity and administrative
costs. The new plan would adjust co-pays and deductibles for retirees
and some active-duty family members in ways that encourage TRICARE
members to use the most affordable means of care, such as military
treatment facilities and preferred providers.
Some important features of the military healthcare system will not
change. The scope of benefits will not change, and we will continue to
distinguish between in-network and out-of-network care. Active-duty
personnel will still receive healthcare that is entirely free--that's
the promise we make when they sign up, and it's a promise we intend to
keep. Medically retired personnel and survivors of those who died on
active duty will continue to be treated favorably, with no
participation fees and lower co-pays and deductibles. And DOD will
continue to support our programs for wounded warriors.
With the TRICARE single health plan, active-duty family members and
retirees under age 65 will be able to save more money by using military
treatment facilities (MTF) if they're close to home, which are often
under-used. More than 90 percent of active-duty servicemembers and
their families live within an MTF's 40-mile-radius service area. For
families of active-duty servicemembers stationed far away from MTFs,
such as recruiters, all their care will continue to be considered ``in-
network'' even if there are no network care providers in their remote
location.
Under this proposal, the share of costs borne by retirees will rise
from about 9 percent today to about 11 percent--still a smaller cost
share than the roughly 25 percent that retirees were paying out-of-
pocket when TRICARE was initially set up in the 1990s. And while we
will ask retirees and some active-duty family members to pay modestly
more, others may end up paying less. Overall, everyone's benefits will
remain substantial, affordable, and generous--as they should be.
Given these proposed efforts to modernize and simplify TRICARE for
retirees under age 65, we did not resubmit last year's request for
sharp increases in enrollment fees for these retirees.
For retirees who are old enough to use Medicare and who choose to
have TRICARE as well--what we call TRICARE-For-Life (TFL)--we would ask
new members to pay a little bit more as well. Since TFL coverage
currently requires no premium or enrollment fee, DOD again proposes a
small per-person enrollment fee equal to 1 percent of a retiree's gross
retirement pay up to a maximum of $300 per person--comparable to paying
a monthly premium of no more than $25. For retired general and flag
officers, the maximum would be $400 per person. Current TFL members
would be grandfathered and exempted from having to pay enrollment fees.
Even with this small enrollment fee, TFL members will still have
substantial, affordable, and generous benefits--saving them thousands
of dollars a year compared to similar coverage supplementing Medicare.
Congress has taken helpful steps in the past, authorizing
adjustments to the TRICARE pharmacy co-pay structure and initiating a
pilot program for TFL members to refill prescriptions for maintenance
medications (such as those that treat high blood pressure and high
cholesterol) by mail order. These are good practices that we must now
build upon in order to better encourage more TRICARE members to use
generics and mail-order prescriptions, which help save the most money.
Under our plan, MTFs will continue filling prescriptions without
charging a co-pay, while all prescriptions for long-term maintenance
medications will need to be filled either at MTFs or through the
TRICARE mail order pharmacy. To ensure that our people aren't caught
off-guard and have time to make the necessary adjustments, our plan
would be slowly phased in over a 10-year period.
Military Retirement
Our proposals do not include any recommended changes to military
retirement benefits for those now serving in the Armed Forces. Because
military retirement is a complex and long-term benefit, it deserves
special study. Therefore, we are working with and waiting for the
results of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission, which is expected to present its report in February 2015,
before pursuing reforms in that area. But DOD continues to support the
principle of ``grandfathering'' for any future changes to military
retirement plans.
Why Now
DOD's military and civilian leaders conducted substantial analysis
to arrive at our proposed package of compensation adjustments. We
concluded that, even after we make these changes and slow the growth in
military compensation, we will still be able to recruit and retain a
high-quality force and offer generous, competitive, and sustainable
benefits.
These proposed compensation adjustments will be phased in over
time, but they must begin now because budget limits are already in
place. If we wait, we would have to make even deeper cuts to readiness
or force structure in order to comply with the budget caps that
Congress has passed into law. We must be able to free up funds in order
to provide our men and women in uniform with the tools and training
they need to succeed in battle and return home safely to their
families. Sustaining a well-trained, ready, agile, motivated, and
technologically superior force depends on it.
To be clear, our proposals were carefully crafted to reform
military compensation in a fair, responsible, and sustainable way,
making the most modest adjustments we could afford. We took a holistic
approach to this issue, because continuous piecemeal changes will only
prolong the uncertainty and create doubts among our personnel about
whether their benefits will be there in the future.
We recognize that no one serving our Nation in uniform is overpaid
for what they do for our country. But if we continue on the current
course without making these modest adjustments now, the choices will
only grow more difficult and painful down the road. We will inevitably
have to either cut into compensation even more deeply and abruptly, or
we will have to deprive our men and women of the training and equipment
they need to succeed in battle. Either way, we would be breaking faith
with our people. And the President and I will not allow that to happen.
We're also recommending freezing generals' and admirals' pay for 1
year. And as I've already announced, I'm cutting the budget of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense by 20 percent. The Joint Staff, the
Service Chiefs, and the Combatant Commanders are cutting their
management headquarters operating budgets by 20 percent as well. We're
also continuing to focus on acquisition reform and asking for another
round of authority for Base Realignment and Closure.
These are tough choices that are made with the full support of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. All the savings associated with these changes
will go toward providing our people with the tools and training they
need in order to fight and win on the battlefield and return home
safely to their families. If Congress does not permit these changes to
go into effect, but leaves in place the current budget caps, we run the
risk of creating a military that is well-paid but not well trained and
equipped.
risks in the president's budget
I've outlined the funding levels the Chairman, the Chiefs, and I
believe we need to protect this country, and the decisions we had to
make to stay within the limits agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act.
They add some risks to our defense strategy, but manageable ones.
Over the near-term, because of budget limitations even under the
Bipartisan Budget Act and after 13 years of war, the military will
continue to experience gaps in training and maintenance--putting stress
on the force and limiting our global readiness even as we sustain a
heightened alert posture in regions like the Middle East and North
Africa.
We continue to face the constant risk of uncertainty in a dynamic
and volatile security environment. Budget reductions inevitably reduce
the military's margin of error in dealing with these risks, as other
powers continue to modernize their weapons portfolios, to include anti-
air and anti-ship systems. And a smaller force strains our ability to
simultaneously respond to more than one major contingency at a time.
The President's budget allows our military to continue to have the
capability to defeat any aggressor.
sequestration's effect on programs and risk
If sequestration-level cuts are re-imposed in fiscal year 2016 and
beyond, if our reforms are not accepted, or if uncertainty on budget
levels continues, our analysis has shown that we would have to make
unavoidable decisions and choices that would significantly increase
those risks. As I've made clear, the scale and timeline of continued
sequestration-level cuts would require greater reductions in the
military's size, reach, and margin of technological superiority. That
means fewer planes, fewer ships, fewer troops, and a force that would
be under-trained, poorly maintained, and reliant on older weapons and
equipment:
--The Army would have to draw down the active-duty force to 420,000
soldiers, the Army Guard to 315,000 soldiers, and the Army
Reserve to 185,000 soldiers. The Army Guard would have 50 fewer
Light Utility Helicopters.
--The Navy would have to retire a 25-year-old aircraft carrier--the
USS George Washington--and her carrier air wing ahead of her
scheduled nuclear refueling and overhaul. It would also have to
immediately lay up six additional ships, defer procurement for
one submarine, and buy two fewer F-35Cs and three fewer DDG-51
guided missile destroyers between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal
year 2019. The Navy would ultimately have 10 fewer large
surface combatants than would be expected under the President's
funding levels.
--The Marine Corps would have to draw down to 175,000 Marines. While
we would still devote about 900 Marines to increased Embassy
security around the world, this reduction would entail some
added risk for future contingencies as well as sustaining the
Marines' global presence.
--The Air Force would have to retire 80 more aircraft, including the
entire KC-10 tanker fleet and the Global Hawk Block 40 fleet,
as well as slow down purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter--
resulting in 15 fewer F-35As purchased through fiscal year
2019--and sustain 10 fewer Predator and Reaper 24-hour combat
air patrols. The Air Force would also have to take deep cuts to
flying hours, which would prevent a return to adequate
readiness levels.
--Across DOD, operation and maintenance funding--an important element
of the budget that supports readiness--would grow at only about
2 percent a year under sequestration compared to about 3
percent a year under the President's budget. This will hamper
or even prevent a gradual recovery in readiness. Funding for
research, development, testing, and evaluation would decline by
1.3 percent a year under sequestration instead of increasing by
1.6 percent under the President's budget. And there would be no
recovery in funding for military facilities repairs and
construction.
If we don't get some clarity in our future funding, we will have to
start implementing those changes. Although future developments in the
security environment might require us to modify some of these specific
plans, the strategic impacts are clear. Under the funding levels that
the President and I are asking for, we can manage the risks. Under a
return to sequestration spending levels, risks would grow
significantly, particularly if our military is required to respond to
multiple major contingencies at the same time.
Our recommendations beyond fiscal year 2015 provide a realistic
alternative to sequestration-level cuts, sustaining adequate readiness
and modernization most relevant to strategic priorities over the long
term. But this can only be achieved by the strategic balance of reforms
and reductions that we have presented in this budget. This will require
the Congress to partner with the Department of Defense in making
politically difficult choices.
our shared national interest
Formulating this budget request required new ways of thinking about
both short-term and long-term challenges facing our country.
I look forward to working with the Congress in finding the
responsible ground with the required resources to protect America's
interests.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2015 budget request for the Department of Defense, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
General Dempsey.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Dempsey. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you
today and speak about our defense budget for 2015.
I want to add my appreciation to Under Secretary Hale for
his many years of service to the Department and to the Nation.
Let me begin by commenting on Iraq. The men and women who
served in Iraq did exactly what we asked them to do. Al-Qaeda-
inspired extremists raising flags over Iraq's embattled cities
triggers in me the same thing that runs through the minds of
any veteran who served there, which is bitter disappointment
that Iraq's leaders failed to unite for the good of their
people. I share alarm about the future of Iraq, and we are
developing a full range of options to help stabilize the
region.
Let me also speak to Afghanistan. Our men and women remain
fully engaged on the mission at hand. They continue to build
the institution of the Afghan National Security Forces, who
secured the recent elections that will allow the first
democratic transition of power in Afghanistan's history.
The decision on troop numbers beyond 2014 positions us to
support Afghanistan's transition. It aligns military objectives
with resources and allows us and our allies to plan for 2015
and 2016 while continuing to focus on the important work at
hand this year.
Three months ago, I met with my NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) counterparts in Brussels. The threat of further
Russian coercion to the East in a growing ARC of instability to
NATO's southern flank weigh heavily on our allies. And last
week, the Joint Chiefs and I met with the United Kingdom's
combined chiefs in London for the first such meeting in London
since 1948. We agree that now is not the time for business as
usual. We can't think too narrowly about future security
challenges, nor can we be too certain that we'll get it right.
Each of my international engagements reaffirm that U.S.
military primacy is still regarded as the world's best hope for
stability and prosperity, but there is a real sense that our
primacy may be at risk; in part because of the choices being
made in this city on the defense budget.
As I said last year, we need time, certainty, and
flexibility to balance the institution and to allow us to meet
the Nation's needs for the future. Without these things, our
commitments to our allies and partners, to the defense
industrial base, and to the men and women who serve in uniform
and their families will be placed in jeopardy. It will undercut
the reassurances that I just spent a good deal of my time
delivering around the world.
At the same time, this Congress has demanded, correctly,
that we be more strategic, efficient, and innovative in the way
we do business. This budget, in real terms, does all of these
things. It's a pragmatic way forward that balances, as best as
it can be balanced, our national security and our fiscal
responsibilities. Yet, our efforts to reshape and reform the
military continue to be rejected. We have infrastructure that
we don't need and, with your support, we ought to be able to
divest. We have legacy weapons systems that we can't afford to
sustain and, with your support, we ought to be able to retire.
We have personnel costs that have grown at a disproportionate
rate, and we ought to be able to make modest adjustments that
will make the All-Volunteer Force more affordable and
sustainable over time.
Failing to act on these issues is a choice, itself, one
that will force us into an unbalanced level of cuts to our
readiness and modernization. And when major portions of the
budget are rendered untouchable, readiness pays the bill. This
ultimately makes our force less effective than this Nation
needs it to be.
PREPARED STATEMENT
If sequestration-level cuts return in 2016, the options
that we will be able to provide the Nation shrink, and the
risks will become, in my judgment, unmanageable. This is a
reckless and unnecessary path.
I know these issues weigh heavily on the minds of our men
and women in uniform and their families. I hear about it
constantly. And I know they weigh heavily on you.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, thank you for your
support, and I stand ready to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Martin E. Dempsey
Chairman Durbin, Vice Chairman Cochran, and distinguished members
of this subcommittee, it is my privilege to report to you on the state
of America's Armed Forces, our accomplishments over the last year, the
opportunities and challenges ahead, and my vision for the future force.
We are in our Nation's 13th year at war. I am extremely proud to
represent the men and women of our Armed Forces. Volunteers all, they
represent America at its very best.
It is these Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast
Guardsmen--America's sons and daughters--who will face tomorrow's
challenges with the strategy, structure, and resources we develop
today. Our men and women are our decisive edge. Sustaining our military
strength in the face of an historic shift to the future means making
sure that the force is in the right balance.
In the near term, our mission in Afghanistan will transition, while
we reset a force coming out of more than a decade of continuous
conflict. We will sustain--in some cases adjust--our commitments around
the globe to keep our Nation immune from coercion. And, we must do all
of this with decreasing defense budgets. As a result, we will have to
assume risk in some areas to create opportunity in others. This will
require carefully prioritizing investments in readiness, training,
modernization, and leader development.
Our men and women in uniform are the cornerstone of this Nation's
security and our strongest bridge to the future. They are trusting us
to make the right choices. So are the American people.
joint force operations
America's military has been in continuous conflict for the longest
period in our Nation's history. But the force remains strong. The Joint
Force today is as diverse and rich in experience as it has ever been.
Our men and women remain engaged around the globe supporting our
Nation's interests. They are defeating adversaries, deterring
aggression, strengthening partners, and delivering aid.
Over the past year, our men and women have continued to fight,
transition, and redeploy from Afghanistan. In June of last year, the
Afghans reached a decisive milestone as they assumed lead
responsibility for their own security. This signaled a shift in our
primary mission from combat to training, advising, and assisting the
Afghan forces, who recently supported the national elections that will
allow the first democratic transition of power in Afghanistan's
history.
The President's recent decision on troop numbers beyond 2014
positions us to support Afghanistan's transition. It aligns our
objectives with resources, builds on 12 years of effort, and allows us
to plan for 2015 and 2016, while continuing to focus on the work at
hand this year. It also provides a blueprint for working regional
issues with regional partners.
The Joint Force continues to serve in and around an unpredictable
Middle East through military-to-military exercises, exchanges, and
security assistance. We are actively reinforcing our partners along
Syria's borders to help contain violence, care for refugees, and
counter the spread of violent extremism. We continue to pursue violent
extremist organizations both directly and through our partners where
U.S. and allied interests are threatened. This includes support to
partners in Yemen, and to French and African partners in Mali. Our
military is also working closely with the U.S. Department of State to
help restore security and stability in the Central African Republic and
South Sudan.
We have deepened our traditional security ties in the Asia Pacific.
In addition to our support for Typhoon Haiyan recovery efforts, we have
strengthened cooperation with our allies and partners through military
activities and force posture. We have maintained an active presence in
the South and East China Seas, while also remaining prepared to respond
to provocations on the Korean Peninsula.
We also remain postured with our interagency partners to detect,
deter, and defeat threats to the homeland--to include ballistic missile
defense, countering terrorism, and safeguarding against cyber-attack on
government and critical infrastructure targets. Our men and women work
collaboratively with other U.S. agencies, with forward-stationed State
Department professionals, and with regional allies and partners to keep
the Nation safe. Across all of these security operations, the Joint
Force remains ready with military options if called upon.
balancing global strategic risk
The global security environment is as fluid and complex as we have
ever seen. We are being challenged in pockets throughout the world by a
diverse set of actors--resurgent and rising powers, failing states, and
aggressive ideologies. Power in the international system is shifting
below and beyond the nation-state. At the same time, the balance
between our security demands and available resources has rarely been
more delicate.
The confluence of wide-ranging transitions, enduring and new
friction points, and ``wild cards'' can seem unsolvable. Yet,
understanding the interrelationships between trends reshaping the
security environment offers opportunities to begin to solve some of the
world's perplexing and prolonged challenges.
In any effort, the military does not do it alone. We must bring to
bear every tool of national power in American's arsenal. Our
distributed networks of allies and partners are equally indispensable.
Together, we can build shared understanding and develop focused, whole
approaches that share the costs of global leadership. Deepening these
hard-won relationships of trust and building the capacity of our
partners will be more vital in the years ahead.
In this context, the Joint Force of the future will require
exceptional agility in how we shape, prepare, and posture. We will seek
innovation not only in technology, but also in leader development,
doctrine, organization, and partnerships. We must be able to rapidly
aggregate and disaggregate our formations, throttle up force and just
as quickly, throttle it back.
We will have to be more regionally focused in our understanding and
globally networked in our approaches. We will be adaptable to combatant
commander priorities to prevent conflict, shape the strategic
environment, and--when necessary--win decisively.
And, importantly, we will have to balance these competing strategic
objectives in the context of a resource-constrained environment. We
must be frank about the limits of what the Joint Force can achieve, how
quickly, for how long, and with what risk.
Accordingly, we will need to challenge assumptions and align
ambitions to match our combined abilities. Our force's greatest value
to the Nation is as much unrealized as realized. We need to calibrate
our use of military power to where it is most able and appropriate to
advance our national interests. Our recent wars have reminded us that
our military serves the Nation best when it is synchronized with other
elements of national power and integrated with our partners.
balancing the force
As part of an historic shift to the future, the institution is
fundamentally re-examining itself to preserve military strength in the
face of the changing security environment and declining resources. Here
are five ways in which we are working to make sure the Joint Force
remains properly balanced over time:
Resource Allocation
We are resetting how we allocate our budget among manpower,
operations, training, maintenance, and modernization. Disproportionate
growth in the cost per servicemember is overburdening our manpower
account and threatening to erode combat power. We have to bring those
costs back into balance with our other sacred obligations to the
Nation.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, importantly,
reflects the needed personnel reductions, institutional streamlining,
and administrative changes that better reflect our military's more
limited resources. We will keep driving towards becoming more steel-
plated on all fronts--shedding waste, redundancy, and superfluity in
our organizations and processes. We are rebalancing our tooth-to-tail
ratio by shrinking the Department's headquarters, overhead, and
overseas infrastructure costs. We are taking steps to improve our
acquisitions enterprise. And, we will make the tough choices on force
structure.
We will never end our campaign to find every way to become more
effective. Yet, we have already seen that not every effort generates
the savings we need as fast as we need them. And some proposals to shed
excess infrastructure have not gained the support of Congress, most
notably our calls for a Base Realignment and Closure round and requests
to retire legacy weapons systems we no longer need or can afford.
Getting our personnel costs in balance is a strategic imperative.
We can no longer put off rebalancing our military compensation systems.
Otherwise we are forced into disproportionate cuts to readiness and
modernization. We price ourselves out of the ability to defend the
Nation.
We must work together to modernize and optimize our compensation
package to fairly compensate our men and women for their service. We
should provide the options and flexibility that they prefer and shift
funds from undervalued services to the more highly valued benefits, as
we reduce our outlays.
We need to slow the rate of growth in our three highest cost areas:
basic pay, healthcare, and housing allowances. The Joint Chiefs, our
senior enlisted leaders, and I also strongly recommend grandfathering
any future proposed changes to military retirement, and we will
continue to place a premium on efforts that support wounded warriors
and mental health.
To that end, I look forward to working in partnership with Congress
and the American people on a sensible approach that addresses the
growing imbalances in our accounts, enables us to recruit and retain
America's best, and puts the all-volunteer force on a viable path for
the future.
We should tackle this in a comprehensive package of reforms.
Piecemeal changes are a surefire way to fray the trust and confidence
of our troops. They want--and they deserve--predictability.
Geographic Shift
The United States remains a global power and our military is
globally engaged. While we transition from the wars of the past decade,
we are focusing on an evolving range of challenges and opportunities.
Our military will continue to have deep security ties in the Middle
East and globally. And, we are--of necessity--continuing the rebalance
to the Asia Pacific as part of our Government's larger priority to
strengthen the future stability and growth in that region.
Broadly, this geographic rebalance reflects where the future
demographic, economic, and security trends are moving. In a sense, it
is ``skating to where the puck is going,'' as hockey great Wayne
Gretzky used to say. As such, we are--over time--investing more
bandwidth in our relationships in the Asia Pacific, engaging more at
every level, and shifting assets to the region, to include our best
human capital and equipment.
Europe remains a central pillar to our national security and
prosperity. Our NATO alliance has responded to security challenges in
Afghanistan, Africa, and the Middle East. The most successful and
durable alliance in history, NATO transcends partnership because common
values underpin our 65-year-old alliance. The threat of further Russian
coercion to the east, a growing arc of instability to the south, and
preparations for a post-2014 mission in Afghanistan weigh heavily on
the minds of my NATO counterparts. I remain confident that the alliance
is strong, capable, and resolute as it faces and overcomes these
challenges. Going forward, we will all benefit from the security NATO
provides.
Preparing across the Spectrum
Our force is coming out of more than a decade of focusing primarily
on one particular kind of fight centered on the Middle East. As a
result, we have become the finest counterinsurgency force in the world.
Current and future security challenges mandate that we broaden our
approach. Across the Services, we are resetting how we train units and
develop leaders to account for conflict across the spectrum. This
includes those critical conventional areas that--by necessity--were
deemphasized over the past decade.
We are also pluralizing our partnerships with other agencies and
nations. With the global terrorism threat specifically, we are
rebalancing our emphasis towards building or enabling our partners,
while retaining the capability to take direct action ourselves.
Remaining the security partner of choice increases our Nation's
collective ability to safeguard common interests and support greater
stability in weaker areas of the world. Improving partner capability
and capacity in a targeted way is an important component of our
military strategy, especially as our resources become more constrained.
Force Distribution
In keeping with the evolving strategic landscape, our force posture
must also evolve. As we emerge from the major campaigns of the last
decade, we are developing new approaches across and within commands in
the way we assign, allocate, and apportion forces inside a broader
interagency construct.
We are determining how much of the force should be forward-
stationed, how much should be rotational, and how much should be surge
ready in the homeland. Baselining forces in each combatant command will
allow us to predictably engage with and assure partners and deter
adversaries. Baseline does not mean equal resources. We seek instead a
force distribution appropriately weighted to our national interests and
threats.
Our military has become more integrated operationally and
organizationally across the Active, Guard, and Reserve, especially over
the past decade. We are working to determine the most effective mix of
each of the components to preserve the strength we have gained as a
more seamless force. This too will be different across the combatant
commands. For example, many relationships in Europe--especially the
newest NATO partner nations--benefit from the National Guard-led State
Partnership Program, which is in its 20th year. Relationships such as
these will help us to sustain the capabilities we will require in the
years ahead.
Also to strengthen the Joint Force, we are committed to offer
everyone in uniform equal professional opportunities to contribute
their talent. Rescinding the Direct Ground Combat Rule last January has
enabled the elimination of gender-based restrictions for assignment.
The Services are mid-way through reviewing and validating occupational
standards with the aim of integrating women into occupational fields to
the fullest extent over the next 2 years. We are proceeding in a
deliberate, measured way that preserves unit readiness, cohesion, and
the quality of the all-volunteer force.
Additionally, as our force draws down, the remarkable generation
that carried the best of our Nation into battle is transitioning home
and reintegrating into civilian life. We will keep working with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, other agencies, and communities across
the country to make sure they have access to healthcare, quality
education opportunities, and meaningful employment. This generation is
not done serving and our efforts to enable them to contribute their
strengths should be viewed as a direct investment in the future of
America.
Competence and Character
We are making sure that as the Nation's Profession of Arms, we
remain equally committed to competence and character throughout our
ranks. The pace of the last decade, frankly, may have resulted in an
overemphasis on competence. Those we serve call for us to be good
stewards of the special trust and confidence gifted to us by our fellow
citizens--on and off the battlefield.
Even as--especially as--we take this opportunity to remake our
force and its capabilities, we owe it to the American people and to
ourselves to also take an introspective look at whether we are holding
true to the bedrock values and standards of our profession.
Historically, the military has done precisely this after coming out of
major periods of conflict.
The vast majority serve honorably with moral courage and
distinction every day. But sexual assault crimes, failures of
leadership and ethics, and lapses of judgment by a portion of the force
are evidence that we must do more--and we are. These issues have my
ongoing and full attention.
It has been and continues to be one of my foremost priorities as
Chairman to rekindle within the force both its understanding and its
resolve as a profession. We must strengthen the enduring norms and
values that define us and continue to be a source of trust and pride
for our Nation.
We are looking at who we are promoting. More importantly, we are
looking at what we are promoting--the standards, the ethos, the essence
of professionalism. We know that we can never let our actions distance
us from the American people, nor destroy the message that draws many
into the ranks of the military in the first place.
To that end, we are advancing a constellation of initiatives
towards our continued development as professionals. These include 360
degree reviews, staff assistance and training visits to senior
leadership, and a deeper investment in character development and
education through the span of service. We are detecting and rooting out
flaws in our command culture and promoting an ethos of accountability
across the ranks. We know we own this challenge and we are committed to
meeting it.
balancing strategic choices
Our military's ability to field a ready, capable force to meet
global mission requirements has been placed at risk by layered effects
of the operational pace and converging fiscal factors of recent years.
The funds above sequester levels passed by this Congress in the
Bipartisan Budget Agreement allow us to buy back some lost readiness
and continue to make responsible investments in our Nation's defense.
It doesn't solve every readiness problem and is no long-term solution
to sequestration, but it does give us a measure of near-term relief and
stability.
The Joint Chiefs and I are grateful for Congress's support of the
efforts to return units to the necessary levels of readiness. It helps
us preserve options for the Nation and ensure that our troops can do
what they joined the military to do. Likewise, we appreciate the
dialogue engendered in these chambers to determine the kind of military
the American people need and can afford--the right mix of capabilities
and programs to protect our national interests.
While we have achieved a degree of certainty in our budget for the
next 2 years, we still don't have a steady, predictable funding stream,
nor the flexibility and time we need to reset the force for the
challenges we see ahead.
This tension comes at a time when winning together through
jointness has been at its peak. If we don't adapt from previous
approaches toward a sounder way to steward our Nation's defense, we
risk ending up with the wrong force at the wrong time.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request represents a
balanced, responsible, and realistic way forward. It leads to a Joint
Force that is global, networked, and provides options for the Nation.
It helps us rebuild readiness in areas that were deemphasized over the
past decade, while retaining capacity and capability. It supports the
reset and replacement of battle-damaged equipment and helps us meet
future needs by balancing force structure, readiness, and modernization
priorities. It invests in missile defense and in modernizing the
nuclear enterprise. It allows us to advantage intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), Special Operations Forces
(SOF), and cyber, while making adjustments to the conventional force.
To be clear, we do assume higher risks in some areas under the
fiscal year 2015 proposal, but this budget helps us to remain the
world's finest military--modern, capable, and ready, even while
transitioning to a smaller force over time. If sequester-level cuts
return in 2016, the risks will grow, and the options we can provide the
Nation will shrink.
The Joint Chiefs and I remain committed to making the tough
choices--carefully informed--that preserve our ability to protect our
Nation from coercion and defend the American people. Our sacred
obligation is to make sure our men and women are never sent into a fair
fight. That means we must make sure they are the best led, best
trained, and best equipped in the world.
But we need help from our elected leaders to rebalance the force in
the ways I have described. This includes, importantly, making the
financially prudent, strategically informed reductions we need.
The opportunity is ours in the months ahead to carry the hard-
earned lessons learned of our Nation's wars into the context of today,
to set the conditions to prepare the force to address the challenges of
tomorrow, and to sustain and support our dedicated men and women in
uniform and their families. I look forward to seizing these
opportunities together.
Thank you for your enduring support.
IRAQ
Senator Durbin. Thank you, General Dempsey.
It is difficult, here, to separate out the lines of
questioning. There is clearly an important line of questioning
related to the budget, an important line of questioning related
to today's threats. They do merge, at some point, and so we
have to pick and choose.
But let me start with Iraq. Secretary Hagel, 13 years ago,
when we were both serving in the United States Senate, we faced
a historic vote on whether the United States would go to war in
Iraq. It was a long and involved and bitter debate. But the
Senate finally decided to give authority to President Bush to
go forward with that invasion of Iraq.
And here we stand today, 13 years later, having lost 4,484
brave Americans in Iraq, tens of thousands returning with the
scars of war, applying for disabilities with our VA at a record
level, pushing that agency to the brink, in terms of providing
those services, having spent several trillion dollars added to
our deficit, in a situation where we invested billions of
dollars so that the Iraqis would be able to defend themselves.
I will concede political ineptitude when it came to the
leadership of Iraq. Some of the decisions made by Mr. Maliki
were disastrous and divided his country instead of unifying it
and building it for the future.
But now we find ourselves in a curious position. One of the
four hard targets of the United States is Iran, which has been
a source of great concern for the United States and a threat to
stability to the Middle East and the world. And now we find
conjecture and speculation that we need to work with Iran to
stabilize Iraq.
Can you tell me first: How did we find ourselves in this
position? Is this the right course to follow? What have we
learned about the situation in Iraq that we can apply to
Afghanistan, in terms of their ability to defend themselves
once we're gone?
Secretary Hagel. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish I was wise
enough to sort all of that out for you and give you a clear,
concise answer, but let me respond this way.
First, on the comparison with Afghanistan, it is my
judgment that the two bear very little comparison, for many
reasons. First, Afghanistan is not Iraq for--internally,
historically, ethnically, religiously. Second, there's strong
support in Afghanistan today for America's continued, as well
as our NATO ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)
partners, presence there, which--both presidential candidates
have said they would sign a Bilateral Security Agreement.
Election just took place a few days ago. They'll certify that
election, here, in a couple of weeks. So, that aside, I think
there are many, many differences between Iraq and Afghanistan.
But back to your more fundamental question. Let's take one
piece: Iran. Let's not forget that when we went in--the United
States went into Afghanistan in late 2001, actually early on we
had worked with the Iranians on that western border of
Afghanistan. So, there is some history, here, of sharing common
interests. We have significant differences, obviously. That's
what Vienna is about, what's going on there now, as well as
other interests. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. All the
other issues.
But when it comes to the common interests of a nation,
whether it's the United States or any nation, that's what
forges some kind of reality to what we're dealing with.
Certainly, Iraq is a good example. All the neighbors in Iraq
are being, will be, affected by what's going on there. These
are regional issues. Syria is a regional issue. ISIL (Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant) and the other terrorist groups,
those affiliated with al-Qaeda, all are a threat to all
nations, all governments, certainly including us.
So, I don't think these issues come neatly wrapped in
geopolitical graduate-school papers. They are complicated. They
are intertwined with history, with tribal differences,
religious differences, ethnic differences. In Iraq, I think the
opportunities that we presented after a rather significant and
committed number of years there, where President Bush signed,
with then-Prime Minister Maliki in 2008, a Strategic Framework
Agreement, which laid out when America's troops would be out of
Iraq. This was signed in December of 2008. We presented the
Iraqis with tremendous opportunities to govern themselves,
defend themselves. We continue to support Iraq. We've
accelerated our FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program with
Iraq. But we can't dictate outcomes. It's up to the Iraqi
people.
So, I know that's kind of a wave-top answer, but it's all
those complications fit together, and we are faced with the
reality of dealing with the reality we've got on the ground
right now threatening our interests. All the nations of this
area--GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) nations--are threatened.
And certainly Iran is threatened.
RUSSIAN TROOPS
Senator Durbin. General Dempsey, I don't know that there's
any end to the ambition of Vladimir Putin. I do believe that
there is one tripwire. He has shown that he's willing to invade
the Republic of Georgia and to take over territory, which I
have seen, the barbed wire that separates what was once part of
the Republic of Georgia now being controlled by Russian troops.
He has shown that he's willing to invade with people wearing, I
wouldn't call them ``uniforms,'' but parkas with no insignia on
them to invade Crimea, Ukraine. It seems to me that the only
tripwire to stop this man's naked ambition to restore the
Russian empire is NATO. The obvious question for us in the West
is: If and when the day comes when Putin decides to test us,
will we be ready? Are our NATO allies ready to stand together
to stop any aggression that he should exhibit toward members of
our alliance?
General Dempsey. Well, Chairman, briefly, the tactic that
Russia is using is one I would describe as proximate coercion,
subversion, and misinformation. So, I doubt that there'll
actually be a full-blown invasion, but we've got to be alert to
the other tools that he may use to actually undermine
stability, and notably in the Baltics and in some of our
eastern European allies. Proximate coercion, ally your--array
your forces on a border, and threaten the use of force.
Subversion, as you've noted, by the introduction of surrogates
and proxies. And misinformation, to get ethnic populations
stirred up.
I think, actually, Russia lit a fire in Ukraine now that
has somewhat burned out of their control. And I think Ukraine
is in for a very difficult path as a result.
Our NATO allies are awakening to the fact that, for 20
years, they've taken European security for granted, and can no
longer do so.
Senator Durbin. Are they ready? Are we ready?
General Dempsey. You know, the questions about readiness
would probably be best answered in a classified setting. But
we're not as ready as we need to be.
Senator Durbin. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Well, thank you.
Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, I want to thank you
for taking the time to be here, especially with all that's
going on in the world.
I join with the others who said compliments of Secretary
Hale. He's been a tremendous help to this committee and to all
of us here in the Senate, in both parties.
I also wanted to applaud our people in the Justice
Department, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), the
Department of Defense, Secretary Hagel, Attorney General
Holder, and Director Comey for the capture of Ahmed Abu
Khatallah. I'm also wearing my hat as Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I'm glad you're bringing him back here to
be tried in our courts. We Americans have shown we are not
afraid. We don't have to send these people off to Guantanamo.
We can try them in our courts.
A member of my family just spent 10 months at Guantanamo,
working with the military. I look at a place like that, where
we're spending millions of dollars a year to lock people up. We
could put them in maximum security here in the U.S. and get
convictions. We're not afraid, just as we weren't when the
Oklahoma City bomber, a great terrorist attacked, we used our
courts. I have great confidence in them.
And I also look at the things that we have ahead of us. I
was glad to see you reference, General Dempsey, our Guard and
Reserves, as did Secretary Hagel. Senator Graham and I
introduced a bill to establish a commission to provide advice
to the Congress. We have 46 of our colleagues as cosponsors,
including Senators Durbin and Cochran. The language has been
incorporated in both the House-approved defense authorization
and the version reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and I hope that when that becomes law, you will work
very closely to make sure that it's followed.
Secretary Hagel. We will follow the law, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Yes, I know. It would have been news if you
had said otherwise.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
General Dempsey, you observed, last year, that, with sexual
harassment and assault in the military, everyone had taken
their eye off the ball. We've passed some major reforms, but
the Department has also instituted even more on their own. Have
they been effective? Where are we today in this?
General Dempsey. Our eyes are on the ball, and the
initiatives that we've taken are beginning to positively affect
the negative trend lines that I reported to you last year.
We've got work to do, both at our own initiative and
initiatives that the Secretary of Defense has directed us to
undertake. And I think I would simply say to you that we're
optimistic that we can turn--we have to turn this around.
Forget about optimism. It does erode the foundation of trust on
which our military relies. We will turn it around. And we've
got our eye on the ball.
Senator Leahy. Well, telling an old war stories, I
remember, as a prosecutor, how difficult this could be in
prosecuting these, depending upon how much the agencies
involved with the various law--in that case, civilian law
enforcement agencies were willing to actually look at these
issues. As you know from your own long experience in the
military, there's a wide variance among military commanders of
how they look at this. I would urge you to keep pushing for
some consistency throughout the military, just as we--we have
to in our military academies. This is something, if we're going
to encourage the best people to come in the military, we've got
to show this is a zero-tolerance area.
General Dempsey. If I could react, Senator. I assure you
that it is a zero-tolerance area. Also, we've got a level of
consistency now that, if you're not aware of it, we should
certainly make you aware of it. We've raised the level at which
a decision can be made to investigate or not investigate, and
we've got nine different ways that a young man or woman can
report incidents. We have a level of consistency that I think
would satisfy your concerns.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
And we've had these media accounts. Of course, as you
know--and I'll direct this to both you and Secretary Hagel--
we've had years of training provided by U.S. forces in Iraq,
and then we saw so many of the Iraqi military just throw down
their arms when the militants advanced on them. I'm not trying
to compare apples to oranges, but do we face a similar
situation in Afghanistan?
General Dempsey. Are you asking me, Senator?
Senator Leahy. I ask you and then Secretary Hagel.
General Dempsey. Sure. Two divisions and--part of two, and
one national police organization, did, in fact, throw down
their arms and, in some cases, collude with, in some cases
simply desert, in northern Iraq. And they did that, and, in
fact, at--you can look back at some of our intelligence
reports--they did that because they had simply lost faith that
the central government in Iraq was dealing with the entire
population in a fair, equitable way that provided hope for all
of them.
AFGHANISTAN
You asked if that could happen in Afghanistan. The newly
elected government will have a lot more to say about that than
anyone here, although I will tell you that, of the two
candidates, it is our assessment that there's a likelihood that
they will be--try to form and maintain a unity government for
Afghanistan. But I can't completely convince either myself or
you that the risk is zero that that couldn't happen in
Afghanistan.
Senator Leahy. Secretary Hagel.
Secretary Hagel. Senator, I would agree with what the
Chairman said on his analysis.
I would go back to, partly, the answer I gave to Chairman
Durbin, when he asked his question about Iraq/Afghanistan.
There's no guarantee, which we know. There's no guarantee in
life. It is up to the people of Afghanistan to make these
decisions--their military, their new leadership that will be
coming in as a result of their new government. We have helped
them build, as well as 49 of our ISAF NATO partners, very
significant military institutions--training, responsible. With
the announcement of the President's plan, where we will be
there another 2 years as we phase our transition, our roles, I
think that's significant.
I think the progress made in Afghanistan has been very
significant. Different dynamics, different ethnic/religious
dynamics. Doesn't mean that they don't have differences in that
country. That country has a very tortured history, as we all
know. But I think we just stay steady, and we keep doing what
we're doing. And I think the prospects of that turning out,
where they, in fact, can defend themselves, they can govern
themselves, and they can bring about an element of
representative government and freedom and rights for all their
people. I mean, that's as good as that--it can get. Beyond
that, we can't dictate any more. We can only go so far in
helping any country.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will submit for the record a question on the Convention
on Counselor Relations. I--we're trying to get that through. I
think I know the Department of Defense's position, which I
happen to agree with. And so, I will submit that for the
record, and I would like a response on that.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, based on my--Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey,
welcome. Thank--based on my previous service in the Senate and
some service now, I'm fully aware that the Pentagon has a
contingency plan on the shelf for just about every possible
scenario, everything from nuclear war to an invasion by Canada,
and everything in between. My question is: Given what we've
seen here happen in Iraq--maybe we didn't anticipate how
stunningly quick a territory could be yielded and major cities
could be taken over without resistance, but, nevertheless,
after we failed to negotiate a SOFA agreement--Status of Forces
Agreement--with Iraq, there had to be some anticipation that
some of this territory would be up for grabs, that there would
be scenarios where lack of confidence in the leadership or
capability of the Iraqi military on its own would lead to
something like this. Was there a plan on the shelf? If so, what
is it? And if there wasn't, why isn't it?
And, General Dempsey, I noted, and I wrote down the quote,
here--I think you said that we're in the process of developing
options. That's different than having options already thought
through and strategized.
I wonder if each of you could respond to that.
IRAQ
General Dempsey. Sure, Senator. Let me, first, assure you,
we do not have a plan on the shelf for the invasion of Canada.
I want to make sure that our Canadian allies who may be
watching----
To your point about what options do we have, we generally--
for nations where we're not in an active conflict, we generally
describe our options in terms of what resources we can put
around the situation, and then develop options, present them to
our elected leaders for decision. And so, right now we've got
a--we have a great deal of ISR assets committed to Iraq, we
have a great many maritime assets and aviation assets committed
to Iraq. And we've placed a few contingency, mostly for force
protection of the United States Embassy and facilities, forces
in and around Baghdad.
Now, that said, we have prepared options, we've been
discussing them within the interagency. The President of the
United States will meet today with Members of Congress in a
classified session, and I certainly don't intend to foreshadow
his conversation, but I would be happy, at some point, if you'd
like, to provide a classified briefing on that subject.
Senator Coats. But isn't it a little bit late? I mean, the
territory has already been lost, the cities have already been
taken, the weapons--U.S. weapons have already been seized, the
banks have been robbed, oil may be, or may not be, in control
of the extremist groups, which is a great source of monetary
resource. Isn't it too late now----
General Dempsey. Well----
Senator Coats [continuing]. To be sitting down and talking
to Members of Congress and basically saying, ``Let's look at
the options''?
General Dempsey. Well, Senator, it's only late if you
suggest that we could have stopped it in some way. And I think
it's worth remembering, the real threat in Iraq that is common
to all of us is ISIL, this organization called ISIL, which, as
you know, started off as al-Qaeda in Iraq, went to Syria, and
is now back in Iraq. So, this all started and stops with Iraq.
And there is very little that could have been done to overcome
the degree to which the Government of Iraq had failed its
people. That's what has caused this problem.
Secretary Hagel. Senator, may I add to that? One piece of
your question, I think, was about surprise. Did we not
anticipate this? To your point about planning. Some of you--
Senator Graham, Senator Blunt, members of the--Senator Reed--
Armed Services Committee--may recall, the Director of our
Defense Intelligence Agency, General Flynn's testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. And in that
testimony, he said that it is likely that, specifically, ISIL
may well take territory in Iraq, or attempt to take territory
in Iraq. Now, that doesn't negate, ``Why weren't you prepared?
Why didn't you know about it?''
The other part of that is--and I think it goes back to what
General Dempsey was talking about--I think we were surprised
that the Iraqi divisions, the--specifically, the ones that
General Dempsey talked about, just threw down their weapons. We
had obviously--as General Dempsey said, are always working
options and scenarios. We knew ISIL, for the reasons General
Dempsey talked about, has been a threat in Syria and elsewhere.
So, again, I go back to, we can only do so much. We didn't
have a presence in Iraq, as you know, for the very reason you
mentioned, because the Iraqis would not give us the immunity
and what we needed to get a SOFA.
So, I think all those are parts of the answer to your
question, Senator.
Senator Coats. Would you agree, Mr. Secretary, that the
current situation in Iraq is on our national economic and
security interest?
Secretary Hagel. Oh, I do agree, if for no other reason
than oil. I mean, you mentioned energy and oil, and--it's a
regional issue. I believe that. So, the ripple effect of what's
going on there everywhere----
Senator Coats. Given that, do you think that we, therefore,
should take--have some response, other than no response, at
least to this point?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I don't think it's a matter of no
response. The----
Senator Coats. No response that's making a difference.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I'm not sure of that. But I would
give you the same response that General Dempsey did. The
President is meeting with congressional leadership this
afternoon.
Senator Coats. Do you think it's late?
Secretary Hagel. I don't----
Senator Coats. Do you think it's too late? I mean, we've
already lost the territory. They've already gained the control
of the second-largest city in Iraq plus other cities that we
lost blood and treasure, and people lost limbs and died to
save. We've already lost it. So, it's like Crimea. Do we just
say, ``Oh, well, okay, fine, that's done let's just look
forward''----
Secretary Hagel. Senator, we didn't lose anything. The
Iraqi government----
Senator Coats. Well, if it's in our national interest, we
lost something.
Secretary Hagel. Well, you could say that about a lot of
things, but I think we ought to be clear. It wasn't the United
States that lost anything. We turned a pretty significant
situation over, as you noted, for the very reasons you noted,
to the Iraqi people when we phased out of our military
involvement in Iraq. And so, we have done everything we could
to help them. But it's up to the Iraqis. They wanted to manage
and govern their own country. So, I don't think we should
assign the blame to the United States for this. I think we go
back to who is responsible for this: ISIL. They invaded. But
also, this current government in Iraq has never fulfilled the
commitments it made to bring a unity government together with
the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the Shi'a. We have worked hard with
them within the confines of our ability to help them do that,
but we can't dictate to them.
Senator Coats. Well, yes. My time is up, and I'll yield
back. I'd simply want to say that there have been many
situations in the history of this country that have been in our
national interest, both economically and strategically, and we
certainly haven't punted on some of those simply because the
country that was--where it was taking place didn't step up. I
think that a lot of countries look to American leadership. And
I'm not advocating any specific military action, but they are
looking to leadership, in terms--like to know somebody's got
their back. I think it might have been easier for those
soldiers to shed their uniforms and run because they didn't
have anybody at their back. And I know the SOFA agreement, and
so forth and so on, but--to basically state that, just because
the country didn't deliver what we wanted them to deliver,
it's--it's something that's in our national security interest
that we take a pass or wait too long before it's--until it's
too late, I don't think is the kind of answer we want to get.
Mr. Chairman, I'm over my time.
Thank you.
Secretary Hagel. When we're not there, we're not there.
And, you know, I don't know what you would have expected the
United States to do.
Senator Coats. Well, I would hope we could get somewhere.
Secretary Hagel. Well, we are. That's what we've been doing
the last week, and the President will talk to leaders of
Congress. We've been briefing, by the way, in classified
briefings the last few days, Members of Congress. So----
Senator Coats. I think it would be good if the President
could talk to the Congress and talk to the American people and
let us know where we are.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Reed.
SYRIA
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect, briefly, to Iraq, it is a State Department
operation, basically, because it's--they run the Embassy and--
but, in the context of CENTCOM (Central Command), particularly,
have we been communicating, to Maliki and to his military,
questions about their capacity and their willingness and their
effective leadership? And have we made it clear, you know, in
conjunction with General Flynn's testimony, that were real
threats they faced, and they had to make adjustments? Is that
something that was done?
General Dempsey. Senator, absolutely. And I'll--let me just
give you one personal vignette. When the Syria issue began to
manifest itself, I actually stopped in Baghdad personally and
met with the most senior leaders of their government and their
military, and described what I thought was an--and they were
all, of course, worried about Syria, ``What's going to come in
from Syria to affect us?'' And I said, ``That's the wrong
question. The question is: How will you take this opportunity--
that is to say, a perceived threat to your country from
outside--and use it as an opportunity to actually bring your
government, your people together on the basis of that common
threat?'' That was a year ago. And in that year, the behavior
was, for the most part, exactly counter to what you would
probably try to do if you were trying to bring your people
together--changing military leadership, cronyism, just all
forms of sectarianism that have led us to where we are today.
Senator Reed. But have you, through General Austin or
others, communicated consistently the operational consequences
of these political decisions, that they are in danger of
their--they are endangering their own security?
General Dempsey. Frequently.
Senator Reed. Frequently. And the response by both the
civilian and military authorities has been sort of
indifference?
General Dempsey. I would describe their response as a
volume of conspiracy theories.
Senator Reed. Turning to the present moment, Maliki have--
we've all had a--many of us, at least, have had the occasion to
meet with him numerous times, and, at least at one moment in
history, he surprised a lot of us by taking very aggressive
action in Basrah in 2008, where he was able to go after
elements that, you know, everyone thought were untouchable. In
fact, he was ahead of our own commanders, in terms of taking
the offensive. At this moment, is it your sort of impression
that he understands that this is an existential moment for him
and his country, and that he is willing, effectively, to start
doing things that will at least stop the momentum and reverse
the tide and----
General Dempsey. Senator, I don't know. Our ambassador,
Ambassador Beecroft, is in country, along with Brett McGurk,
working diligently to try to understand exactly how Maliki is
thinking about this situation. But that question would be
better passed to the State Department.
IRAQ
Senator Reed. Final question. It's just the leverage that
we had, given the fact that we were trying to communicate
serious concerns about their military capabilities, not so much
because of the training of individual soldiers or the equipment
they had--that was--seemed to be quite adequate--it was just at
the level of leadership and political direction of the military
forces. Do we think we've done enough in that regard, or tried
enough, or hit the right buttons?
General Dempsey. Well, I mean, clearly, we will look back
on this and do what we always do, be introspective and do an
after-action review, and use that--the results to change the
way we do--we build partners.
I should mention, by the way, that, although the two
divisions in the north collapsed, as well as the police unit,
there are still multi-confessional units of the Iraqi armed
forces standing and defending in and around Baghdad. Multi-
confessional. This has not broken down entirely on sectarian
lines. But it could.
Senator Reed. Just let me--quickly, because I have just a
few minutes--change subjects, and that's to the persistent,
ubiquitous, and emerging, if not already present, threat of
cyber at the level of national, sort of, wargaming, for want of
a better term. Are you comfortable, Mr. Secretary, that you are
doing enough of the planning and gaming and assuming all of the
new technology that's come online as--in response to a question
about Crimea, one of the things that the Russians did was
cleverly employ cyber operations as an adjunct to the battle
plan. And I think we all understand that's going to be a--
probably the opening salvo in any engagement, going forward.
And with respect to the--this issue of war planning, are you
actively engaging the war colleges and senior military
educational institutions in this sort of DOD-level, Sec-level--
Secretary of Defense level--sort of what's coming, what's the
worst case? Are we ready or where are the gaps?
Secretary Hagel. Senator, on your first question, it is one
of the areas of our budget that we have requested an increase--
cyber--I think it's 5.1 billion--to get our capability up
quickly, move it to, I think, around 6,000 employees. We have
put a high, high priority on this, the last 2 days, for the--2
years--for the obvious reasons.
Am I confident we're doing enough? I am confident that
we're doing everything we need to be doing, but we're
constantly reassessing that, Senator. I don't think anyone can
ever be too confident, because there are surprises all the
time. But we recognize what's out there. We recognize the
technology that is moving so rapidly, the threats that are
clear to this country, to the world. We are working interagency
with the--all the appropriate assets and tools we have to bring
together the coordinated value-added, to your question about
war college and other outside units, interests, enterprises, to
get their best advice, absolutely. Because we don't think we
are, alone, the repository for all of this. So, this is as a
high a priority, overall, as we have.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Just one comment. I want to thank Secretary Hale for his
service. This is your last appearance. Secretary McCord has
been confirmed. Thank you very much.
And also, thinking of our initial discussion with respect
to Iraq, we were, I think, in a curious situation as we were
trying to warn them and they weren't listening. And I think the
leverage--the only leverage we have would have been simply to
sort of pull support back, which might have even made the
situation worse. So, this is, again, I think, something that we
realized some--many years ago. There is no good answer there.
But it's a very--and I don't have to tell you gentlemen--it's a
very disturbing situation at the moment.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Graham.
PERSONNEL COSTS
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Hale, make sure, in your last appearance, you get to
speak.
Mr. Hale. I'm doing fine, sir.
Senator Graham. As you depart, would you advise the
Congress and the administration to deal with the growing
personnel costs? Because, without some personnel reforms, it'll
be hard to maintain the budget.
Mr. Hale. I appreciate an easy question, Senator. And the
answer is absolutely yes. As the Chairman and the Secretary
have said, we need to deal with these issues appropriately.
Senator Graham. Because it's about 50 percent of our cost.
Mr. Hale. Right, for the military and civilian, that's
correct.
Senator Graham. And we're talking about in the future,
retirement reforms, looking at TRICARE anew, trying to be
rational, in terms of cost-sharing, correct?
Mr. Hale. Yes. All of those are elements, as you know, on
the retirement side. We are working with and waiting for the
commission.
Senator Graham. Right.
Mr. Hale. But we think we have, especially in TRICARE area,
a good proposal that will--most of the savings, frankly, don't
come out of the pockets of the troops. So, I'd really urge that
one.
Senator Graham. And to my colleagues, I hope we will listen
to what Mr. Hale says and try to stabilize the budget.
Now, to Iraq. Is it possible, General Dempsey, to stop ISIS
without U.S. airpower?
General Dempsey. ISIL.
Senator Graham. Yes.
General Dempsey. ISIS, the OSH, whatever we call them,
are----
Senator Graham. The people that al-Qaeda kicked out.
General Dempsey. Or who broke contact because they're more
radical than al-Qaeda.
Senator Graham. Yes. Yes. These people.
General Dempsey. Right. The--I suspect--well, first of all,
we have a request from the Iraqi government for airpower. And--
--
Senator Graham. You do?
General Dempsey. We do. And----
Senator Graham. Do you think it's in our national security
interest to honor that request?
General Dempsey. It is in our national security interest to
counter ISIL, wherever we find them.
Senator Graham. Fair statement. Because--and I want the
American people to understand--there's a lot at stake for us.
Right, Secretary Hagel?
Secretary Hagel. There is a lot at stake for us, the
region----
Senator Graham. And the world at large. If Iraq falls and
Iran dominates the south, and this group, ISIS, owns the Sunni
territory all the way from Aleppo to Baghdad, Kurdistan breaks
away, that would create economic chaos in the region, which
would affect us here at home. Is that a fair outcome?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I don't know what an outcome would
be if that occurred, Senator. All I can tell you is, what we
are looking at providing to the President.
Senator Graham. Well, the economy----
Secretary Hagel. The different options to----
IRAQ
Senator Graham. The economy of Iraq would collapse.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I think that's right. If they lose
their oil.
Senator Graham. Yes, that's right. And if ISIS has assets
from Aleppo to Baghdad, they're enriched, the country we know
as Iraq financially collapses. Don't you think that would
affect the region and energy prices? From the average American
point of view, Iraq matters.
Secretary Hagel. Well, it does. And--but, also, as you
know--you've been there many times, Senator--the southern part
of Iraq possesses a tremendous amount of oil, so different
scenarios that you're talking about.
Senator Graham. So, if the Iranians dominate the southern
part of Iraq because the central government collapses and there
is no force in Baghdad, the Iranians are enriched, and I think
the world as a whole suffers, particularly--we'll get hit in
the wallet.
But ISIS, General Dempsey, they have vowed to attack the
United States. Is that fair to say?
General Dempsey. There is open-source reporting that they--
although currently a regional threat, they do have aspirations
to attack Western interests.
Senator Graham. And if they have a safe haven in Syria and
Iraq, can operate from Aleppo to Baghdad with impunity, that's
a bad scenario for us. Is that true?
General Dempsey. That is a high-risk scenario.
Senator Graham. Yes, to our homeland being attacked by this
group.
General Dempsey. Over time. Not at this time, but over
time.
Senator Graham. Right.
Well, I would say that the--Baghdadi, the director, the
head of this group, was a former GTMO--excuse me--a Camp Bucca
detainee. Is that correct?
General Dempsey. Correct.
Senator Graham. I know the colonel. I used to do my Reserve
duty there. The people did a very good job on the ground,
General Stone and others. But he's reported that when they
turned Baghdadi back over, when they let him out of Camp Bucca,
that he traveled to Baghdad with him, and he turned to Colonel
Collins and these others and said, ``I'll see you in New
York.'' Does that fit this character?
General Dempsey. I haven't heard that, Senator.
Senator Graham. Well, I'm just telling the American people,
it is in our national security interest not to give these guys
safe haven in Syria and Iraq, because the next 9/11 could very
well come from that region.
Is that an unrealistic--is that an overstatement or is that
in the area of possibility?
General Dempsey. As I've said in other settings, the--there
are several groups--there's--the al-Qaeda ideology is--has
spread, as we've seen. Several of the groups are more dangerous
than others. And ISIS----
Senator Graham. Would you put this at the top? Would you
put this at the----
General Dempsey. I think, at this point in time, I would
probably keep al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen at the
top.
Senator Graham. Our Director of National Intelligence says
he thinks that the deterioration in Syria and now Iraq is a
direct threat to the homeland. Is he right?
General Dempsey. If he said it, and if he is assessing that
it's there now, then I would agree with him. I think----
Senator Graham. Does that make sense to you?
General Dempsey. It makes sense that they will be a threat
to the homeland, in time.
Senator Graham. All right, perfect.
Iran is on the ground, Senator--Secretary Hagel, in Iraq?
Secretary Hagel. Iran has been in Iraq for many years.
Senator Graham. Right. So, the reality is that Iran is on
their ground. Do they have influence over Shi'a militia? The
Iranians?
Secretary Hagel. I'm sure they do.
General Dempsey. Yes.
Senator Graham. Are you worried about force protection? We
have thousands of Americans trapped inside of Iraq. Are you
worried about that?
Secretary Hagel. I am. And we're----
Senator Graham. Are you worried about another ``Benghazi on
steroids'' if we don't watch----
Secretary Hagel. Well, it's a bigger force, bigger threat,
bigger dynamics, yes. It's a huge threat.
IRAN
Senator Graham. So, when it comes to whether or not we
communicate with Iran, I am not suggesting we do a deal with
Iran to divide up Iraq and say, ``You get a nuclear weapon if
you help me.'' I know the strategic differences. They want to
own Iraq. We want a free Iraq. We're strategically misaligned.
But is it fair to say that, the reality that exists today,
talking to Iran about security issues on the ground probably
makes some sense?
Secretary Hagel. I agree. And you know there have been some
sideline conversations----
Senator Graham. Yes. And if we start flying airplanes, it
makes some sense to talk to the Iranians about what we're doing
so they don't shoot us down and we don't bomb them?
Secretary Hagel. The Iranians are there. I mean, they're in
the region, and----
Senator Graham. Well, that's the reality, as I see it. And
they're up to no good. But I don't want to cede Iraq to Iran,
but, at the same time, I don't want to blunder into a situation
without thinking this thing through. And, for God's sakes, I'll
talk to anybody to help our people from being captured or
killed, and this is a time where the Iranians, in a small way,
might help, given their behavior. I know exactly who they are.
They're not repentant people at all. They're thugs and killers.
But we are where we are.
Afghanistan. On a scale of 1 to 10, if we pull all of our
troops out by the end of 2016, General Dempsey, what's the
likelihood of what happened in Iraq visiting Afghanistan? One
being let--very unlikely, 10 being highly likely.
General Dempsey. I think, based on the reports that I
received on the development of the INSF, and I'd have to make
an assumption about this government, but I think it would be in
the--I'll do it in thirds--lower third; low, unlikely.
Senator Graham. What percentage of the Iraqi--and I'm going
to take 2 minutes, everybody else has--what percentage of the
Afghan security forces are made up of southern Pashtuns?
General Dempsey. I don't have that committed to memory,
but----
Senator Graham. It's less than 6 or 7 percent. The Afghan
army is seen as a occupying power in southern--in the Kandahar
region. That's just a reality, just like the Iraqi army was
seen by Sunnis as a Shi'a army. I think the likelihood of this
happening Afghanistan is a 8-to-10.
Would you recommend--if I'm wrong and you're right, would
you think the most prudent discussion would be, ``Don't let it
happen, even if it's 1 in 3''? Do you think we should revisit
leaving a residual force behind? Because the Afghans will
accept it, won't they?
General Dempsey. Well, I think that there is already built
in a residual force. The question is: At what size and with
what tasks?
Senator Graham. By 2016, we're down to an Embassy force.
There is no residual force.
General Dempsey. Well, with an Office of Security
Cooperation.
Senator Graham. Yes, a couple hundred people. Would you
recommend the President reconsider his decision to go down to a
couple hundred people by 2016 in Afghanistan, in light of Iraq?
And wouldn't the prudent thing to do would be to say yes?
General Dempsey. What I will commit to is assuring you
that, as we watch this new government form and the situation
evolve, I will make appropriate recommendations to the
President.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Pakistan is a neighbor to Afghanistan, right?
General Dempsey. Correct.
Senator Graham. Do you worry about if--if Afghanistan falls
apart like Iraq, that one of the collateral damages could be
destabilizing even further a nuclear-armed Pakistan?
General Dempsey. I do.
Senator Graham. So, given that possibility, why in the
world--we--they want us to stay, the Afghans. The two new
candidates for President would sign a Bilateral Security
Agreement, they would accept troops. Isn't that correct?
General Dempsey. They have said they'd sign the Bilateral
Security Agreement, made----
Senator Graham. They have told me they would accept troops.
You need to ask them, because they've told me they would accept
troops. If you don't know that, that's very disheartening,
because I've asked them both.
KHATALLAH
Finally, this guy on the ship, Khatallah, is he being held
under the Law of War? Are we doing lawful interrogation of this
man?
General Dempsey. Khatallah is under the control of the
Department of Justice.
Senator Graham. Okay. But is he being questioned for
intelligence-gathering?
General Dempsey. I'd prefer to answer that in a classified
setting.
Senator Graham. Thank you all for your service.
Senator Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary, nice to see you again. And
good morning, General Dempsey.
I would like to just kind of have a little dialogue with
you, informally. What is your assessment of ISIL? I spoke to
the Iraqi Ambassador yesterday afternoon, and his estimate is
about 20,000--10,000 being ISIL, the--10,000 being various
Sunni extremists and tribal members, plus what he called
``passport fighters'' coming into the area. What do you assess
the size? And how far are they from Baghdad at this time?
General Dempsey. Well, without getting into classified
matters, I'll tell you that, if you think about ISIL, they are
located in about three places--eastern Syria, they have a wing
that is operating in the Fallujah/Ramadi area, and a wing
that's operating in northern Iraq. And I think that the
Ambassador's estimates are probably high. The actual number,
the only place I've seen it is in classified information, so I
wouldn't want to say it here.
But here's what I will tell you, Senator. ISIL is almost
undistinguishable right now from the other groups you
mentioned. In other words, in this caldron of northern Iraq,
you have former Ba'athists, JRTN, you have groups that have
been disenfranchised and angry with the government in Baghdad
for some time. And as ISIL has come, they've partnered--I
suspect it's a partnership of convenience. And there's probably
an opportunity to separate them. But that's why the number is a
little hard to pin down.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And they're dispersed, and it's
difficult to establish a target. I understand all of that. But
it seems to me that you've got two things here. You've got the
military strategy, which you just said that Iraq had asked for
airpower. Do you--would you recommend that?
General Dempsey. Well, what I would recommend is, anytime
we use U.S. military force, we use it for those things that are
in our national interests, and that--once I'm assured we can
use it responsibly and effectively. And so, as we've been
working to provide options to the President, that's the
standard. And, as I mentioned, these forces are very much
intermingled. It's not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of
a convoy and then immediately striking it.
I'll give you one vignette to demonstrate that. I had a
conversation with a Kurdish colleague from years past who was
explaining to me that they had--the Peshmerga had taken over an
Iraqi army--I'm sorry--that ISIL had taken over an Iraqi army
base near Mosul and that the Pesh had then driven them out and
were now occupying it. So, in the course of about 36 hours, we
had Iraqi army units, we had ISIL, and then we had the
Peshmerga in that same facility.
MALIKI
And until we can actually clarify this intelligence
picture, the options will continue to be built and developed
and refined, and the intelligence picture made more accurate,
and then the President can make a decision.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you're known as a very thoughtful
person, and I appreciate that. It seems to me you've got to
have the military response and you have to have the political
response. And I think that most of us that have followed this
are really convinced that the Maliki government, candidly, has
got to go, if you want any reconciliation. If you want a Shi'a/
Sunni war, that's where we're going, in my view, right now. If
you want partition, that's where we're going right now.
So, the question comes, If you want reconciliation, what to
do you do? And it seems to me that Maliki has to be convinced
that it is in the greater interests of his country to retire
and to--for this newly elected government to put together a new
government.
What is the administration thinking, or your thinking, on
that subject? As much as you can discuss. Because that's the
one place where Iran can be of help, if they want to.
General Dempsey. I'm afraid, Senator, that's not a military
question, and I would--and I'm not trying to toss it to my
wingman here, but I'm not sure--but, I can't answer it.
Senator Feinstein. Wingman, you're up.
Secretary Hagel. It is a high honor, indeed, to be General
Dempsey's wingman.
A couple of things. First, let's start with formation of a
new government, as you have noted. The courts in Iraq this week
certified the election in late April. So, that is now put in--
on the path to formation. New government.
I happen to believe, and I think the President has said it,
that a political solution is the only viable solution. I said,
before you came in, Senator, in response to one of the
questions, that one of the reasons I believe that Iraq is in
this situation is that the current government never fulfilled
the commitments it made to bring together a unity, power-
sharing government with the Sunnis, the Shi'a, and the Kurds.
And I think that's probably generally accepted.
So, what do we do about it now? The State Department has
the lead on all of this, as you know. And, as General Dempsey
said, our Ambassador there in Iraq has been in daily touch with
the Prime Minister and the leaders, the political leaders, as
well as--Secretary Kerry's been personally involved in this. I
know the Vice President has. And they are pursuing that
political process. At the same time, we are providing, have
been providing, the President with different options from our
perspective. The intelligence community is trying to inform all
of this for the President to assess what we've got and where
this may be going.
I think General Dempsey's point about--we're still
clarifying what we have and what the situation is. Options like
airstrikes--as the President said, he's not ruled in or out,
but there has to be a reason for those, there has to be an
objective. Where do you go with those? What does it do to move
the effort down the road for a political solution?
The issue of whether Maliki should step aside or not,
that's an Iraqi political decisions, and that's something that
we don't get into.
But all these channels are being worked right now, and have
been, in the last week.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Well, let me ask a military question, then. According to
the Special IG on Iraq, we have spent 25 billion to train and
equip Iraqi security forces from the start of the war in 2003
until September 2012. In your estimation, General, why did the
Iraqi security forces perform so badly? And what does this
portend for Afghanistan?
ISIL
General Dempsey. Well, they didn't universally perform
badly. They performed badly in the north, in and around Mosul,
where ISIL had gained a foothold and had convinced some of the
Sunni elements that they----
Senator Feinstein. But that wasn't just a few of them, it
was tens of thousands.
General Dempsey. No, I understand that, but if the--ISIL
turned their leaders. And in the absence of leaders of a
military formation, the soldiers are not going to stick around
and wait to see what happens. So, ISIL was able to coopt some
of the leaders of those two divisions.
Now, I will tell you, when I was building the Iraqi
security forces from 2005-2007, it was clear to--several things
were clear to me. We could train them to fight, we could equip
them to fight. It would be harder to give them the logistics
architectures and signal architectures, but we did. But the
hardest thing of all, as I said then and as I say now, is to
build leaders and then to have those leaders supported by a
central government that is working on behalf of all the people.
And that's why those units in the north collapsed.
To your question about--and, by the way, there are still
many of the Iraqi security forces--multi-confessional, not just
one sect or another--who are standing and fighting. But the
entire enterprise is at risk as long as this political
situation is in such flux.
Let me go--let me answer your question about Afghanistan.
Much different place. I think, a much better prospect for a
unity government, based on this recent election. There are, of
course--I do have concerns about the future of Afghanistan. And
we will continue to do what we can to build into them the kind
of resilience that we can build into a security force. But at
the end of the day, a security force is only as good as the
instrument that wields it. And that's the central government.
Senator Feinstein. I really appreciate that. I mean, one of
the things that I have looked at on intelligence is the Taliban
there, and the shadow government there, and the amount of land
controlled by the Taliban where people live. And I think it
sets up a very serious situation for the future. I'm
particularly worried about them coming back and what this does
for women and the Shari'ah law. I watch the women huddled in a
corner, in the newspaper, standing in line or sitting in line
to vote. And I thought, if the Taliban comes back, it's just
terrible. Eleven years, and we're right where we started in the
very beginning.
Could you comment on--you know, I went to South Korea, and
you see our troops still there, decades later. You begin to
understand--now, that's a different situation--you begin to
understand what it takes. And I don't know--Senator Graham
mentioned, ``Well, would you be for another secure agreement,
where you could send in troops?'' But I really worry about the
sophistication of the Afghani army. Could you comment on that?
Will they stand? Do they have the leadership? Do they have the
will?
General Dempsey. I will tell you this, the Afghans are
better fighters, more--far more tenacious fighters than their
Iraqi counterparts. That's--that is both reason for optimism
and reason for concern, because there is a history of them
fighting each other, as well as external threats.
The--to your question of will, they do have will while they
remain optimistic for their future. And, as you know,
Afghanistan today, the country, is a far different country than
it was in 2002, in terms of women's rights, connectivity,
education, access to healthcare. If those continue to progress,
then I would suggest to you that Afghanistan will stay on a
path.
I have no doubt that there will be parts of Afghanistan
that from time to time, because of their history, do separate
themselves from the central government. And the question then
becomes, What will the central government do to address it?
They're far different countries, and I would caution us to
compare one to the other and assume that Afghanistan will
follow the path of Iraq. Far different.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, that's helpful.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
BOKO HARAM
Senator Collins. It has been 9 weeks since nearly 300 girls
were kidnapped from their school by the terrorist group Boko
Haram in Nigeria. I believe that the United States should have
provided immediate surveillance, reconnaissance, and
intelligence assets to locate these girls before they were
split up into more difficult-to-find smaller groups. I further
believe that contingency plans should have been made so that
our Special Forces, who performed so extraordinarily well as we
saw during this past weekend with their capture of the
terrorist who led the Benghazi attack, should have been on the
ground, working with Nigerian forces to plan a rescue of these
girls.
Mr. Secretary, with each passing day, the future of these
girls grows more and more precarious. There's no doubt that
some of them have already been forced into early marriages,
others have been taken across the border and sold into slavery,
all have been required to convert to Islam, according to the
video that we've all seen. Yet, it feels like these girls have
been forgotten, pushed off the front pages by a string of
endless crises.
I've made my concerns known to the administration in
several venues, about my disappointment that we did not act
sooner and more aggressively to help rescue these girls,
working with the Nigerians. Could you tell me--my question for
you is: Is this an urgent priority? What is going on now?
Secretary Hagel. Senator, I can assure you, this President
feels exactly the same as you do, as we all do, as you have
framed it up and laid out the tragedy of this, the urgency of
this. But let me also address your questions about why wasn't
there more action, quicker, so on.
First, as you know, we cannot just drop into a sovereign
country without that country's government asking us for
assistant. That country, Nigeria, has an elected government,
elected President. So, we were preparing, once we heard and
knew what was going on, also working with them diplomatically,
to get a request from them for each of the resources that we
were able to provide, and still are providing. That's one.
Second, the capability of the Nigerian forces to be able to
carry out what we can give them in the way of intelligence or
assistance--it's still their responsibility--they have limited
capabilities.
Now, I know that's not a good answer, but that's the
reality. We are as focused today on helping locate these girls,
doing everything we can to get them out of there. But this is a
sovereign nation, and we require, obviously, like any other
situation, the government to ask us to come in. They give us
the limits and the parameters on where we can operate, how we
can operate.
The other part of this, too, as you know, is, this is
about, terrain-wise, as complicated a part of the world as
there is. They have triple, quadruple canopy jungles, they move
them around, your deadly smart guys, Boko Haram. So, we're up
against that, as well.
So, unless the Chairman would like to add anything to this,
that would be my general assessment. But make no mistake,
Senator, this President, all of us, are as committed to this,
even though you don't read it in the front pages because of the
reasons you've mentioned. We're still involved, and we're still
assisting.
Senator Collins. Well, time is ticking away. And with each
passing day, the chances of these girls being reunited with
their families grows ever dimmer. And the fact is, the
Nigerians did say yes. I realize they didn't say yes
immediately. And it seems to me, we should have had a plan so
that, when they said yes, we could swoop right in.
Secretary Hagel. Well, we did, as much as they would let us
do. And I--if you want to get down into the details of the
operation, I'll let General Dempsey----
General Dempsey. Well, I just want to assure you, Senator,
we didn't wait for the Nigerians to ask or respond to our
question. The military, under the Secretary's leadership, began
repositioning resources when we saw this occurring.
But I do--so, two things--I do want to bring us back to
this budget hearing. We are where we are around the world today
because we can be, and we can respond. It may not have been
adequate to this task, but we are certainly adequate to a lot
of tasks. And that capability is eroding while we sit here.
Senator Collins. Well, let me switch to another issue, but
let me, first, just say that I specifically asked whether there
was contingency planning for Special Forces to go in, and was
told that there was not. So, I'm glad to hear you contradict
that. But that is not the answer that I was given.
ABU KHATALLAH
General Dempsey. Well, let me distinguish between moving
assets, in the event that we are given permission to use them,
and contingency planning. And also, Senator, the Abu Khatallah
operation, though it may have looked, you know, rather routine,
it took us months of preparation and intelligence soak----
Senator Collins. That's exactly my point. I mean, from day
one, I think we should have been working on this. And I know
how meticulous and difficult an operation that our Special
Forces is involved in is. But that's sort of part of my
frustration.
Let me, because time is slipping away, turn to the issue,
General, that you mentioned, and that is the budget constraints
and the impact of sequestration. It is surely significant that
one of the first actions that the President took in response to
the crisis in Iraq was to send an aircraft carrier to the
Persian Gulf. It is our Navy that allows us to project power.
And I am very concerned by Secretary Hagel's written testimony
in which he notes that the indiscriminate budget cuts of
sequestration would result in the loss of a deployable aircraft
carrier, delay the procurement of a submarine, and slash the
surface fleet by 10 ships. Secretary--and I would note that our
goal of, now, a 303-ship Navy is not near what the combatant
commanders say that we need. And I see you're nodding in
agreement.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus testified before us earlier
this year that sequestration may also result in breaking the
multiyear contracts for ships, which has the effect of raising
the cost of the ships and giving us fewer ships. It's
particularly troubling for our national security strategy,
because all 10 ships in the DDG-51 multiyear procurement
contract through 2017 and the 10 ships of the Virginia-class
submarine program are clearly essential.
General, do you agree with Secretary Mabus's assessment
that we will not be able to meet our national security
requirements and that we will end up paying more per ship, and
thus getting fewer ships, if we do not deal with sequestration?
General Dempsey. I do. And the same problem exists in the
other services, as well.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Collins.
Senator Murray.
IRAQ
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General Dempsey, thank you all for being
here.
I'm extremely concerned by the recent developments in Iraq.
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have reportedly captured
large amounts of money and weapons from the large territory in
Iraq and Syria. They are active, and they're reportedly
committing human rights violations. And, as we know, their
presence is potentially destabilizing to our partners in the
Middle East. And, importantly, they threaten the United States
and our interests. I know that the President has said he's
considering a wide range of options in response. I'm glad he's
not talking about putting direct combat troops on the ground.
But what I wanted to ask you today is, Are Iraqi security
forces capable of pushing the insurgents back?
Secretary Hagel. Do you want to start?
General Dempsey. Well, I've got a little time under my belt
with the Iraqi security forces. One of the things we've got to
learn and are--we're working to learn it, but we don't know
yet--is what's left? What is left of the Iraqi security forces?
They seem to be holding a line that roughly runs from Baquba,
north of Baghdad, over to Fallujah. We also know that there's
been some augmentation of the Iraqi security forces by militia.
And so, you know, among the options we're considering is
whether we would, in fact, try to do an assessment of what's
actually defending Baghdad at this point. That's an important
question.
Senator Murray. So, it's impossible to ask what assistance
they would need until you do that assessment?
General Dempsey. You know--I mean, there are some things we
know for a fact, where they will require assistance--ISR. I
mean, that--you know, we've maneuvered a great deal of both
manned and unmanned ISR to try to gain clarity on what exactly
is occurring. But there are some things that we need to know
about actually the fabric of what's left of the Iraqi security
forces.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Secretary Hagel, I wanted to ask you--you've talked at
length about--the services are going to have to make
significant cuts in personnel. And I am very concerned about
transition and employment for those who are leaving the
military. It's why we made the Transition Assistance Program
mandatory under the VOW (Veterans Opportunity to Work) Act, and
have made some reforms to help servicemembers transition and
find employment. I wanted to ask you how you have worked with
your counterparts at other agencies to prepare, now, for the
increasing numbers of servicemembers who are going to be
separating and needing that transition assistance.
Secretary Hagel. Senator, it's a very, very high priority,
for obvious reasons. As I said before, we create the veteran,
and then we hand the veteran off. And you--the programs that
you mentioned, that the Congress initiated and funded, and
continue to fund, are critically important for us as we help
shape and prepare these men and women who will leave the
services. And this goes into every dimension of their future,
whether it's healthcare, retirement, job preparation, job
opportunities. So, it becomes, has become, will continue to be,
as important a part of our responsibilities as there is, from--
from the time they enter service, the commitment we make to
them, all the way through. So, I'm committed, personally--the
General is, all our chiefs are, the entire establishment of
DOD--to do that.
Senator Murray. Okay. It's absolutely important that we
stay focused on that.
Secretary Hagel. We will.
And second, to your question about, Are we working closely
with the interagencies? Absolutely. In fact, I just, on Monday,
had another conversation with the new--with the Acting
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Sloan Gibson, who I just,
incidentally, have known a long time, and we have a very good
relationship. And we're meeting again next week. And that's
just but one example.
But all the agencies--because we've got to bring value-
added to all the resources in how we're doing this and----
Senator Murray. We spent an--a considerable amount of money
training these people, and we need to make sure that we use
their skills when they leave.
SPECIAL VICTIMS' COUNSEL
Secretary Hagel, I also wanted to ask you about the Special
Victims' Counsel (SVC). I'm really pleased that the Department
worked quickly to implement a provision that I authored that
requires Special Victims' Counsels in all of our military
services. The number of cases that they are getting shows how
important that service really is. But I am concerned that we
may need more attorneys to meet the need. I wanted to ask you
how many additional SVCs and how much funding do the services
need to keep up with the needs of victims of military sexual
assaults?
Secretary Hagel. Let me ask our Comptroller if he's got any
specific numbers. I don't know. I'll take it for the record on
the specific numbers and money and----
Senator Murray. If you could get that information back to
me, and also a breakdown of spending on the Special Victims'
Counsels programs, including the $25 million I requested in
last year's defense appropriations--if you could respond back
to me on that, I'd appreciate it.
Secretary Hagel. We will, and we'll get it back to you very
quickly.
[The information follows:]
Following a successful Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) pilot program
launched by the Air Force in 2013, all of the Services established
programs to provide legal representation to sexual assault victims who
are authorized to receive legal assistance. These programs achieved
initial operating capability by November 1, 2013, and full operating
capability by January 1, 2014. A study conducted by the Joint Service
Committee on Military Justice suggests that the Services' SVC
organizations collectively form the most extensive victim
representation program in the country. While the programs are still
fairly new, analyses so far reveal tremendously high victim
satisfaction. The programs have been instrumental in protecting
victims' rights throughout the case investigation and court-martial
processes. The Department of Defense is committed to continuing to
provide sexual assault victims with expert legal representation.
A breakdown of personnel and financial requirements for the SVC
programs by Service follows:
A. Army.--The Army currently has 65 judge advocates serving as SVCs
in the Active Component, 70 in the Army Reserve, and 14 in the National
Guard. Some of these judge advocates, all of whom are in legal
assistance offices, provide SVC services full time, while others do so
part time.
During fiscal year 2014, the Army mobilized 20 Reserve Component
judge advocates to augment legal assistance offices to accommodate the
increased workload and diversion of previous legal assistance resources
arising from the SVC program. Based on additional needs, including
representation of victims of offenses designated by section 1716 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, Public Law No.
113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013), that were not previously covered by the
Army SVC program, this number will increase to 26 mobilized judge
advocates in fiscal year 2015.
The Army's fiscal year 2014 SVC funding was $2,597,000 for the
Active Component, $1,367,000 for Army Reserve, and $939,686.31 for the
National Guard. The Army anticipates comparable funding needs, adjusted
for inflation, for fiscal year 2015.
B. Navy.--The Navy's Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC) Program currently
has 31 assigned full-time counsel, including a captain (0-6) Chief of
Staff, a commander (0-5) Deputy Chief of Staff, and 29 full-time VLC.
The VLC Program is sufficiently staffed to accomplish its assigned
mission; no additional staffing is required in fiscal year 2015.
The estimated cost of the Navy VLC Program for fiscal year 2014 is
$672,751. The Navy JAG Corps recently received $673,000 in fiscal year
2014 funding to execute the VLC Program. Comparable funding, adjusted
for inflation, will be necessary for the VLC Program in fiscal year
2015.
C. Marine Corps.--The Marine Corps' Victims' Legal Counsel
Organization (VLCO), which provides legal representation to individuals
authorized to receive legal assistance who are the victims of any
offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is comprised of 15
active duty judge advocates (including a colonel (0-6) Officer in
Charge and major (0-4) Deputy Officer in Charge) and eight enlisted
legal services specialists. Beginning July 28, 2014, one GS-11 civilian
paralegal specialist will be assigned to the VLCO headquarters. The
VLCO is augmented by a Reserve judge advocate captain (0-3) currently
on Active Duty for Operational Support orders. An additional four
active duty judge advocates serving in other primary billets have been
trained as VLCs and are authorized to serve as Auxiliary VLCs when
needed and if available. The VLCO is also supported by a Marine Corps
Reservist from the Individual Mobilization Augmentee Detachment (IMA
Det). The VLCO IMA Det is currently comprised of one drilling Reserve
lieutenant colonel (0-5) judge advocate serving as VLCO Reserve Support
Branch Head. An announcement seeking applicants for four Reserve major
(0-4) judge advocates billets for the VLCO IMA Det was issued in June
2014.
On March 5, 2014, the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed a
review of the entire Marine Corps legal community to determine the
short- and long-term manpower challenges facing the Marine legal
community, including the VLCO. The current demand for VLC services is
being met with the present staffing level. However, based on geographic
dispersion, the Marine Corps may require additional VLC billets to
cover some of the outlying installations that currently have no VLC
presence. The Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps is reviewing these staffing issues within the Marine Corps.
The VLCO began with an operating budget of $150,000 in fiscal year
2014 to cover training, site visits, and administrative costs. On
November 15, 2013, the VLCO was authorized an additional $14,000 for
VLC travel not otherwise covered. Additionally, the VLCO received
$225,978 from DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)
funds during fiscal year 2014 to train VLCs and equip VLCO offices.
This approximately $390,000, however, is not the VLCO's only source of
funding. The costs for the Marine Corps VLC program are partially
covered by Marine Corps convening authorities, who are required to fund
costs incurred in support of courts-martial, including victim and
witness travel and resulting travel by VLCs to accompany their clients
for military justice purposes. These costs, which come from various
commands' operation and maintenance funds, are not centrally budgeted
or calculated. For fiscal year 2015, the VLCO is expected to receive
the same initial operating budget as fiscal year 2014 of $150,000,
which will be sufficient to support the current personnel structure.
However, if additional VLC billets are approved, additional funds may
be necessary to train personnel and establish new office locations.
D. Air Force.--The Air Force's SVC program is currently staffed by
28 full-time SVCs plus a colonel (0-6) Chief, a GS-14 civilian
Associate Chief, and a major (0-4) Deputy Chief. The program will
require an additional 10 billets in fiscal year 2015 to meet
anticipated victim requests for assistance. This increase is required
in part to provide representation for victims of offenses designated by
section 1716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013), that were not
previously covered by the Air Force SVC program (i.e., child sexual
assault offenses, stalking, voyeurism, forcible pandering, and indecent
exposure). Five of these requested 10 billets are for field grade
officers to provide mid-level management and supervision of SVCs and to
handle more complicated cases. The other five billets would augment the
28 existing SVCs and provide an appellate litigation specialist.
In fiscal year 2014, the Air Force SVC program received
approximately $2,158,000 in operating funds. The SVC program received
another approximately $4,245,000 for training (which provided training
for not only Air Force and Air National Guard SVCs, but also for some
Army, Army National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard SVCs and
VLCs) and $1,300,000 for development of a case management system.
During fiscal year 2015, the Air Force anticipates expending a
comparable amount, adjusted for inflation, in operating funds for the
SVC program. The Air Force will require an additional $411,000 during
fiscal year 2015 for additional development of a case management
system.
INTEGRATED DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM
Senator Murray. Okay. And finally, Secretary Hagel, as you
know, the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) has
been a concern of mine for a very long time. We saw a major
problem in my home State with servicemembers' mental health
diagnosis being inappropriately changed, and there have been
many, many more problems. I am continuing to hear from
servicemembers who are stuck in the system for a very long
time. They're not getting support from the Department, and
they're getting incorrect evaluations. So, I want to know: What
lessons have you learned from the implementation of IDES, and
what reforms are you now considering?
Secretary Hagel. First, as you know, we've had a team out
at the regional VA centers in your State, helping them and
assisting them as we integrate this. On the specific question
regarding us--DOD--I'm not satisfied with where we are. I just
had a meeting in my office, I think, Friday, about this
specific thing. And, by the way, it wasn't just to prepare for
the hearing.
We need to do more and pick it up. I asked them
specifically--they're going to get back to me by the end of
this week, and I'll give you a very detailed response to all
your questions--I said, ``I need to know. You give me a list
what you want me to do--Secretary of Defense--to break through
what you think you're not getting done because of bureaucracy,
whatever it is.'' I said specifically, ``Do we need more help?
Do we need more people? Do we need more money? Do we need more
technology?''
Senator Murray. What did they tell you?
Secretary Hagel. They'll be back to me with a report by the
end of this week, and I'll share it with you.
Senator Murray. Okay. I'd very much like to see this. We've
been talking about this forever. It continues to be a problem.
And we can't just keep letting this slide. So, if you can get
back to me as soon as you have that. Okay.
Secretary Hagel. I will be back to you. I'll share it all
with you.
Senator Murray. Very much appreciate it.
Secretary Hagel. I have the same concern.
[The information follows:]
As you know, Department of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA)
jointly established a standard of 295 days for active duty Service
members to complete the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES)
process, from start to finish. Of the 295 day standard, DOD is
responsible for completing DOD core processes in 105 days, VA is
responsible for completing VA core processes in 100 days, and Service
members are afforded 90 days to complete elective steps or use leave as
appropriate. DOD processing times are well below the 105 days standard;
Service members routinely complete the DOD component of IDES in 91
days. However, VA processing times are well above their 100 day
standard at 165 days. Until VA meets its core processing standard of
100 days, the IDES process as a whole cannot meet the overarching 295
day standard.
Although DOD is achieving its IDES goals and processing Service
members ever more rapidly, I have directed the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to review how we can further reduce
our timeline with consideration of the Service member's role in the
process. By law, Service members may appeal their disability
determination repeatedly. These appeals extend the period for which a
member remains in the IDES process. The DOD review will examine the
IDES process for additional efficiencies while ensuring that all
necessary due process is afforded to the member.
We know that by partnering with VA through the IDES process, we are
providing our seriously ill or injured Service members with
increasingly more consistent disability evaluations and ratings, more
rapid access to benefits, and greater transparency across the process.
Since we launched the IDES in 2011, we have continued to work closely
with the VA to improve IDES and ensure continuity of care throughout a
Service member's transition. Among our many efforts:
--DOD has completed the capability to electronically transfer IDES
case files to VA. However, VA has to ``manually'' download,
print, and upload the file into the Veteran Benefit Management
System (VBMS), which takes time. To expedite the process, VA
needs to fund a ``software solution'' that will allow them to
upload the electronic case file directly into VBMS. In a June
23, 2014 letter to Acting Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Sloan
Gibson, I asked him to fund this capability to enable the
faster transfer of IDES case files directly to VBMS. Fully
developing this capability promises to reduce VA processing
timelines.
--In July 2013, at my direction, DOD detailed 21 Reserve Duty
Soldiers to VA's Seattle, Washington, Disability Rating
Activity Site to provide clerical support for processing all
Army IDES claims, thereby allowing VA claims processors to more
efficiently focus on processing IDES claims. These Soldiers
will remain on-site until December 31, 2014 to continue to
provide clerical support to the VA.
--DOD is working with VA to provide faster disability decisions for
all catastrophically ill or injured Service members who clearly
will be unable to continue their military service. These
members receive a presumptive 100 percent disability rating and
are expeditiously routed through the IDES process in order to
receive benefits as soon as possible. For example, these
members are not required to complete the physical or medical
evaluation board process and can move straight to the
transition and benefits phase.
--As required by the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, by October 2014, DOD will implement a more robust quality
assurance program that will include common standards and
requirements across the Military Services. This program will
audit the performance of Medical and Physical Evaluation Boards
to ensure IDES evaluations and outcomes are accurate and
consistent.
The DOD remains absolutely committed to working with the VA to
provide the best possible care for our ill and injured Service members
and their families. Thank you for your continued support of our
Nation's Service members.
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BUDGET ISSUES
Senator Durbin. Senator Murray, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, back to budget issues for a minute. Many of
the recommendations by the administration in the new budget
relate to the pay and benefits of those serving in the
military, and retirees. Did you do, or did the administration
do, a survey of men and women in the military, and retirees, to
determine what they consider to be the most valuable benefits
they're currently receiving, and those of lowest value?
Secretary Hagel. Let me ask our Comptroller for the
specific of the answer to your question, but I'll--let me start
with a general answer.
First, the presentation that we made, as I say in my
written statement in more detail, in the budget was based on
considerable analysis from all our chiefs. And the Chairman
will want to say something about this, I'm sure. All the
information we could gather. We asked the chiefs, the services,
the same question you just asked me, ``You come back to me and
tell me what you think we need to do.'' One of the first things
that I did when I got over there, about a year and a half ago,
was, I met, as I do all the time, with the chiefs. We went
through the whole series of what do they need? What do we need
to get prepared for? That was a question, because all the
chiefs understand it better than anyone. As Senator Graham
said, 50 percent of our budget goes to these kinds of issues.
And that continues to escalate. We know we're on a track, we
can't sustain it. It's just--it's like entitlement programs.
Senator Durbin. I understand.
Secretary Hagel. So, we're doing all of that.
Senator Durbin. I understand the premise. I was just trying
to understand the formulation of your response.
Secretary Hagel. Let me ask the Chairman for what--how we
got from the services to answer your question with specifics.
General Dempsey. Yes, Senator, let me assure you, we did.
We've spent a year on this, with monthly meetings with the JCS.
And, in the interim, we looked at both direct and indirect
compensation. So, pay and benefits, on the one side;
commissaries, PXs, and education, on the other. Those are
indirect compensation. And we put together--believe me, it
wasn't--I had no role in it, but we put together a computer
program that you could take a serviceman or woman at a
particular grade, and you could show the effect on various
changes in pay and compensation and healthcare benefits, direct
and indirect, with exquisite precision. So, we could tell, for
example, what effect we would have on an E-6 at 12 years, and
that same individual as they matriculated through the force to
22 years. We've got all of that data.
And when we had all that data, then we decided what we
would need to do to account for the budget reductions, but also
to bring our costs, over time, under control. And then we came
up with this package. So, that the analysis is extraordinarily
sound.
Senator Durbin. Let me get into a couple of specifics.
First, a recommendation to you. I will tell you where you can
save some money. To the benefit of all the Active military and
their families, put an end to the subsidizing of for-profit
colleges and universities. They are overcharging these families
and the military, twice the tuition of schools like the
University of Maryland, which, for decades, has offered great
courses to the military. These for-profit schools, calling
themselves names like the American Military Universities, are
ripping off the government and ripping off servicemen and
women. So, if you want to start saving, I suggest we need
stricter policies on how they solicit the members of the
military to sign up for what turns out, in many cases, to be
worthless.
SMOKING
Second question. Mr. Secretary, what is the smoking policy
in the Pentagon?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we don't smoke in the Pentagon.
Senator Durbin. Well, let me ask you a second question. Do
you sell tobacco products in the Pentagon?
Secretary Hagel. We do in the Pentagon, in our--by the
way--let me see if I can jump ahead. Yes, we have a--you've
been there, you know we have different stores down in the
basement--retail stores. But let me jump ahead here to the--I
think, maybe where you're going, to the bigger issue here. I
ordered a review of all our tobacco. This is part of our
healthy base initiative. All of our tobacco sales everywhere
throughout the enterprise. The Department of the Navy was
already considering the ban on sale of tobacco products and e-
cigarettes in retail outlets on Navy and Marine Corps
installations and vessels. They don't allow smoking on
submarines. They're looking now at not even smoking on ships.
I've asked for a complete review--it will be back to me in the
next couple of months--on recommendations from our services on
this specific policy. But it's bigger than just selling it at
the Pentagon.
Senator Durbin. So, let me suggest. It's been reported that
we spend $1.6 billion a year on medical care of servicemembers
from tobacco-related disease and loss of work. $1.6 billion.
Secretary Hagel. That's----
Senator Durbin. We should also know that the rate of
smoking among the military is 20 percent higher than the
average American population. The rate of use of smokeless
tobacco, more than 400 percent higher than the average
population. One out of three members of the military who use
tobacco today say they started after they enlisted. Why? Well,
we make it easy. And we make it easy because, for some reason,
the Department of Defense decided to put in a discount for
tobacco. So, not only when you buy it at the exchange do you
get some breaks, in terms of local taxes and State taxes that
aren't collected on the tobacco product, there's a required 5-
percent discount. So, it's a bargain, it may be the best
bargain that the military sells to its men and women in
uniform. Tobacco. Good God. At this point in our history, how
can this be a fact? I'm glad you're doing this. I hope you'll
hurry it along.
Secretary Hagel. Well, we will. The Chairman may want to
respond.
General Dempsey. I just want to make sure, Senator, that--
the Joint Chiefs want to have a voice in this decision. We've
asked a lot of our men and women in uniform, and we live--we
lead an uncommon life by choice, but the--all the things you're
talking about are legal, and they are accessible. And anything
that makes anything less convenient and more expensive for our
men and women in uniform, given everything we're asking them to
do, I've got concerns about. I'm openminded to the review, but
I want to make sure that you understand that the chiefs will
need to have a voice on this because of the effect on the
force.
Senator Durbin. I think that's valid. Can you start your
review with the following premise? Tobacco is the only product
legally sold in America today which, if used according to
manufacturers' directions, will kill you.
General Dempsey. I accept that. My father died of cancer,
and I'm a cancer survivor, not from tobacco. But it is legal,
and that is an issue for the broader Congress of the United
States, not uniquely for the United States military.
Senator Durbin. I understand that. But if it's legal, I
guess someone could rationalize that we should allow you to
smoke right here. We decided not to. The Pentagon decided not
to. We're trying to set an example, and I think our men and
women in uniform, if they have healthier and longer lives,
would be a good example of a policy that we should follow.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to associate myself with your comments about
giving a discount for buying tobacco products at our
commissaries or PXs or wherever. I just think that that's
something that needs to go, and would be happy to work with you
on it.
General Dempsey, many experts have said that, had we left a
residual force in Iraq, a NATO force of which American troops
would have been a part, that ISIS would not have been able to
make the gains that it made, nor would it have attempted to
make those gains. Do you agree with that?
IRAQ
General Dempsey. Well, as you recall, Senator, we actually
recommended--our military advice was that we needed to remain
partnered with the Iraqi security forces longer. But it--and
that--so, I'm--I stand by that recommendation, and I was part
of it, years ago. The size of it was being negotiated, but I
was very much of the mind we needed to continue to partner with
them for some period of time.
But remember that our partnership was on the basis of
increasing their tactical capability, their logistics
capability, their ability to budget, to be a responsible
institution of government. The problem today is that the
government has not acted responsibly in Iraq. And I don't know
that the presence of U.S. military personnel uniquely would
have changed the outcome.
Senator Collins. But you stand by your initial
recommendation that there should have been a residual force.
And obviously, the reason you thought that must have been
because you felt it was necessary to help continue to train and
equip the Iraqi forces, and to ensure stability.
General Dempsey. I do. And to develop their leaders to be--
to understand what it means to lead in a democracy.
But also recall that I also said that, in the absence of a
Status of Forces Agreement, that I wouldn't, personally, want
to send America's sons and daughters to Iraq. And we didn't get
a Status of Forces Agreement.
Senator Collins. General, the cornerstone of this
administration's counterterrorism strategy has been, according
to the President's speech at West Point, to rely more heavily
on other countries, including the proposal of the $5-billion
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, to train, build capacity,
and facilitate partner countries' front-line counterterrorism
efforts, including in Libya, Mali, Somalia, and Syria. And yet,
as we see in those countries, as well as Pakistan and now Iraq,
the countries that have received U.S. assistance have a very
mixed record of performance in protecting U.S. counterterrorism
interests. What's so disturbing about what's happening in Iraq
is, not only does it pose a huge threat to that country and the
region, but it poses a huge threat to our country.
We provided $15 billion--I don't need to tell you, and I'm
well aware of your role--in training and aid to the Iraqi
forces. And then, when I saw so many of them cut and run
against ISIS, it's just appalling and very disappointing. So,
what gives you confidence that this new approach, this new $5-
billion Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, will deliver a
strategic defeat to extremists who are out to harm us?
General Dempsey. The issue of violent extremist
organizations, most of whom are inspired by radical religion,
is going to be with us for another, in my judgment, 25 to 30
years. It's a generation-plus problem. And therefore, the new
approach to try to rebalance--How much do we do, ourselves?
Because the challenges we see, as they've migrated across from
Pakistan and now extend across the Arab world, Mideast, North
Africa, and into western Africa. We've got to find a way to
address them regionally. And when you start to think
regionally, you could either come to the conclusion that we
should do it all ourselves or find partners and capable allies,
as we have with the French in Mali, for example, and work
collaboratively to do that. That's what this fund is all about.
And the companion piece for the European initiative, as well,
to counter what we see as a changing security environment in
Europe.
I don't think we have any choice, frankly, but to find
and--well, in some cases, find more capable partners, and, in
other cases, build more capable partners, because the thought
of doing this all ourselves is a difficult one to grasp.
Senator Collins. Secretary Hagel, you recently said that
you were opposed to the creation of a commission to study what
the balance should be between the National Guard and the Active
Duty troops. I know it's a very difficult task to--in this time
of excessive budget constraints, to figure out what the right
mix should be. But the fact is that the National Guard is far
less expensive, when you look at the cost per soldier or
airman, than is someone who's in the Active Duty troops.
I'm wondering why a commission wouldn't be a good idea. And
I also want to convey to you that it's not just my Governor,
but every Governor I've talked to, every adjutant general that
I've talked to, who are very unhappy about the decisions that
have been made to cut the National Guard.
NATIONAL GUARD
In Maine, the National Guard is slated to be reduced to the
lowest number ever in its history. And that is of great
concern, because, as you're fully aware, the National Guard
plays two roles. It can be activated and deployed, but it also
plays an essential role domestically in responding to national
disasters--natural disasters or a terrorist attack that may
occur on our soil.
So, could you talk a little bit to help me understand why
you don't think a commission would be a good idea to review
this controversial issue?
Secretary Hagel. Senator, first, as I said in my opening
statement, as I said in my written statement, the National
Guard and Reserves are, have been, and will remain an integral,
essential part of our national security strategy. That's not an
issue.
A couple of the specific points, and then I'll get, the
last point, to your question about the commission.
As I've also said--and we've talked here today--about the
realities of our abrupt and steep, unprecedented, quite
frankly, budget cuts. That's the reality that we have. And then
you know, as you've spoken just a few minutes ago, about:
sequestration becomes the law of the land in 2016, unless
that's changed. So, that's the reality of the financial
landscape and, fiscally, what we've got to deal with.
When you look at the National Guard and Reserve cuts, what
we're proposing, versus Active Duty--and I again remind you,
we're talking about a 13-percent cut in Active Duty and a 5-
percent cut in Reserve and National Guard as we try to balance
our budget, as we try to balance the equality of what we're
going to need to carry out the national security interests of
this country, it is--was--I believe still is, and I'll let
Chairman Dempsey address this--the strong concurrence of all of
our chiefs, who I rely on an awful lot, and the combatant
commanders, and the people down on the ground who know it best,
who have to actually, day to day, implement these strategies
through tactics--they agree with--everybody's got to take some
percentage of reduction, here. If I had an--not an unlimited
budget, but if I had a different kind of budget, I probably
wouldn't make those recommendations, based on what the chiefs
have come back.
Second, the lower-cost issue, Active versus National
Guard--I am going to ask the Chairman to respond to that,
because it depends. It isn't an easy metric that the Reserve
and National Guard are cheaper. It depends if they have to go
get trained up and go into Active Duty, a war zone, and so on.
Before I go into that, I'm going to ask the Chairman to get
into that. So, it's not quite as simple as ``they're cheaper.''
So, it's an easy issue.
Commission. Here was the feeling after I had consulted with
the chiefs in--the people that I rely on for advice, and then
they came to me with recommendations. We believe we know what
we need to do right now. A commission prolongs decisions that I
do think--not because I'm Secretary of Defense, but--I do think
reside within the leadership responsibilities of your military.
Now, that's why we have civilian control over the military.
I've got all that. But I think if we start micromanaging our
military, the people whose lives are dedicated to national
security, they come before the Congress, as they must; they're
responsible to me and to the President, civilians, as our
Constitution requires. But when we start second-guessing them
too far down the line, I think that's not smart, and I think
it's dangerous.
So, I don't think we need a commission, for those reasons
and others. We know what we need to do. Commission would
prolong this another--well, you know about commissions. And I
don't think we need one. We know what we need to do. There are
some hard choices, as I said, and this is one of them.
Let me, if it's okay, ask the Chairman to respond to,
maybe, the difference in the cost.
General Dempsey. Yes, thanks, Senator--I mean, thanks,
Secretary.
Senator, I'll get this right at some point so, I agree, by
the way, on whether we need a commission. I think the Army has
done a remarkable job. I used to be the Chief of Staff of the
Army, and if you would have told me, when I was the Chief, that
I would be able to take these budget cuts and manage them and
come up with a plan to provide the Army that we think the
Nation needs, I'd have--I maybe would have said I don't think
we can get there. But they got there.
The issue of cost. This body and the other committees that
give us our budget, buy readiness. That's what you buy. You're
not buying an Active Duty soldier, you're not buying a
particular platform or a national guardsman. You're buying
readiness. And it depends how quickly you want it ready. And
that's what distinguishes between the Active, the Guard, and
the Reserve. What capabilities you migrate and how quickly you
need to access them.
And so, as I say that I'm complimentary of the Army's plan,
it's based on what the Army needs to have ready to go on a very
short notice. And I think that you would agree, we just had
this conversation about Nigeria, you'd agree that, in the world
in which we live, with so much uncertainty, complexity, and
threats, I think we need more of the force ready right now than
at any time in our previous history, where you could--State-on-
State issues, you could take a long time to build up readiness
and deploy it.
So, if you're going to pay for a national guardsman to be
as ready as an Active Duty soldier, you're going to pay exactly
the same thing. It comes down to how quickly you need to access
the capability. When you need it tonight, you pay the same
whether it's an Active Duty soldier or a guardsman.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only comment I would make is, the guardsman goes back--
the Guard member goes back to the community and to civilian
life, in most circumstances. The Active Duty member remains on
Active Duty and, thus, is more expensive. To me, it's obvious,
if they're being--a National Guard troop is being deployed, it
is going to be trained in the same way, and it is going to be
as costly. But it's what happens at the end of the deployment
that creates the cost difference.
General Dempsey. I agree with that, Senator. But if they go
back home and I need them and I can't get them, then I'm not
doing my job. And don't forget, there--and there is reason for
Governors to be interested in this, because they have State
responsibilities, as well.
Senator Collins. Correct.
General Dempsey. But what the Secretary has to balance is
the national security interests of our Title X responsibilities
as the first priority. And I think we've done that as--with
recognizing the other things that guardsmen and reservists do
in their communities--I think we've done it responsibly. And
I'm not sure that a commission would help us identify that.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator.
Mr. Hale. May I ask, or offer, briefly, a comment?
If you take your logic to the extreme, we wouldn't have
anybody on Active Duty. It would be cheaper to have everybody--
--
Senator Collins. Well----
Mr. Hale. Obviously, there's a mix----
Senator Collins. No. Because, obviously----
Mr. Hale. That's the right--we need a mix.
Senator Collins. I mean, that's an absurd--I was going to
commend you for all your service. You just have totally blown
it.
Mr. Hale. I just want to establish, we need a mix. I'll
accept the lack of commendation if you accept the fact that we
need a mix. And we think we have it about right.
Senator Collins. No one's suggesting that we don't need a
mix. I mean, that is obvious.
And I will commend you for your service, nonetheless, and
for the work that we did together on DCAA when I was the Chair
or Ranking Member on Homeland Security.
Thank you.
Mr. Hale. That has been a success story. We have turned
that agency around.
Senator Collins. You have, indeed.
Mr. Hale. I appreciate your support and----
Senator Durbin. And thus, we end on a positive note.
Senator Collins. Just barely.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Durbin. Comptroller Hale, thank you for many, many
years of great service. You've really done your country proud,
and we're honored to have you come to this table so often and
try to take on one of the most daunting tasks in the history of
the world: The education of a United States Senator.
So, thank you very much for that.
Secretary Hagel, thank you very much.
General Dempsey, you and the men and women in uniform are
the best, and I thank you for your service and all that have
joined you today.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Chuck Hagel
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Secretary Hagel, in recent years the Department seems to
face a choice in every budget between meeting the requirements of the
Defense Strategic Guidance at non-sequester levels, or meeting all the
requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance with less readiness, but
at sequester levels.
When does the Nation need to begin a frank conversation about what
strategic interests it is actually willing to pay for? At what point do
we need to consider the Defense Strategic Guidance supported only at
sequester levels?
Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) released earlier this
year is the Department's current strategy, building on the work done in
the Defense Strategic Guidance, which was released in January 2012. As
the QDR came together, we considered our national interests in a
complex and uncertain world, thoroughly reviewed our missions and
objectives, and looked at innovative ways of securing and protecting
U.S. interests. Our priority was balancing readiness, capability and
capacity--the current strategy is supportable at the funding levels in
the President's budget submission, albeit at higher levels of risk in
some areas. A return to ``sequester'' levels of funding would introduce
greater risk and would require a strategy reconsideration.
Question. Secretary Hagel, for years I have been trying to pass
legislation that would bring the United States into compliance with our
obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That
convention guarantees that when an American is arrested in another
country, the U.S. consulate will be notified and can help. Compliance
with this treaty is in America's national interest and has a
significant impact on our diplomatic relations. Our current failure to
comply places Americans living, working and traveling abroad at risk. I
appreciate your Department's support for this legislation.
Can you provide an assessment of the impact this would have for the
safety of American servicemembers and their families overseas?
Answer. The Department refers you to then-Secretary Panetta's
letter to you dated August 31, 2011 (copy provided), that provides the
requested assessment. The Department continues to support enactment of
the Consular Notification Compliance Act of 2011.
[The letter follows:]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Do you support the Air Forces' stated plans to make the
Global Strike Command a 4-star position to oversee its nuclear
enterprise and any plans to create a new or reorganized nuclear
command?
Answer. Yes. We must prioritize the funding of our nuclear forces
commensurate with their role in protecting our country and deterring
aggression throughout the globe. For this reason, I ordered both an
internal and external review of our nuclear forces. The Department is
analyzing these reviews closely and will be acting on the
recommendations as we review and prepare the budget for fiscal year
2016. The Administration remains committed to a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear arsenal, and to strengthening the health of the
nuclear workforce and the nuclear enterprise.
Question. On January 8, 2011, the 917th Wing at Barksdale Air Force
Base (AFB) was deactivated. The A-10s of the 917th supported Green Flag
East exercises on a regular basis at Fort Polk. Today, our sources have
indicated the Air Force resources only about half of the Green Flag
East exercises with fighters. Often, B-52s from Barksdale AFB support
Green Flag East because of the loss of the A-10s. Separately, we
understand the Air Force is considering backfilling certain A-10 bases
with legacy F-16s. Does the Army still have a requirement for close air
support during its training exercises at the Joint Readiness Training
Center (JRTC)?
Answer. Yes, the Army still maintains a requirement for Close Air
Support (CAS) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) and at all
of our training centers. This support is necessary for challenging our
units and leaders with tough, realistic training. Our Soldiers' ability
to use CAS is critical to maintaining Army proficiency in Unified Land
Operations, and is a significant aspect of Joint readiness. The Army
fulfills these requirements for CAS support from both the Air Force and
Navy through the use of a variety of aircraft.
Question. Will the tempo at the JRTC--with troops returning to
CONUS--increase as we continue to train our soldiers for deployment?
Answer. The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) remains a
primary venue for Army units to train, build, and maintain light
tactical forces for Joint Force Readiness. Even as end strength and
force structure are reduced, Army training will remain consistent as
the Army plans to maximize capacity of JRTC.
Question. Will the Air Force consider Barksdale AFB for a potential
flying mission to replace the capability lost when the 917th was
deactivated?
Answer. The Air Force determines the most operationally effective
and fiscally efficient posturing of its assets during our annual
program and budget build. Consequently, the establishment of a new
flying mission at Barksdale AFB may be considered in the years to come.
However, fiscal constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act (BCA)
and sequestration implications have hampered the Air Force's ability to
distribute resources in a manner posing the least risk to our
warfighting capabilities. Reversion to strict BCA funding caps in
fiscal year 2016 and beyond will further hinder the Air Force's ability
to replace deactivated force structure and likely even compel us to
divest additional capabilities through unit deactivations.
Question. Does the Air Force believe it is resourcing Green Flag
East sufficiently and with the correct mix of aircraft?
Answer. Yes, based on past and projected participating squadrons,
the Air Force is resourcing Green Flag East sufficiently to meet our
requirements with the correct mix of aircraft.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
non-navy work at pax river
Question. Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, I am concerned
about the decision to prevent the Naval Air Station Patuxent River
(PAX) from working with non-Navy customers. The Navy has stated that it
believes the cost of supporting non-Navy activities comes out of the
Navy's pocket, but it does not. If this policy continues, PAX will lose
an estimated $2 billion of work. So in an attempt to save money, the
Navy is turning away the non-Navy business that actually brings them
money. PAX has supported non-Navy work since the 1990s. It has provided
services to the Army, Air Force, Special Operations Command (SOCOM),
and National Aeronautics Space and Administrations (NASA). Facilities
such as the Advance Prototype Facility were specifically built by PAX
to target non-Navy customers.
Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, with a shrinking budget, all
the military services should be pooling their resources when it comes
to test and evaluation facilities, not circling the wagons. What is the
Department of Defense doing to clamp down on policies such as the
Navy's non-Navy work policy?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is aware of the Navy's work
acceptance policy for its Warfare Centers. The Navy relies on its
Warfare Centers to develop, test and field the capabilities required by
the warfighter. The Navy's workload acceptance policy provides
visibility into where work is performed and ensures tasking is aligned
to the appropriate technical capability. Though the Navy places a
priority on the Naval mission, non-Naval work is an important element
of the overall workload at many of the Warfare Centers. This work
contributes to the strength of the technical workforce and reduces
overhead rates within the Naval Working Capital Fund (NWCF). However,
if the overall workload at an individual Warfare Center or across
multiple Warfare Centers is not properly aligned by capability and
capacity, performance of the mission as well as NWCF rates will be
negatively impacted. The DOD supports the Navy's effort and will
continue to monitor the implementation of the Navy's workload
acceptance policy and engage as required.
The DOD has made great progress in coordinating test and evaluation
(T&E) activities across the Services. Annually, the DOD certifies the
Service T&E budgets for range and lab sustainment, targets and
investment projects. The DOD develops a biennial ``Strategic Plan for
DOD T&E Resources'' that assesses the ability of the T&E infrastructure
to meet short and long term acquisition program requirements. Under T&E
Reliance, the Services collaboratively work together to promote
effective T&E infrastructure and investment management with the goal of
providing cost-effective and efficient operation without regard to
ownership and to avoid unwarranted duplication of test capabilities.
c-130j fielding
Question. Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, I am concerned
about the proposed divesture of the A-10 Thunderbolt beginning in
fiscal year 2015. If the A-10s are divested with no replacement, the
Air Guard at Martin State, among other Air Guard installations, will
have no flying mission. The Air Force released an un-official plan with
the fiscal year 2015 budget to replace A-10 units with C-130J Super
Hercules units. Martin State is scheduled to lose 22 A-10s and
unofficially gain 8 C-130Js.
Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, can you commit to me that the
Maryland Guard won't lose its flying mission? Will the A-10s at Martin
State be replaced with C-130Js?
Answer. Assuming the submitted President's fiscal year 2015 budget
plan, requested USAF A-10 divestiture plan, and C-130J realignment plan
remain intact, C-130Js will be relocated to Martin State in fiscal year
2018 to maintain the Maryland Guard flying mission.
status of nigerian girls
Question. Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, on April 14, 2014,
276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria. These girls are believed to be
between the ages of 14 to 18, but some as young as 8. Boko Haram has
claimed credit for these kidnapping as a stand against western
education.
I am concerned that these girls have fallen off the radar, now that
the media attention has lessened. What is the status of DOD's effort to
find them? Has any progress been made? What is the focus of your
current efforts?
Answer. DOD continues to support Nigeria's efforts to locate and
return the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram on April 14 of this year. As
we have noted before, DOD was intensely focused on countering the
threat of Boko Haram before the kidnappings of the Chibok girls
occurred, and we remain focused on this. We continue to have personnel
present in Abuja as part of the interdisciplinary team of experts
deployed to Nigeria in the aftermath of the kidnapping. The focus of
these personnel is to work with their Nigerian and P3 (United States,
United Kingdom, and France) counterparts to gather and share
intelligence about the girls' location. It is equally true, however,
that recovering these girls could take a very long time. Nigeria's
military lacks most of the skills required to mount an effective
recovery operation, especially one involving hundreds of hostages being
held at multiple locations. We are in the process of providing basic-
level training to some of Nigeria's forces, but this will take time and
does not include the highly specialized skills required to conduct
hostage recovery operations; we are beginning from a very low baseline.
DOD will continue to engage with Nigeria to help it build its
capacity to counter the threat of Boko Haram both to support the
recovery of the Chibok girls and to promote security and stability in
Nigeria and West Africa more generally.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
Question. The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) requires a review and report for the award of the Purple Heart.
Because there have been multiple domestic attacks against
servicemembers, do you anticipate that there will be changes to any of
the award criteria related for the Purple Heart and how does your
department plan to implement any potential changes to this policy?
Answer. I have directed a comprehensive review of the military
decorations and awards program which is expected to conclude in July
2015. The Purple Heart award criteria is being examined as part of that
review. As the review just recently began and is ongoing, it would be
premature to speculate on any potential outcome.
Question. Do you anticipate that the criteria related to the award
of the Purple Heart will include circumstances where a servicemember is
killed or wounded in an attack on United States soil?
Answer. I have directed a comprehensive review of the military
decorations and awards program which is expected to conclude in July
2015. The Purple Heart award criteria is being examined as part of that
review. As the review just recently began and is ongoing, it would be
premature to speculate on any potential outcome.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. Given the rise in military suicide, what do we know about
how servicemembers and their families are affected by suicides
occurring within the military community?
Answer. Death by suicide is a shocking and tragic event and family
members, friends, and peers all react differently depending on
individual factors.
Based on the Calendar Year 2012 Annual Department of Defense
Suicide Event Report (released in early 2014), the demographics of
Active Duty servicemembers who die by suicide are that they are male,
Caucasian, and 17-24 years of age. In addition, nearly half (48.4
percent) are married and most of them resided with their spouse and
dependent children (16.4 percent have children residing with them).
The Department of Defense's ``Reserve Component Suicide Postvention
Plan: A Toolkit for Commanders'' notes accurately that servicemembers
and family members affected by suicide will often respond with shock at
first and question the circumstances surrounding the death. In the
following days, weeks, and months, survivors often struggle with
complex and changing emotions that include denial, guilt/blame,
sadness, anger, and acceptance. During this complex grieving process it
is not uncommon to find survivors experiencing depression, mistrust,
helplessness, abandonment issues, a loss of appetite, difficulty
sleeping, loss of interest in activities, and occasionally suicidal
thoughts.
Question. Are servicemembers' exposures to suicide and attempted
suicide being measured to determine how it affects them and what
resources they might need following these exposures?
Answer. Department of Defense Suicide Event Reports (DODSER)
capture a range of information about Active Duty servicemember suicides
and suicide attempts, including those that were previously exposed to
suicide of a friend or family member. The calendar year 2012 DODSER
Annual Report reports that 6.0 percent of suicides and 12.2 percent of
suicide-attempts had a history of exposure to suicide of a friend or
family member. Through studies and experience, DOD knows that a death
by suicide can leave survivors with a mix of complex emotions and
responses. Survivors often struggle with feelings of shock, denial,
guilt, blame, sadness, and anger. These emotions can lead to a sense of
helplessness and abandonment, a loss of appetite, difficulty sleeping,
a loss of interest in work or other activities that one previously
found enjoyable, and occasionally suicidal ideation. To help combat
these effects and help survivors through the grieving process the
Department of Defense has put in place a number of valuable resources
that are available on the National Resource Directory.
For example, should a servicemember or family member feel they or
their loved one is in immediate crisis, they are encouraged to reach
out to the Veterans/Military Crisis Line (MCL). Through a partnership
with Department of Veterans Affairs, professional responders are
standing by 24/7 to provide confidential crisis support. Also available
to servicemembers and their families is 24/7 confidential grief and
loss counseling offered through Military OneSource. Additionally, the
Department of Defense created the Vets4Warriors program to provide
assistance through peer-to-peer counseling, referrals, resilience case
management, and outreach support services.
Similarly, the Services have all developed programs to grow
individual and unit resilience to assist in preventing suicide. The
Army has developed the Ready and Resilient Campaign (R2C), which
provides comprehensive resilience training for Soldiers and family
members to develop coping skills and behaviors. The Navy/Marine Corps
have developed the 21st Century Sailor & Marine Initiative, which
provides Sailors and Marines with access to support and helps them
develop coping skills to build their resilience. The Air Force has
developed the Comprehensive Airman Fitness program to build resilience
by teaching Airmen skills and providing them with the tools needed to
cope with stress and hardship.
In addition, the Department has collaborated with the Suicide
Prevention Resource Center to develop Gatekeeper Training for Suicide
Prevention. This educational program teaches people the warning signs
of a suicide crisis and how to respond effectively. Also, some of the
Services have entered into Memorandums of Agreement with the Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) where they can refer survivors.
TAPS is a not-for-profit peer support program established to assist
survivors of military deaths in dealing with the loss of a
servicemember. TAPS has incorporated a specific focus area and
designated staff to support survivors of suicide and provides the
Defense Suicide Prevention Office with briefings based on cases
referred from the Services.
Question. What resources have the Department of Defense (DOD)
created to help those servicemembers who may be profoundly affected by
the suicide deaths of their fellow servicemembers?
Answer. The DOD and Military Services have developed numerous
resources to help members of the Armed Forces and family members who
are affected by suicide. A few of the Department's efforts include the
Reserve Component Suicide Postvention Plan, Veterans/Military Crisis
Line, the Vets4Warriors program, and Military OneSource. Similarly,
each Service has created Service-specific programs to help prevent
suicide and build resilience among their servicemembers and their
families.
The Department published the ``Reserve Component Suicide
Postvention Plan: A Toolkit for Commanders'' in August 2013. The
Postvention guide, which has been distributed in print to thousands of
stakeholders and is available online for free download on
www.suicideoutreach.org provides Commanders with a range of information
about suicide and activities undertaken in the immediate aftermath of a
suicide. The guide outlines the roles and responsibilities of
Commanders, discusses how they can build resilience, provides
recommendations for memorial services, and describes how to effectively
support families and respond to media inquiries.
The Department has distributed over 172,000 products that draw
awareness to the Veterans/Military Crisis Line (MCL), a call center
manned by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that provides 24/7,
confidential crisis support to veterans, servicemembers, and their
families. An Executive Order issued on August 31, 2012, called on DOD
and VA to develop a national suicide prevention campaign focused on
connecting servicemembers and veterans to mental health services.
Servicemembers affected by suicide are encouraged to reach out to
professional responders at MCL.
The DOD's Vets4Warriors (V4W) program, which provides assistance to
all servicemembers and their families supports these individuals
through peer-to-peer counseling, referrals, resilience case management,
and outreach services. The veteran peers understand the problems unique
to military life and know the resources and benefits available to
servicemembers and their families.
Military OneSource is a service providing comprehensive information
about military life and offers confidential grief and loss counseling
free of charge, 24/7/365. Additional non-medical, confidential
counseling is available through the Military Family Life Counselor
programs, counselors embedded in military units, youth centers,
military schools and some child development centers.
In accordance with Department policy, the Services have developed
individual resilience and suicide prevention programs focusing on their
culture and shared experiences. For instance, the Army has developed
the Ready and Resilient Campaign, the Air Force has initiated the
Comprehensive Airman Fitness program, and the Navy and Marine Corps
have established the 21st Century Sailor & Marine initiative. These
programs are all designed around the common goal of teaching the skills
and providing servicemembers with the tools to manage stress and
hardship to build their resilience.
Question. How have policies changed to assist family members who
lose a servicemember to suicide?
Answer. Department of Defense (DOD) and Service policies are
constantly evolving to meet the needs of our military families who lose
a servicemember to suicide. Each branch of the Armed Forces has its own
postvention policies and practices, as required by DOD Directive
6490.14 ``Defense Suicide Prevention Program.'' Each of the Services
have Casualty Assistance Officers (CAO) who handle casualty and
mortuary affairs for families of those who have died during active
military service. A CAO is trained to professionally deal with families
experiencing deep grief, recognize vulnerabilities, and set boundaries
between assisting families and maintaining military decorum. The CAO
can answer questions related to the Department's programs offering DOD
Survivor Benefits; Veteran Death and Survivor Benefits; and other
Federal benefits and services, all of which are codified in policy.
The Department of Defense has provided guidance to the Reserve
Components through the ``Reserve Component Suicide Postvention Plan: A
Toolkit for Commanders.'' This guide, which has been distributed in
print to thousands of stakeholders and is available online for free
download, provides Reserve Component Commanders with a range of
information about suicide and postvention, which are the response
activities undertaken in the immediate aftermath of a suicide that has
impacted the unit or family. The guide outlines the roles and
responsibilities of Commanders and discusses how to effectively support
families.
Military OneSource is DOD's centralized assistance program--or one-
stop shop--for all programs and resources available for our military
families, available 24/7/365. Military OneSource is both a vibrant Web
site and a comprehensive program that provides confidential help and
support, a call center, and online tools for anything a military family
member may need to navigate military family life. Survivors remain
eligible for support from Military OneSource for as long as they may
need it or be inclined to use it.
In August 2013, the Department, through the Defense Suicide
Prevention Office, gained oversight of the Vets4Warriors program. This
program provides assistance to families through counseling, referrals,
resilience case management, and outreach support services. The veterans
employed by Vets4Warriors understand the problems unique to military
life and know the resources and benefits available to servicemembers
and their families.
Similarly, all of the Services with the exception of the Army have
entered into Memorandums of Agreement with the Tragedy Assistance
Program for Survivors (TAPS) where they can refer survivors. TAPS is a
not-for-profit peer support program established to assist survivors of
military deaths in dealing with the loss of a servicemember. TAPS has
incorporated a specific focus area and designated staff to support
survivors of suicide. The Army has developed its own Survivor Outreach
Services program that supports survivors, but also refers individuals
to TAPS.
Question. Are there uniform protocols followed by Casualty
Assistance Officers? Are family members being provided supportive
services in the wake of their loved ones death?
Answer. Yes, Casualty Assistance Officers must follow uniform
protocols. The Department places a high priority on taking care of
servicemembers and their survivors. The Department requires that the
Services train assistance officers on their duties and responsibilities
before being assigned to assist a family. Casualty Assistance Officers
are required to assist the family with receipt of all Federal benefits
and entitlements and provide them with points of contact for additional
resources such as counseling or financial assistance. I consider the
care and support of survivors our highest duty and will make sure they
are given all the necessary assistance both immediately after the death
of their loved ones, and for the long term.
Question. What programs are in place within DOD to equip returning
servicemembers with the appropriate resources they need to successfully
transition to civilian life?
Answer. To assist servicemembers to transition confidently and
successfully to civilian life, DOD provides eligible servicemembers
separating, retiring, or being released from Active Duty, with access
to the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). TAP, which has been
completely redesigned since 2011, in collaboration with partner
agencies, Departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Labor,
Education, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Small
Business Administration, provides training, counseling, information,
and other transition services to assist servicemembers in becoming
career ready for employment, accessing higher education, obtaining a
credential or starting their own business based on their individual
post-military career goals.
Question. In fiscal year 2011, DOD's Federal Voting Assistance
Program (FVAP) received funding to conduct Voting System Testing
Laboratory tests on six online ballot delivery and Internet voting
systems. Please provide a summary of FVAP's findings from these tests.
Answer. The findings and reports on ``Voting System Testing
Laboratory Functionality and Security Testing and Penetration Testing
of a Simulated Election'' inform the Department's larger electronic
voting demonstration project decisionmaking process. That process is
still ongoing, making the reports and findings pre-decisional and
unavailable for public release.
However, in response to a request from the House Armed Services
Committee (HASC) staff, FVAP released the reports for committee use
only with the marking ``FOR HASC USE ONLY. NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.''
Upon request, the Department will provide a copy of the reports to the
Senate Appropriations Committee for committee use only.
The Director of FVAP, Mr. Matt Boehmer, discussed the reports'
findings and timeline for public release with the HASC Military
Personnel Subcommittee Ranking Member, Representative Susan Davis, on
July 10, 2014.
If members of this committee would also like to discuss the
reports, Mr. Boehmer is available to meet at a time convenient to them.
Question. Despite added attention to and appropriations for DOD
screening and delivery of care to servicemembers with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), mental health
issues and substance abuse, particularly the misuse and abuse of
prescription pills, persist as a very serious problem for
servicemembers. Are DOD's various mental health and addiction
prevention/treatment initiatives achieving the desired results? Which
programs have been most successful for providing mental health and
substance abuse treatment to servicemembers?
Answer. Tremendous DOD resources and attention have been, and
continue to be, actively deployed to address issues of program
evaluation, integration, coordination and quality of care within the
DOD. The Department began evaluation of existing programs based on the
requirements set by President Obama's Executive Order dated August 31,
2012, ``Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans,
servicemembers and Military Families.'' The DOD, VA, and HHS have since
been working collaboratively on these strategies and creating an
inventory of mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment
programs and activities to inform this work. DOD is concluding a review
of all DOD mental health and substance abuse prevention, education, and
outreach programs for evidence of effectiveness and to identify those
with the most impact. Although comprehensive review of all such
programs is still ongoing, several programs, highlighted below, have
shown success for enhancing mental health and substance abuse treatment
for servicemembers.
DOD and VA have been actively collaborating on disseminating the
use of evidence-based treatments and best practices designed to enhance
the assessment and treatment of individuals with a wide range of mental
health concerns. This includes the training of over 4,000 providers in
evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for the treatment of PTSD and
over 1,600 in EBPs for other mental health disorders.
In September, 2012 DOD augmented its deployment health assessment
process to include mental health assessments (MHAs) before deployment,
and three times after return from deployment to determine whether
treatment is needed for mental health conditions. The deployment MHAs,
which include validated screening tools for PTSD, depression and
alcohol misuse, are designed to more accurately identify individuals
with mental health concerns and have been critical to the early
identification of mental health concerns and referral for care when
needed. As of July 23, 2014, over 1.2 million deployment MHAs have been
administered. Based on data over the last 2 years, approximately 7
percent of servicemembers receiving a deployment MHA had a recommended
referral to mental health specialty care or to a mental health provider
in primary care.
The embedded mental health program is an early intervention and
treatment model that promotes servicemember readiness (pre-, during,
and post-deployment). It provides multidisciplinary, community mental
healthcare to servicemembers in close proximity to their unit area and
in close coordination with unit leaders. The intent of co-locating
providers in close proximity to units is to increase servicemember's
accessibility to mental healthcare and improve trust in mental health
providers, as both are significant barriers to care in military
population. Ultimately, the embedded mental health program aims to
prevent negative mental health outcomes and assist the servicemember
return to duty whenever possible.
In the primary care setting, the Department has funded 470 mental
health providers within Patient Centered Medical Home teams to optimize
access to mental healthcare and to improve the early screening,
identification, and intervention of mental health conditions. These
providers are available to provide consultation to primary care
providers on prevention, assessment, and treatment strategies for a
wide range of mental health concerns, and to provide brief, targeted
intervention services.
With regard to the potential misuse and abuse of prescription
medications, the Department monitors the dispensing of prescription
medications via the DOD Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS), which
matches real-time prospective drug utilization with a patient's
medication history for each new or refilled prescription before it can
be dispensed to the patient. PDTS flags beneficiaries associated with
an excessive number of controlled substance claims, pharmacies used to
obtain controlled drugs, and/or prescribing providers. These
beneficiaries are then asked to enroll in the Department's ``1-1-1
Program'' which identifies a single prescribing physician, a single
pharmacy, and a single emergency room and treatment facility for their
care. Beneficiaries who are identified through PDTS are encouraged to
participate in the program or face limits in benefits, and many are
subsequently offered treatment and case management to address substance
use disorder dependence.
Section 739 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2013 requires DOD to develop a plan to improve the coordination
and integration of the programs of DOD that address psychological
health and TBI of members of the Armed Forces. The information
collection and evaluation activities conducted from fiscal year 2013
through fiscal year 2017 will provide robust and comprehensive
information about gaps and redundancies in psychological health and TBI
programs, the effectiveness of these programs, and how well the
programs are coordinated and integrated into overall operational
delivery of care to servicemembers, their families, and veterans.
Activities involving the provision of specialized program evaluation,
instruction, and training to DOD-wide psychological health and
traumatic brain injury (TBI) programs will begin in fiscal year 2015.
The outcomes and recommendations derived from these activities will
inform policy decisions, address of gaps and redundancies, identify
best-practices moving forward, and help achieve the goal of promoting
programs with demonstrated effectiveness.
Question. Within the past year, how has DOD improved the resources
it provides to servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault? Are
DOD's actions to prevent and respond to sexual assaults in the military
having the desired effect? Does DOD need any additional authority from
Congress to address this issue?
Answer. Over the past year, DOD has implemented a number of
programs designed to improve victim confidence, recognizing that
increased victim confidence and reporting is a bridge to greater victim
care and holding offenders appropriately accountable. On August 14,
2013, I directed that the Services establish Special Victims Counsel
programs. This program offers victims legal consultation and
representation throughout the military justice process. The program has
helped increase victim confidence. Victims also receive support from
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Victim Advocates, who have received nationally recognized
certification through the DOD Sexual Assault Advocate Certification
Program, administered by DOD contract with the National Organization
for Victim Assistance.
The Department also issued DODI 6400.07, ``Standards for Victim
Assistance Personnel,'' which ensures all victim-assistance related
programs throughout the Department are consistent with the Standards
for Victim Assistance Programs and Providers established by the
National Victim Assistance Standards Consortium. The new policy also
establishes the DOD Victim Assistance Leadership Council to advise the
Department on policies and practices related to the provision of victim
assistance across the DOD.
Additionally, we have increased resources to servicemembers who are
victims of sexual assault through the DOD Safe Helpline. The Safe
HelpRoom, a moderated group chat service that allows sexual assault
survivors in the military to connect with and support one another in a
secure online environment, was implemented this year. Users can connect
with sexual assault response professionals via phone or anonymous
online chat from their mobile devices from anywhere in the world. In
addition, the Safe Helpline Mobile Self-Care Applications help users
manage the short-and long-term effects of sexual assault.
Although we continue to assess our progress, it takes time to
measure the effectiveness of our programs. However, we are encouraged
by our most recent report to Congress (fiscal year 2013 Sexual Assault
Annual Report), which indicated a 50 percent increase in victim's
reports of sexual assault when compared to fiscal year 2012.
We assess this increase in reports as consistent with a growing
level of confidence in our response system and are encouraged that more
men and women are coming forward to report a sexual assault, get care
and support, and assist our efforts to hold offenders appropriately
accountable.
Question. DOD has announced that in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal
year 2015, it will implement 18 reductions in force (RIF) at 14
military installations. Two of these RIFs are slated to take place at
Fort Knox. Please provide DOD's methodology for this determination
Answer. An activity is required to use Reductions in Force (RIF)
procedures when employees could be separated or downgraded because of
lack of funds, lack of work, or reorganization. The preferred course of
action when a RIF may be required is to use other restructuring tools
such as limiting hiring, offering voluntary early retirement and
voluntary separation incentives, and reassigning employees to vacant
positions. RIF is the method of last resort as it adversely affects our
civilian employees and their families.
Question. How is DOD taking steps to work more effectively with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to help servicemembers transition
to the VA healthcare system?
Answer. For over 10 years, the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Health Affairs has Co-Chaired the VA, DOD and Health Executive Council
(HEC) to provide direction and oversee the cooperative efforts of each
Department's healthcare organizations. This council oversees numerous
workgroups focused on identifying and implementing mutually beneficial
opportunities to improve business practices and efficiencies, and to
improve quality and access to care for both VA and DOD beneficiaries.
The HEC has approved and funded 165 Joint Incentive Fund (JIF)
projects for a total of $645 million over the last 11 years, and
includes many types of services at the local, regional and national
levels. Many of these initiatives support improved access to care and
information sharing in support of patient care.
DOD has also initiated several efforts to improve transition
servicemembers by ensuring healthcare information is effectively
communicated to the separating servicemember and to the Veterans Health
Administration. These efforts are now consolidated in the Defense
Health Systems Modernization program in order to align current
information technology enhancements with the longer term effort to
modernize the primary electronic record system.
The following are some of these initiatives:
--Blue Button.--Servicemembers can access their complete medication
history from the MHS through Blue Button. Now they can download
the information in a format meeting national standards for
health information sharing, the ``Continuity of Care
Document.''
--Service Treatment Record sharing.--Medical documentation is now
made available electronically to the VA within 45 days of
separation via an interface between the Health Care Artifacts
and Imaging Solution and Veteran Benefits Management System.
This interface enables VBA to copy all of the files of the
Service Treatment Record into VBA systems when a servicemember
files a claim to expedite the claim development phase.
--Information integration, interoperability, and visibility.--A
comprehensive viewer of all electronically available
information has been successfully piloted and is being
evaluated for wide deployment across DOD and VA. This viewer
provides read only access with role based access control to all
care documentation in the electronic medical records of the
both VHA and the Military Health System in an integrated
display. Information in this system has been mapped to national
standards. DOD is evaluating the use of this system to provide
information to partner healthcare organizations as part of the
Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record program.
--Care Coordination.--The Recovery Coordination Program provides
guidance and oversight for the Services' non-medical case
management of seriously, very seriously, and catastrophically
injured servicemembers. Supporting approximately 14,000
customers, the population has remained relatively constant
since the program was established in 2008. Non-medical case
management is an essential part of transition from DOD to VA
care, which is why the Departments are working together to
implement a new ``Lead Coordinator'' concept to increase
communication and collaboration.
--In addition to the above initiatives, since 2011 DOD and VA have
worked closely with other Federal agencies and the President's
economic and domestic policy teams to enhance the successful
transition of our servicemembers from military to civilian
life. The redesigned Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
includes mandatory enrollment in eBenefits and provision of an
enhanced Briefing on VA benefits to all transitioning
servicemembers. The VA benefits briefing addresses Disabled
Transition Assistance Program information, and an overview on
eBenefits and VA healthcare, as well as information on the full
range of VA benefits and services. DOD also requires that
approximately 90 days before their transition, servicemembers
participate in a Capstone, which includes the ``warm handover''
of servicemembers to VA representatives, facilitating
personalized attention and service. To support the initiatives
described above, as well as the provision of Vocational
Rehabilitation and Education services to eligible members with
service connected disabilities, installations with high or
medium demand have expanded to accommodate a permanent VA
presence.
--Another key initiative DOD has undertaken is the IC3 program. The
mission of Interagency Care Coordination Committee (IC3) is to
develop ``One Mission, One Policy, and One Plan'' for
servicemembers and veterans needing complex care coordination.
One major component of this program is the ability to share
information and utilize common resources to ensure that care
coordinators are working seamlessly together to deliver care,
benefits, and services to servicemembers and veterans during
the transition period from DOD to VA without any gaps in care.
Through this sense of ``oneness,'' IC3 aims to ensure that no
servicemember and veteran ever loses or misses an opportunity
to receive the care, benefits, and services that he or she
requires. For those that are approaching the end of their
military career, it is particularly critical to have a common
operational picture of care coordination, to ensure their needs
are being met in real-time.
IC3 built the infrastructure for a single, borderless, Community
of Practice (CoP) and launched the CoP with its initial group
of leaders from 50+ wounded Warrior care, benefits, and
services coordination programs. Additionally, the Lead
Coordinator (LC) role was developed, introduced, and is in the
beginning phases of a nationwide rollout. Every SM/V will be
assigned a LC who will serve as the primary point of contact
for complex care and service coordination to the servicemember,
Veteran, and their families or designated caregivers.
Finally, and perhaps most critical for managing complex care, IC3
has started the development planning for a full scale
electronic Interagency Comprehensive Plan (ICP). The ICP will
improve coordination, transparency, and interoperability across
programs by allowing VA and DOD care coordinators to view and
share client data from one place and to track the SM/V's
history. The ICP would guide a designated Lead Coordinator to
execute appropriate follow up, which will be monitored through
an electronic support capability, and would ensure complex
care.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Secretary Hagel, during last week's hearing you stated
that you had, ``no direct evidence of any direct involvement in [the
Taliban Five's] direct attacks on the United States or any of our
troops.'' However, publicly released reports indicate otherwise. In
light of this reporting, why do you say there is no evidence the
Taliban Five were involved in attacks against the United States or our
troops?
Answer. (Deleted)
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. The Administration has not been able to stop Vladimir
Putin's aggression in Ukraine and the Administration has not been able
to stem the progress of the ISIS radicals in Iraq, threatening the
existence of the Maliki government. How have these clear political
setbacks for the United States affect our ability to deter Chinese
aggression in Asia? Should America's allies and friends be concerned
that China will take advantage of Washington's preoccupation and use
force?
Answer. The United States remains firmly committed to our allies
and to ensuring peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S.
treaty alliances remain the backbone of our presence in the Asia-
Pacific region, and our friends and allies have seen our significant
steps in recent years to enhance our posture in Northeast Asia, to
expand our partnerships in Southeast Asia, and to ensure that our
forces can operate effectively regardless of other nations'
capabilities.
Question. Chinese naval forces are now participating in the Rim of
the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise with United States and allies naval
forces. Yet Chinese fighters have almost collided with Japanese
surveillance aircraft on two occasions in recent weeks; are building
new island bases in the South China Sea; destroying any basis for a
political settlement to those disputes and continues to build up its
forces for the conquest of democratic Taiwan. It does not seem that the
Administration's much vaunted Pivot to Asia is actually deterring them,
does it?
Answer. The United States rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region is
focused on building relationships within the region, including China,
to help ensure peace and prosperity. It focuses on resolving disputes
through diplomacy and well-established international rules and norms
rather than intimidation and coercion. Five lines of effort constitute
the rebalance: modernizing alliances and partnerships, enhancing
defense posture, investing in capabilities, updating concepts and
plans, and strengthening multilateral engagement.
Underpinning all of the Department's engagements in the Asia-
Pacific region is our commitment to key principles and values that are
essential to regional peace and security. The Department seeks to build
a relationship with China that effectively manages existing elements of
cooperation and competition and helps integrate China into the
international system. We are also candid in raising with China our
concerns regarding its behavior. We are focused on establishing
mechanisms that will prevent miscalculation and disruptive regional
competition and avoid escalatory acts that could lead to conflict.
Question. Russia has been on the verge of formally invading Ukraine
for weeks now. The Ukrainians do not want American troops, but they do
want simple items like fuel for their vehicles and helicopters, secure
radios and body armor for their troops. How has your department
responded to these requests?
Answer. We are using Foreign Military Financing funds to transfer
body armor, helmets, radios, night vision devices, medical supplies,
and uniform items to the Ukrainian armed forces. These items are in
procurement and will be shipped to Ukraine in the near future. All of
our assistance efforts for Ukraine are being expedited with the highest
priority. As additional funds become available, we will continue to
work closely with the Government of Ukraine to identify and address
Ukraine's most pressing needs.
Question. Russian forces threaten stability in Europe, Islamic
radicals led by the Islamic State of Irag and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq
threaten to undo enormous American sacrifice and create a new launching
pad for international terror, and in Asia, China is threatening to use
military force against two longstanding defense treaty allies. Also,
North Korea is poised to advance its nuclear capability with a new
nuclear test and remains poised to invade South Korea. Do you think it
is time for your Administration, for the President, re-evaluate his
priorities? Should we revive the old requirement to be able to fight
two simultaneous wars and fund that level of capability?
Answer. The President's and the Department's security priorities
take into account a wide range of threats and challenges, from
traditional military coercion to potential spectacular attacks by
violent extremist organizations. The Quadrennial Defense Review
examined the balance of capacity, capability, and readiness of the
force in the 2020 timeframe and projected key capability demands for
the 2030 timeframe. With the level of funding requested in the
President's budget submission, in aggregate, the Joint Force will be
capable of simultaneously defending the homeland; conducting sustained,
distributed counterterrorism operations; and, in multiple regions,
deterring aggression and assuring allies through forward presence and
engagement. If deterrence fails at any given time, U.S. forces could
defeat a regional adversary in a large-scale multi-phased campaign, and
deny the objectives of--or impose unacceptable costs on--another
adversary in another region. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget
provides the resources to build and sustain the capabilities to conduct
these operations, although at increased levels of risk for some
missions.
______
Questions Submitted to General Martin Dempsey
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. General Dempsey, last year you observed that, with
regards to sexual harassment and assault in the military, everyone had
taken their eye off the ball. Since then, the Congress has passed some
major reforms and the Department has instituted even more of their own.
What metrics do you use to measure the effectiveness of those
programs, and what indicators will you use to assess that we have
succeeded in changing the culture?
Answer. The Department has developed metrics that will allow us to
better determine the extent of the sexual harassment and sexual assault
within the military and the effectiveness of our response efforts. Our
objective continues to be towards the elimination of sexual assault.
Several of the metrics are new and will take time to implement and even
more time to measure their effectiveness.
These metrics measure:
--Past year prevalence of unwanted sexual contact.--Provides best
estimate of sexual assault incidents involving servicemember
victims.
--Prevalence vs. reporting.--Provides estimate of the proportion of
the crime being reported.
--Bystander intervention experience.--Indicator of servicemember
actions to prevent sexual assault.
--Command climate index.--Indicators of a healthy command climate and
of prevention that addresses continuum of harm.
--Victim experience.--Determine if advocates Sexual Assault, Response
Coordinate/Victim Advocate ((SARC/VA) and Special Victims
Counsel) are meeting victim needs and will identify means for
improving support.
--Investigation length.--Help set expectations for victims and
indicator of appropriate resourcing within the response system.
--Victim retaliation.--Determine if professional (command structure)
or social (peers) retaliation is perceived.
--Military justice system.--Determine if the Department's changes in
the military justice process are having the desired effect on
victim involvement; whether victims are being kept informed.
--Perception of leadership support for SAPR.--Indicator of command
climate.
The metrics are supported by other assessment tools to further
measure the effectiveness of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
program--surveys, focus groups, Service-authored assessment reports.
--Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (DEOCS).--Identify signs
of culture change--indicators of a healthy command climate and
of prevention that addresses the continuum of harm. The DEOCS
is based on a convenience sample and results may not be
representative of the entire force. It does allow commanders to
assess their units.
--2014 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (WGRS).--Addresses past-
year prevalence of unwanted sexual contact. To address
increased interest in the WGRS and its results, the 2014 WGRS
will be conducted by an external agency, RAND. The survey will
be conducted between August and September 2014. The 2014 survey
sample will invite one-third of the active duty population to
take the survey.
--Survivor Experience Survey (June-September 2014).--Captures the
levels of victim satisfaction and confidence in the response
system.
--Focus groups--July-August 2014.--Focus groups will be conducted at
key training and operational installations across the
Components to capture the opinions of targeted enlisted
personnel and junior officers.
--We are also collecting data about the military justice process and
the outcomes of cases. While these are not metrics, this data
may help us better understand the impact of recent changes in
law and policy on the military justice process.
These assessments will help to inform the Secretary of Defense,
Secretaries of the Military Departments and Joint Chiefs and influence
policy and procedural changes that will continue to improve our
prevention and response systems.
Question. General Dempsey, in what ways has U.S. military support
to the African Union-Regional Task Force been successful in combating
the Lord's Resistance Army and helping the hunt for Joseph Kony, who
has so far evaded capture? Does the Department consider the model used
for this engagement as one to export for future multi-national security
engagements?
Answer. U.S. military support to the African Union-Regional Task
Force support all four pillars of the U.S. Government strategy--protect
civilians, promote DD/RRR (disarmament, demobilization, reintegration,
repatriation, and resettlement), increase humanitarian access/support,
and remove Joseph Kony and senior leaders from the region. These
objectives are being accomplished through a truly U.S. interagency,
international and nongovernmental organization collaborative approach
with U.S. military forces comprised mostly of special operations
forces. United States Special Operations Forces advise an African
Union-Regional Task Force comprised of Soldiers from Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of South Sudan in a
regional security plan that has weakened the Lord's Resistance Army
significantly since 2010. The Central African regions of eastern
Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of the Congo, western
South Sudan, and northern Uganda have seen a significant reduction in
Lord's Resistance Army kidnappings and violence, allowing access for
nongovernmental organizations and partner nation humanitarian elements.
Substantial numbers of defectors left the Lord's Resistance Army after
successful Military Information Support Operations followed up with
successful non-governmental organization and partner-nation sponsored
defector integration programs. Since October 2012, over half of
defectors report they were exposed to some type of defection tool which
often led them to a safe defection site. Abductions and forced
conscription of child soldiers, while still occurring, is 60 percent
lower than 2010 figures. The African Union-Regional Task Force removed
three of the top five Kony lieutenants from the battlefield, while the
remaining Lord's Resistance Army bands are geographically dispersed in
eastern Central African Republic. Kony himself remains isolated from
his forces, relying on couriers and high-frequency communications to
monitor the remaining Lord's Resistance Army. The increased
professionalization of our partner nation forces is on glide-path to
provide a capability to continue pressure on the Lord's Resistance Army
in an effort to keep it from regenerating while being better prepared
to address other regional security challenges.
The Department considers the mil-to-mil partnership in this model
not unique. Our engagement with the African Union-Regional Task Force
is an option on a range of scalable options based on a number of
variables such as regional political conditions, desired effects,
available resources, and national security priorities. United States
Special Operations Forces increased our partnership and connection with
key allies in the central African region, contributed to regional
stability efforts, operated and trained in an austere jungle
environment, and utilized a small U.S. military footprint to help
coordinate and enable operations in a regional endeavor to assist
regional militaries in achieving peace and safety for a large
population in central Africa. The whole of government approach in this
case has been successful.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
Question. The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the Army's
proposed program to replace the aging M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
family of vehicles. Do you see this program as a high priority for the
Army as the service continues to work to ensure that soldiers have the
best protection and mobility for future conflicts?
Answer. The AMPV program is a high priority program for the Army
and will provide the vital capabilities--force protection and
mobility--for the Armored Brigade Combat Team Commanders to maneuver
and command across a range of military operations.
Question. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request for the
AMPV is $92.4 million in research, development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E) funding. This is a $64 million increase from fiscal year 2014
budget. Is it possible for the Army to accelerate the AMPV program
under the current acquisition strategy or would additional funding be
required?
Answer. The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) effort is
currently in source selection. Since the AMPV schedule is dependent on
the selected vendor's proposal, the Army does not yet know where all
opportunities exist to accelerate the development and delivery of the
AMPV. Once a contract award is made, which is anticipated in the second
quarter of fiscal year 2015, the Army will examine opportunities to
accelerate the AMPV schedule in order to provide this capability to the
Warfighter.
Question. During the fiscal year 2015 Air Force budget hearing,
General Welsh referred to Little Rock Air Force Base as ``one of the
gems of the U.S. Air Force.'' He discussed the Air Force's plan to
making Little Rock the ``most efficient place to retain the transport
aircraft.'' Part of this plan includes the transfer of 10 C-130Js from
Keesler AFB to Little Rock AFB. Can you discuss the reasoning behind
the decision to consolidate the C-130 fleet as the Air Force attempts
to find the most effective and efficient base-alignment scenarios?
Answer. The Air Force (AF) is realigning the C-130 enterprise to
minimize operational impacts while maximizing savings. Consolidation of
the 10 C-130Js at Little Rock AFB is part of the Air Force's plan to
reduce excess C-130 capacity while maximizing savings and training
efficiencies via agreements between units. This means that both Active
and Reserve Components units can better fulfill opportune training
requirements. Keeping an Air Force Command (AFRC) C-130 presence at
Little Rock contributes to the Total Force Integration (TFI) of the
AF's C-130 enterprise and increases integration of Reserve, Guard, and
Active Component Airmen. Little Rock AFB provides efficiency with
maintenance and operations between units to generate the most effective
total force training possible.
Question. How is the transfer of C-130Js from Keesler AFB to Little
Rock AFB progressing and do you anticipate any issues with the transfer
of the aircraft to Little Rock AFB?
Answer. The transfer is currently on hold. As directed in Senate
section 133 of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) (S. 2410), all proposed unit-equipped C-130 transfers previously
authorized for execution in fiscal year 2014 and those outlined in the
fiscal year 2015 President's budget will be delayed until 60 days after
the Secretary of the Air Force submits the required report to Congress.
This report will outline the costs and benefits of the Air Force's re-
alignment plan and answer any anticipated aircraft transfer concerns,
including proposed transfers to Little Rock AFB.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. General Dempsey, when we met last, I mentioned to you my
concerns about the United State's vulnerability to Russia's sole supply
of the RD-180 liquid rocket engine for key military space launch
programs. Following recent U.S. sanctions against Deputy Prime Minister
Dimitry Rogozin, the person responsible for RD-180 export licenses, he
announced that Russia will no longer deliver these engines to the
United States, unless we guarantee that they will only be used for
civilian purposes. General Dempsey, I would like to encourage this
Committee to be supportive of funding for U.S. development of our own
liquid rocket engine for both civilian and military purposes. Could you
please discuss how imperative this funding is from a national security
perspective?
Answer. Assured access to space is critical to the deployment and
subsequent operations of the Department's space-based capabilities, and
maintaining that assured access is a strategic objective of the
Department. The Department, with the Air Force as the lead agency, is
working with its partners to create an affordable and technically low-
risk plan to reduce the Nation's use of Russian manufactured rocket
propulsion systems. The Air Force review is expected to complete in
mid-October. All of the options under review require some additional
government investment to ensure the Department maintains assured access
to space.
Question. As a follow-up to my last question, once funding is
appropriated, I would like to ensure that the liquid rocket engine is
jointly developed between the Air Force and NASA. Do you believe that
there is value in leveraging NASA's decades of rocket propulsion
research development and risk reduction in developing a U.S. RD-180
replacement?
Answer. Yes, there is value in engaging with NASA on both their
engine development experience and their future launch needs. The
Department, with the Air Force as the lead agency, is working with its
partners in creating an affordable and technically low-risk plan to
reduce the Nation's use of Russian manufactured rocket propulsion
systems. NASA and the Department share many, but not all, goals in
common. Due to the large number of launches needed to support
Department space systems, cost efficiency is an important Department
assessment criteria.
Question. General Dempsey, as you know, the government of Poland
has initiated a ``Shield of Poland'' competition to increase its air
and missile defense capabilities and enhance the security of our mutual
eastern European allies. Two air and missile defense systems offered by
U.S. industry, Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and Patriot,
are in the final four of this competition. What is the official U.S.
Government position regarding advocacy in this competition, and will
the Department of Defense support both U.S. programs equally, if either
is selected by Poland? That is, will the U.S. Government stand behind
MEADS if selected, or Patriot if selected?
Answer. Since the 18 June SAC-D hearing, the Polish government
opted to remove MEADS from consideration with rationale that urgent
threats required Poland to only consider systems currently fielded to
NATO countries. Patriot remains under consideration along with the
French SAMP/T. Patriot has full U.S. Government support.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. Two geographic combatant commands (SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM)
have less than 10 percent of their intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) requirements being met. Over the last 3 years,
AFRICOM has seen the emergence of numerous conflicts, including major
conflagrations in Mali, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and
Libya. The inability of the Global Force Management Process (GFMP) to
prioritize and allocate ISR resources has resulted in skewed
allocations of ISR resources, leaving the DOD unable to predict or
respond to emerging crises.
Do you think the current allocation of ISR resources is the right
mix? Is fixing the ISR allocation a priority? What needs to be done to
better prioritize limited ISR resources? What needs to be done to
better leverage National Technical Means so we reduce unnecessary
duplication of aerial and overhead platforms?
Answer. While we continue to respond to emergent crises, such as
those in Mali, Nigeria, South Sudan, and provide support for our
current ISR allocation reflects the priorities coordinated through
(OSD) Policy and approved by the Secretary of Defense.
The fundamental challenge, which the Department has faced for over
a decade, is the scarcity of available ISR assets; no combatant
command, including commands such as U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) and
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), which confront significant military
threats, possess sufficient ISR capacity to fulfill all requirements.
This challenge, already severe under current budgetary conditions,
would be significantly exacerbated under sequestration as the
Department would be unable to procure and maintain its ISR inventory as
programmed.
Managing the allocation of our ISR Force is a constant endeavor.
The Global Force Management Allocation Process is exacting, and the
Combatant Commands each have the opportunity to advocate for their
requirements. Every emergent request, regardless of the Combatant
Command, is tempered through a tried-and-true process of validation and
sourcing. The Secretary of Defense makes the final decision in
allocating the limited airborne ISR assets based on operational needs
and risks in consultation with me, the Combatant Commanders, and the
Interagency. The GFM process is agile, and provides an incredible
ability to respond, as has been demonstrated in each of the crises
listed above.
There are a number of efforts underway to better capture the
National Technical Means and allied contributions to our intelligence
requirements, from internally directed looks to GAO-managed efforts.
But the flexibility of U.S. airborne ISR in responding to U.S.
requirements cannot be matched and will continue to drive increasing
requirements on our global ISR Force.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Durbin. This meeting of the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., Wednesday, June 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]