[Senate Hearing 114-219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Shelby, Murkowski, Graham,
Blunt, Moran, Durbin, Leahy, Murray, and Schatz.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MC HUGH, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. The committee will please come to order.
Today the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations will begin
its hearing on the fiscal year 2016 budget request submitted by
the United States Army.
We are very pleased to welcome the Honorable John McHugh,
Secretary of the Army; and General Raymond Odierno, Army Chief
of Staff.
As we meet today, the Army remains heavily engaged in
operations around the world, with more than 143,000 soldiers
forward deployed and 19,000 Reserve soldiers mobilized, and
soldiers continue to train at home for future deployments.
We are very sorry to hear this morning about the Black Hawk
helicopter that went down off the Florida coast last night on a
training mission, which was carrying seven marines and four
soldiers. Our thoughts are with the families, and our prayers
as well, as the search and rescue efforts are under way.
This past year has been one of many challenges and
successes for our Armed Forces and the U.S. Army in particular.
Men and women in uniform and their families are performing
remarkably well, and our Nation owes them a debt of gratitude
for their service. The fiscal year 2016 budget request proposes
a number of significant changes and important budgetary issues
for the Army that will receive our careful attention. We look
forward to working with you during this year's appropriations
process to ensure the support of needs of the Department of the
Army and its important role in protecting our national security
interests.
This subcommittee also recognizes the uncertainty of the
current fiscal environment and the impact it has on the Army.
If the Department of Defense has to live with the statutory
Budget Control Act caps in fiscal year 2016, the Army has
already indicated that its ability to fulfill national security
requirements and meet obligations under the current defense
strategy would be put at significant risk. We appreciate the
complexity of the fiscal year 2016 budget and look forward to
your comments on the impact of sequestration on Department of
the Army operations, readiness, and modernization efforts.
We appreciate and commend you for your distinguished
service to our Nation, as well as the dedication and sacrifices
by all the men and women of the U.S. Army. Your full statements
have been received--we appreciate that--and they will be
printed in the record.
We are pleased to thank the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and
we recognize him now for any opening remarks he would like to
make.
statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
time, I'm going to ask my opening statement be made part of the
record.
I had the opportunity to sit down with General Odierno and
Secretary McHugh and their staff yesterday and go through a lot
of specific items in detail, and I'll save some questions and
turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman, to proceed.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary
McHugh and General Odierno to our hearing to review the Army's budget
request for fiscal year 2016.
Secretary McHugh, I wanted to thank you for your visit to Rock
Island Arsenal last fall. I'm pleased to report that the Joint
Manufacturing and Technology Center that we toured is still going
strong. I'm sure you'll agree, the JMTC is the critical manufacturing
backstop for our Army and our military. But I'm also happy to report,
according to information I received earlier this week, that they are
actually returning money to Army Program Managers because they are
manufacturing the required material for less than the Army estimated.
That's a good return on investment for the taxpayer in tough fiscal
times. Thank you for your continued support.
General Odierno, this may be your last hearing in front of this
committee as Chief of Staff. Thank you for your service to our Army and
our Nation during some challenging times.
As you both know intimately, the Army is going through its most
fundamental transformation since the end of the Cold War. First, the
Army is getting smaller: more than 80,000 Active Army soldiers, 8,000
National Guardsmen, and 7,000 Army Reservists have been reduced since
the height of the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, the Army is continuing efforts to modernize its equipment
in several large acquisition programs. The AMPV ground combat vehicle,
the Apache modernization effort, the Future Vertical Lift helicopter
program, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--each of these programs
will cost billions, if not tens of billions, over the next decade. This
modernization is underway, although it is not yet clear what will
happen to sequestration in the next year.
Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, you have also been vocal about
your concerns with sequestration, particularly the ways it could harm
readiness and waste acquisition dollars through unavoidably inefficient
management of procurement programs.
Finally, even though this hearing will have plenty of discussion
about budget levels and weapons programs, we cannot overlook the well-
being of the women and men who serve in our Nation's uniform.
We are all committed to the quality of life for those who may be
called to stand in harm's way. Sometimes that means investing in
improving servicemember housing, or repairing failing schools that
educate the children of our Soldiers. At other times, it means taking
stronger action to preserve the health and welfare of our
servicemembers.
The defense appropriations bill signed into law in December
eliminates the 5 percent discount that military exchanges provided on
cigarettes and other tobacco products. This is a small step, but not
enough. Studies have shown that tobacco use costs the Department of
Defense at least $1.6 million each year in tobacco-related medical
care, increased hospitalization, and lost days of work in the active
duty component alone.
This means the higher rates of use for cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco isn't just a quality of life issue for servicemembers. It is
also a budgetary issue. I have spoken with Secretary McHugh and General
Odierno about this issue before, as I have with the leadership of the
other Services, and I hope we can work together to find other ways to
tackle this serious problem.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in thanking the witnesses for their
service, and I look forward to their testimony.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. The Senator of the
Day Award goes to our distinguished friend.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. I will forgo an opening statement. I look
forward to the testimony and questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. I do just want to mention the terrible
tragedy that happened yesterday. I can only imagine how those
families feel in the Army.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
The distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Senator Moran. I extend my condolences to the Army for the
loss of life. I reserve the rest of my remarks.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
The Senator from Missouri, opening comments?
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I want to join my colleagues in expressing our
commitment to the families and all those who serve and the
unfortunate loss of people in training. I'm certainly pleased
to have Secretary McHugh and General Odierno here today with
us.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary, you may proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MC HUGH
Secretary McHugh. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
with your indulgence, I want to thank you and all the committee
members for your very gracious comments about the training
tragedy overnight and the specter of loss to families. We tend
to, I think, understandably think of danger in military service
in those times when our military men and women are forward
deployed and in kinetic environments. As I said, that's
natural. But what happened last night I think underscores the
very real circumstances that men and women who put that uniform
on face each and every day, and we are enormously in their
debt.
In this case, as you and your members have noted, our
thoughts and prayers are with the families. As an Army family,
we will stand together. So, thank you for your comments.
It is amazing how much can change in a year. Over the last
12 months, we've seen the geopolitical landscape morph really
at an astonishing pace, from renewed aggression by Russia and
increased threats from North Korea, to gains by radical
terrorists in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, not to mention the fight
against Ebola. The demand for the Army to tackle contingencies
around the world has grown at an alarming rate.
Far from being foreseeable, our requirements have been more
unexpected, our enemies more unpredictable, and our ability to
handle multiple simultaneous operations more uncertain. And
yet, with such volatility and instability around the world,
America's Army is faced yet again with an enemy here at home,
the return of sequestration, unprepared units, unmaintained
equipment, untrained soldiers.
Ladies and gentlemen, our Army, your Army, faces a dark and
dangerous future unless this Congress acts now to end these
ill-conceived and inflexible budget cuts. Moreover--and I want
to be clear here--every installation, every component, and
nearly every program will feel the brunt of these cuts.
Under sequestration, by 2019, we will reduce our end
strength to unconscionable levels, likely losing another six
BCTs (brigade combat teams) and potentially a division
headquarters, not to mention the impacts to associated
enablers, contracts, facilities and civilian personnel. It is
our shared responsibility to jealously preserve the gains in
readiness, modernization and training that we've achieved
through your critically important support.
And in that regard, let me share with you some of the
accomplishments of America's Army this past year.
As Russian-backed forces rolled into Ukraine and axed
Crimea and threatened regional stability, our soldiers rapidly
deployed to Eastern Europe in a demonstration of U.S.
commitment and resolve. From Latvia and Lithuania to Poland and
Estonia, soldiers from the 173rd Airborne and the 1st Cavalry
showed the world that America would stand with our NATO (North
Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies and respond to unbridled
aggression.
In West Africa, as thousands suffered from the scourge of
Ebola, your Army acted. Elements of several units, led by the
101st Airborne, provided command and control, equipment and
expertise to support efforts to stop this deadly and
destabilizing disease.
In response to rapid gains by ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant), your soldiers quickly returned to Iraq to
advise and assist security forces in turning the tide on this
barbaric group of radical terrorists.
In the Pacific, thousands of soldiers and civilians
supported operations to strengthen our partnerships and
increase our substantial presence.
Today, the headquarters of nine Active Army and two Guard
divisions are committed to combatant commands; and some, as you
noted, Mr. Chairman, 144,000 soldiers are deployed, forward-
stationed or committed, including, as you noted, 19,000
mobilized Reservists.
Moreover, we've done all this while continuing to transform
our formations, making them leaner, more agile, and far more
lethal.
As all of you know so well, such extraordinary success
comes at a price, for in the end, the young lieutenant leading
his or her platoon on the battlefield, the sergeants training
and mentoring their soldiers, the invaluable civilian workforce
laboring countless hours to support them, and the young family
waiting patiently at home are all human. The stress of war,
multiple deployments and unpredictable requirements doesn't
change in the face of indiscriminate funding cuts.
Through it all, we have and we will remain committed to
supporting the needs of our warriors, from programs to increase
resilience and improve behavioral health to the prevention of
sexual assault and the protection of victims from retaliation.
We'll keep faith with our soldiers.
Rest assured, the return of sequestration will directly
impact critical installation and family programs Army-wide.
Members, simply put, we need the President's budget. Our
$126.5 billion request is some $6 billion over the potential
sequester level, and it's specifically designed to preserve our
modest gains in readiness over the last year and take care of
your soldiers. If approved, we will invest $3.4 billion above
the fiscal year 2015 funding levels in training, sustainment
and installation programs that directly support combat
readiness, and $2.6 billion in research, development and
acquisition to equip soldiers, to protect key parts of the
industrial base and support new innovations.
Moreover, this request seeks vital reforms to compensation
and force structure that will ensure the funding needed to
support near-term readiness and help place the Army on a
predictable path to balance. From modest changes to pay and
allowances to our aviation restructuring initiative, our
reforms are both necessary and prudent to sustain the readiness
of our forces and move the Army toward eventual balance.
I cannot emphasize enough how these critical reforms and
funds are necessary to ensuring that your Army has sufficiently
trained and ready soldiers to protect our Nation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is an historic
moment. We need to stop talking and start acting. We need
wisdom, not words. We need results, not rhetoric. And as I said
last year, we need predictability, not politics.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As we face extreme instability around the world, we must
have certainty here at home. Your soldiers--and I know you
agree--deserve no less. We must have an end to sequestration
this year, and we must have this budget.
In closing, on behalf of the nearly 1.3 million men and
women of America's Army, Active Guard, Reserve and civilian,
thank you, each of you, for your continued oversight,
partnership, leadership, and support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John M. McHugh and
General Raymond T. Odierno
executive summary
Now more than ever, in today's uncertain and dynamic security
environment, we must be prepared to meet multiple, wide-ranging
requirements across the globe simultaneously while retaining the
ability to react to the unknown. The velocity of instability around the
world has increased, and the Army is now operating on multiple
continents simultaneously in ways unforeseen a year ago. In short, our
Army is busy. We are fully engaged and our operational tempo will not
subside for the foreseeable future. In the wake of Russia's
intervention in Ukraine, the Army deployed forces to Eastern Europe in
a demonstration of U.S. commitment and resolve. In West Africa, the
Army provided support for the U.S. Agency for International
Development's humanitarian mission to stem the tide of the Ebola virus.
In response to regional instability in the Middle East, Army forces
have recommitted to advise and assist Iraqi government forces and the
Kurdish Peshmerga. Across the Pacific, thousands of Army forces are
supporting operations to strengthen our partnerships and alliances as
part of Pacific Pathways in places like Thailand, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Australia, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. We remain
committed to protecting the enduring Armistice on the Korean Peninsula.
Our Soldiers remain on point in Afghanistan, even as we draw down our
forces there. Currently, nine of ten Regular Army and two Army National
Guard division headquarters are committed in support of Combatant
Commands, with more than 143,000 Soldiers deployed, forward stationed,
or committed and 19,000 Reserve Soldiers mobilized.
Last year, we testified that the minimum force necessary to execute
the defense strategy was a force floor of 450,000 in the Regular Army,
335,000 in the Army National Guard and 195,000 in the Army Reserve--a
total of 980,000 Soldiers. That assessment has not changed and is based
on certain planning assumptions regarding the duration, number and size
of future missions. When determining these assessed force levels, we
also made clear that risks at this level would grow if our underlying
assumptions proved inaccurate. Although we still believe we can meet
the primary missions of the Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) today, our
ability to do so has become tenuous. There is a growing divide between
the Budget Control Act's (BCA) arbitrary funding mechanism--that has
seen the Army budget drop in nominal terms every year since enacted in
2011--and the emerging geopolitical realities confronting us now across
Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific, along with the growing
threats to our homeland. Risk thereby increases to our force, our
national security and our Nation. As the Army approaches a Total Army
end strength of 980,000 Soldiers by fiscal year 2018, we must
constantly assess the operational tempo and its impacts on the health
and viability of the force. We must ensure we have both the capability
to respond to unforeseen demands and the capacity to sustain high
levels of readiness.
So, as the Army looks to the future and continues to downsize, we
have developed a new Army Operating Concept, ``Win in a Complex
World.'' The foundation of the Army Operating Concept is our ability to
conduct joint combined arms maneuver. The Army Operating Concept
endeavors to build a force operating alongside multiple partners able
to create multiple dilemmas for our adversaries, while giving
commanders multiple options and synchronizing and integrating effects
from multiple domains onto and from land. Recognizing the changing
world around us, the Army Operating Concept envisions an Army that is
expeditionary, tailorable, scalable and prepared to meet the challenges
of the global environment. The Army Operating Concept sets the
foundation upon which our leaders can focus our efforts and resources
to maintain strategic and operational flexibility to deter and operate
in multiple regions simultaneously--in all phases of military
operations--to prevent conflict, shape the security environment and win
wars now and in the future.
Nevertheless, fiscal challenges brought on by the BCA strain our
ability to bring into balance readiness, modernization and end
strength. The BCA puts at significant risk the Army's ability to meet
the Army's obligations within the DSG and fulfill its national security
requirements. Even as demand for Army forces is growing, budget cuts
are forcing us to reduce end strength to dangerously low levels. We
face an ``ends'' and ``means'' mismatch between requirements and
resources available.
The BCA and sequestration have already had a detrimental impact on
readiness and modernization. Budget constraints have significantly
impacted every Army modernization program, forcing the delay of
critical investments in next generation capabilities, to include
training support and power projection capabilities across Army
installations. Although the Bipartisan Budget Agreement (BBA) provided
fiscal relief to the Army in fiscal year 2014, in fiscal year 2015 the
Army budget decreased by $6 billion. We now face a fiscal year 2016
defense spending cap insufficient for operating in an unstable global
security environment that presents the Army with a number of urgent,
complex and challenging missions. The fiscal year 2016 spending cap--
set almost 4 years ago--has not kept pace with the geopolitical reality
unfolding around the world.
We know we must strike a balance between resources and capacity.
The Army fully supports fiscal responsibility and has worked diligently
and consistently to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. In that
regard, we have made many tough choices. There are critical cost-saving
measures that allow the Army to further reallocate scarce resources to
ensure Army forces remain as trained and ready as possible. These
include compensation reform, sustainable energy and resource
initiatives, a new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and the
Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI). We ask Congress to support these
initiatives because without the flexibility to manage our budgets to
achieve the greatest capability possible, we will be forced to make
reductions to manpower, modernization and training that are larger,
less efficient and longer-standing in the damage they inflict on the
Army.
We also need consistent and predictable funding. The use of
Continuing Resolutions wreaks havoc with Army readiness, modernization
and end strength. It makes long term planning difficult, especially
with the uncertainties that exist if we return to sequestration in
fiscal year 2016. As a result, we are forced to train intermittently
and the materiel and equipment we buy costs more and takes longer to
acquire. This ongoing budgetary unpredictability is neither militarily
nor fiscally responsible. To maintain an appropriate level of
readiness, the Army must receive consistent funding for training each
year. Unless Congress eases the BCA defense caps, the Army will
experience degraded readiness coupled with increased risk, making it
more difficult for us to provide for the common defense. Each passing
year, the BCA increases risk for sending insufficiently trained and
equipped Soldiers into harm's way, and that is not a risk our Nation
should accept.
Lastly, our profession is built on trust. In holding true to that
trust, our Nation expects our competence, commitment and character to
reflect our Army values. To that end, we are working to reduce and, in
the future, eliminate sexual assault and sexual harassment, which
destroys good order and discipline and is contrary to our core values.
We are also increasing opportunities for women and opening positions
based on standards free on any gender bias. Finally, our programs like
Soldier for Life and the Ready and Resilient Campaign are demonstrating
our sacred commitment to care for our Soldiers, our Civilians and their
Families who selflessly sacrifice so much. These are actions we have
taken because it is the right thing to do.
introduction
Last year, we testified before Congress that the minimum end
strength the Army requires to execute the 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance is 980,000 Soldiers--450,000 in the Regular Army, 335,000 in
the Army National Guard and 195,000 in the Army Reserve. We described
how the Army moved to implement the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) guidance by shaping the force while supporting the fight in
Afghanistan and deploying forces to address several unexpected
challenges around the world. In contrast to the projections outlined in
the defense strategy, the regional security and stability in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific have deteriorated over the past
12-24 months in ways we did not anticipate. These growing and emerging
threats to the global security environment compel us to rethink our
assessment of the drawdown. For the next 3 years, as we restructure to
operate as a smaller force, the Army faces readiness challenges and
extensive modernization delays. Under the President's Budget, we will
begin to regain balance between end strength, modernization and
readiness beyond fiscal year 2017. Although we still believe we can
meet the fundamental requirements of the DSG at 980,000 Regular, Guard
and Reserve Soldiers, it is a tenuous balance. The risk to our national
security and our force itself continues to increase with rising
instability and uncertainty across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and
the Pacific, along with a growing threat to the homeland. Any force
reductions below 980,000 Soldiers will render our Army unable to meet
all elements of the DSG, and we will not be able to meet the multiple
challenges to U.S. national interests without incurring an imprudent
level of risk to our Nation's security.
increasing velocity of global instability
The accelerating insecurity and instability across Europe, the
Middle East, Africa and the Pacific, coupled with the continued threat
to the homeland and our ongoing operations in Afghanistan, remain a
significant concern to the Army. The Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant's (ISIL) unforeseen expansion and the rapid disintegration of
order in Iraq and Syria have dramatically escalated conflict in the
region. Order within Yemen is splintering; the al Qaeda insurgency and
Houthi expansion continues there; and the country is quickly
approaching a civil war. In North and West Africa, anarchy, extremism
and terrorism continue to threaten the interests of the United States,
as well as our allies and partners. In Europe, Russia's intervention in
Ukraine challenges the resolve of the European Union. Across the Asia-
Pacific, China's lack of transparency regarding its military
modernization efforts raise concerns with the United States and our
allies, and the continuing development of North Korea's nuclear and
missile programs contributes to instability. The rate of humanitarian
and disaster relief missions, such as the recent threat of Ebola,
heightens the level of uncertainty we face around the world, along with
constantly evolving threats to the homeland. With the velocity of
instability increasing around the world, continuing unrest in the
Middle East, and the threat of terrorism growing rather than receding--
witness the recent tragedies in Paris and Nigeria--now is not the time
to drastically reduce capability and capacity.
The Army, as part of the Joint Force, operates globally in
environments characterized by growing urbanization, the potential for
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, malicious cyber and
information operations, humanitarian crises and the deleterious effects
of climate change. Sectarian violence exploited by state and non-state
actors, irredentism and terrorist activities are driving conflict
around the world. The corrosive effects of drug and human trafficking
by transnational criminal organizations undermine state authority and
trigger a destabilizing level of violence in places such as Central and
South America. These combined factors lead to vulnerable populations
and threats that appear across multiple domains, the sum of which will
continue to challenge global security and cooperation in ways that are
difficult to anticipate.
No single strategic challenger is likely to gain overall
superiority over U.S. military capabilities in the near future. Even
so, competitors of the U.S. seek to negate our strengths, exploit our
vulnerabilities and gain temporary or local superiority in one or more
capability areas. It is unlikely any of these challengers will choose
traditional force-on-force confrontation with American forces. Instead,
potential adversaries are likely to pursue and emphasize indirect and
asymmetric techniques. Their strategies may include employing anti-
access/area denial capabilities, using surrogates, subverting our
allies, using cyber and information operations, staying under our
threshold for combat or simply prolonging conflict to test our resolve.
One of the most important global security bulwarks is the U.S.
network of security alliances and partners. This valuable asset to U.S.
national security and global stability is entering a period of
transition. Traditional allies in Europe face significant economic and
demographic burdens that exert downward pressure on defense budgets. As
a consequence, allies and partners who have joined us in past coalition
operations may be less apt to do so in the future. Building the
security capacity necessary for regional stability requires sustained
and focused engagement. Active engagement with allies, friends and
partners is resource-intensive, but will be essential to sustaining
global multilateral security. This combination of threats and
conditions creates an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable
operational environment and underscores the need for a U.S. Army that
is agile, responsive and regionally engaged.
demand for a globally responsive and regionally engaged army
It is imperative we maintain strategic and operational flexibility
to deter and operate in multiple regions simultaneously--in all phases
of military operations--to prevent conflicts, shape the security
environment and, when necessary, win in support of U.S. policy
objectives. The Army is and will continue to be the backbone of the
Joint Force, providing fundamental capabilities to each of the
Combatant Commanders such as command and control, logistics,
intelligence and communications support to set the theater, as well as
providing ground combat forces, Special Operations Forces and Joint
Task Force headquarters. Demand for Army capabilities and presence
continues to increase across Combatant Commands in response to emerging
contingencies. The Army has sent rotational forces to Europe, Kuwait
and the Republic of Korea, and established JTF Headquarters in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Honduras, the Horn of Africa and Jordan. In multiple Areas
of Responsibility, the Army is meeting simultaneous requirements based
on our ten primary DSG missions. As part of the Joint Force, we support
Combatant Commanders and work with interagency partners and our allies
to enhance security cooperation, provide foreign humanitarian
assistance, build partner capacity and participate in multi-lateral
exercises.
We are making the Army more agile, adaptable and expeditionary than
ever before. For example, there is an infantry battalion forward-
deployed in Djibouti, and units in Kuwait positioned to quickly respond
anywhere in the Middle East. Even as we reduce our presence in
Afghanistan, the global demand for Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), the
Army's basic warfighting units, is projected to decrease by only one
before 2016. Combatant Commanders' demand for Patriot missile
battalions and Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) batteries
exceeds our capacity, significantly limiting options in emerging
crises, and exceeding the Army's ability to meet Department of Defense
(DOD) deployment-to-dwell rotation goals for these units. In fiscal
year 2016, we expect Combatant Command and Interagency demand for Army
forces will increase further in areas such as logistics, intelligence,
cyber, space, air and missile defense, signal, aviation, Special
Operations Forces and mission command.
Demand for Army division headquarters is already high and we expect
this trend to continue. Combatant Commanders rely upon the proven
mission-command capabilities of our division headquarters and the
essential shaping effects of Army enabler units including Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. In the last year, we
deployed the 1st Infantry Division headquarters to U.S. Central Command
in support of the multinational effort to defeat ISIL, and we delivered
the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) headquarters to synchronize
national and international efforts to counter the Ebola virus in West
Africa.
Additionally, 1st Armored Division Headquarters conducts operations
in Jordan; 2nd Infantry Division protects the Republic of Korea; 3rd
Infantry Division advises and assists in Afghanistan; and 4th Infantry
Division assures our allies in Europe. All told, elements of nine out
of ten Regular Army division headquarters and two Army National Guard
division headquarters, including the Global Response Force, are
currently deployed or prepared to deploy around the globe supporting
commitments to the Pacific Theater and the Republic of Korea;
Afghanistan, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait; Africa; Eastern Europe; and the
homeland.
Consequently, we must size and shape the Army for the world in
which we live. First, through the Army, and the presence it provides,
we will fulfill our collective security obligations, defend our
citizens and protect our national interests when the Nation calls upon
us. Second, a robust Army provides Combatant Commanders with essential
capacity to more fully engage allies and shape the security environment
across their areas of responsibility. Finally, appropriate Army force
levels reduce the risk of being ``too wrong'' in our assumptions about
the future.
Unlike previous eras and conflicts, today's fast-paced world simply
does not allow us the time to regenerate capabilities after a crisis
erupts. Faced with a national crisis, we will fight with the Army we
have, but there will be consequences. Generating the Army is a complex
endeavor that requires policy decisions, dollars, Soldiers,
infrastructure and, most importantly, time. It takes approximately 30
months to generate a fully manned and trained Regular Army BCT once the
Army decides to expand the force. Senior command and control
headquarters, such as divisions and corps, take even longer to generate
and train to be effective given the skill sets and training required of
Soldiers manning these formations. Overall, we must acknowledge that
today's highly-technological, All-Volunteer Force is much different
than the industrial age armies of the past.
Finally, with flexibility to balance structure, modernization and
readiness within budgetary authority, we can best mitigate the risk
imposed by budget reductions and end strength reductions to adapt to a
rapidly-changing operating environment. Achieving this balance will
enhance our ability to redesign the force for the future, experiment
with new, innovative operational concepts and rebuild critical
collective skills, all while taking care of our Soldiers and their
Families in a manner consistent with their service and sacrifice.
army operating concept: win in a complex world
Even as the Army confronts the many challenges wrought by
sequestration, we continue to seek efficiencies while adapting to the
complexities of an evolving and unstable security environment. It is
imperative that our Army adapts to the future joint operating
environment, one that consists of diverse enemies that employ
traditional, irregular and hybrid strategies which threaten U.S.
security and vital interests. In October of last year, we introduced
the new Army Operating Concept, ``Win in a Complex World.'' The
foundation of this concept is our ability to conduct joint combined
arms maneuver. It endeavors to build a force operating alongside
multiple partners able to create multiple dilemmas for our adversaries,
while giving commanders multiple options and synchronizing and
integrating effects from multiple domains onto and from land.
Recognizing the changing world around us, the Army Operating Concept
envisions an Army that is expeditionary, tailorable, scalable and
prepared to meet the challenges of the global environment. The Army
Operating Concept reinforces our five strategic priorities:
1. Develop adaptive Army leaders for a complex world;
2. Build a globally responsive and regionally engaged Army;
3. Provide a ready and modern Army;
4. Strengthen our commitment to our Army profession; and
5. Sustain the premier All-Volunteer Army.
The Army Operating Concept also describes the Army's contribution
to globally integrated operations. Army forces provide foundational
capabilities required by the Combat Commanders to synchronize and
integrate effects across land and from land into the air, maritime,
space and cyberspace domains. The Army Operating Concept ensures that
we are prepared to lead Joint, interorganizational and multinational
teams in complex security environments.
Through a dedicated ``Campaign of Learning'' under Force 2025
Maneuvers, we will assess new capabilities, design and doctrine. This
enables future innovation of our expeditionary capabilities and
enhanced agility. We are assessing key capabilities such as manned-
unmanned teaming, operational energy and expeditionary command posts.
We are focusing our innovation efforts in this Campaign of Learning to
ensure we address the 20 Army Warfighting Challenges. The Army
Warfighting Challenges are the enduring first-order problems, and
solving them will improve combat effectiveness. These challenges range
from shaping the Security Environment, to countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction, to conducting Space and Cyber Operations, to Integrating
and Delivering Fires to Exercising Mission Command. The Army Operating
Concept represents a long-term, cost-effective way to enhance
readiness, improve interoperability and modernize the force. It is also
a cost-effective way to assess and demonstrate Joint and multinational
interoperability and readiness. We must continue to learn and apply
what we learn as we rethink how the Army operates to ``Win in a Complex
World.''
president's budget request
This year, the President's Budget requests $126.5 billion for the
Army base budget. This budget request is about $5.4 billion above what
the Congress enacted in fiscal year 2015. The President's Budget
requests $6 billion more than an expected sequester-level budget. This
additional $6 billion will be invested in readiness and procurement:
--$3.4 billion for training, sustainment and installation programs
directly supporting combat readiness; and,
--$2.6 billion for Research and Development, and Acquisition accounts
in order to equip Soldiers across the Regular, Guard and
Reserve forces, sustain critical parts of the industrial base
and invest in innovation supporting the Army Operating Concept.
These increases are critical to achieving sustainable readiness
needed to meet the demands of today's complex environment, while
preserving manpower needed to prevent hollowness in our formations.
As Congress reviews our budget for this year, we ask that you
compare our funding levels to what we asked for and executed in fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, rather than to the near- sequestration
level funding enacted in fiscal year 2015. With the support of
Congress, the Army executed $125 billion in fiscal year 2014 to begin
rebuilding readiness lost in fiscal year 2013 due to sequestration. The
fiscal year 2015-enacted level of $121 billion is challenging
commanders across the Army to sustain readiness while reorganizing
formations to operate as smaller forces. In fiscal year 2015, we are
significantly reducing key installation and family services, individual
training events and modernization to such an extent as to jeopardize
future readiness and quality of life. The Army's budget request for
fiscal year 2016 continues to focus on building near term readiness
through predictability and continuity in funding levels.
One critical assumption in the President's Budget request is that
Congress will enact necessary compensation and force restructuring. We
fully support modest reforms to pay raises, healthcare and other
benefits that have been proposed. Without these reforms, savings
assumptions we have included in our planning will not be realized,
placing increasing pressure on further end strength reductions and
reducing funding needed to sustain readiness. The President is
proposing over $25 billion in compensation reforms including slowing
the growth of Basic Allowance for Housing, changing TRICARE, reducing
the commissary subsidy and slowing the growth in basic pay. Should
Congress fail to enact these reforms, the effects of budget shortfalls
in programs and services throughout the force will wreak havoc on our
formations. We will have to make decisions at every Army installation
that will impact the quality of life, morale and readiness of our
Soldiers. Without appropriate compensation reform, the Army would need
an additional $10.4 billion across the program years to meet our basic
requirements. To the extent Congress does not approve the extra topline
or the reforms, we would have to find another $2-3 billion per year in
reductions, thereby further diminishing the size and capability of our
fighting force. None of these reforms are easy, but all are necessary.
One of our most important reforms is the Aviation Restructuring
Initiative (ARI), which we continued in fiscal year 2015. Our current
aviation structure is unaffordable, so the Army's plan avoids $12
billion in costs and saves an additional $1 billion annually if we
fully implement ARI. We simply cannot afford to maintain our current
aviation structure and sustain modernization while providing trained
and ready aviation units across all three components. Our comprehensive
approach through ARI will ultimately allow us to eliminate obsolete
airframes, sustain a modernized fleet, and reduce sustainment costs.
Through ARI, we will eliminate nearly 700 aircraft and three Combat
Aviation Brigades from the Active Component, while only reducing 111
airframes from the Reserve Component. ARI eliminates and reorganizes
structure, while increasing capabilities in order to minimize risk to
meeting operational requirements within the capacity of remaining
aviation units across all components. If the Army does not execute ARI,
we will incur additional costs associated with buying additional
aircraft and structure at the expense of modernizing current and future
aviation systems in the total force.
Although we disagree with the need for a Commission on the Future
of the Army, as directed in the National Defense Authorization Act, we
will fully support the Commission as it examines and assesses the force
structure and force mix decisions the Army has proposed for Active and
Reserve Components.
impacts of sequestration
In support of the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request,
which reflected the outcomes of the Secretary of Defense's 2013
Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) and the 2014 QDR, we
emphasized that the updated defense strategy, combined with reduced
Army force levels, had increased the risk level to ``significant,'' and
would become manageable only after the Army achieved balance between
end strength, readiness and modernization. At force levels driven by
affordability under full sequestration, the Army cannot fully implement
its role in the defense strategy. Sequestration would require the Army
to further reduce our Total Army end strength to at least 920,000, or
60,000 below the 980,000 currently reflected in the President's Budget
request.
Global demands for the Army are increasing, but end strength,
readiness and modernization cuts greatly reduce our ability to respond
at a time when the instability is accelerating worldwide. As a result,
we are faced with an ends and means disparity between what is required
of us and what we are resourced to accomplish. This has real impacts
for our national security. Long-term fiscal predictability will allow
the Army to balance force structure, end strength, modernization and
readiness, while providing the Nation a trained and ready force
prepared to win in a complex world. Without this investment, we will
see immediate degradations in recruiting, manning, training, equipping
and sustaining Army readiness during a time of great uncertainty and
growing worldwide instability.
Although we are already expecting a decline in the overall
readiness of our forces in fiscal year 2015, it pales in comparison to
the decrease of readiness under expected sequester levels in fiscal
year 2016. Sequestration measures will not only dissipate the modest
gains we achieved, but will leave the Army in a hollow and precarious
state. The impact of sequestration on the Army's fiscal year 2016
funding levels would cause an abrupt and immediate degradation of
training, readiness and modernization. Relief from full sequester-
levels in fiscal year 2014 provided some predictability and allowed for
partial recovery from fiscal year 2013's low readiness levels. However,
the Army demonstrated a need for funding above the enacted $121 billion
topline in fiscal year 2015, as savings from drawing down end strength
are manifesting as rapidly as possible. Current funding levels afforded
just over a third of our BCTs the training necessary to conduct
decisive action. This year, we face significant challenges to sustain
even that level of readiness in our dynamic operating environment.
If sequestration remains unchanged, the consequences for our Army
will be dramatic. Another round of cuts will render our force unable to
meet all elements of the DSG without creating additional risk to our
soldiers. Reductions in end strength brought on by sequestration will
limit our ability to provide strategic options to the President and
pose unacceptable risk by placing into question our capacity to execute
even one prolonged, multi-phased major contingency operation. We will
experience significant degradations in readiness and modernization,
which will extend adverse impacts well into the next decade,
exacerbating the time the Army requires to regain full readiness. The
Nation cannot afford the impacts of sequestration. Our national
security is at stake.
achieving end strength reductions
By the end of fiscal year 2015, we will have reduced the Regular
Army by over 80,000 Soldiers, 8,000 in the Army National Guard and
7,000 in the Army Reserve. Commensurate with these reductions, the Army
will achieve an end strength by the end of fiscal year 2015 of 490,000
Regular Army, 350,000 Army National Guard and 202,000 Army Reserve.
Consistent with available budget resources, the 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review and the DSG, the Army will continue to reduce its end
strength in fiscal year 2016 as follows: the Regular Army will shrink
by 15,000 (3.1 percent) to 475,000; the Army National Guard will shrink
by 8,000 (2.3 percent) to 342,000; and the Army Reserve will shrink by
4,000 (2 percent) to 198,000.
To achieve required end strength reductions, we will need to
separate Soldiers who have served their nation honorably. Cumulatively,
we will have reduced our Regular Army end strength from a wartime high
of 570,000 to 475,000 by the end of 2016 (17 percent reduction), while
our Army National Guard will have reduced its end strength from a
wartime high of 358,000 to 342,000 (4.5 percent reduction) and the Army
Reserve will have reduced its end strength from a wartime high of
205,000 to 198,000 (3.4 percent reduction). These reductions put the
Army on a glide path to meet the targeted force of 980,000 in fiscal
year 2018. For all components of the Army, this end strength is smaller
than the pre-2001 force structure.
Although we are making reductions in the overall end strength of
the Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve, we have continued to
invest in higher Full Time Support levels, including Active Guard and
Reserve, Military Technicians and Civilians. This budget supports
82,720 Full Time Support positions in fiscal year 2016 as compared to
68,000 in fiscal year 2001. This level of Full Time Support constitutes
a 20 percent increase since 2001.
In the Army Civilian workforce, we have reduced Department of the
Army Civilians from the wartime high levels of 285,000 and will
continue to reduce appropriately over the coming years. While
necessary, these reductions in the Civilian workforce have and will
continue to adversely impact capabilities such as medical treatment,
training, depot and range maintenance, installation emergency services,
physical security and select intelligence functions. In all of the
reductions across the Total Army, we are taking prudent measures to
ensure we balance requirements and capacity.
To achieve planned end strength reductions, the Army expects to use
various types of separation authorities across all elements of the
Total Force. The fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Acts provided several authorities to help the Army shape
the force over the drawdown period, along with the flexibility to apply
them to meet specific grade and skill requirements. Under normal loss
rates, we would not be able to reach our end strength goal during the
fiscal year 2015-fiscal year 2017 period. There is no single force-
shaping method among the choices of accession, retention and separation
that allows the Army to achieve its end strength goals; inevitably, we
will have to involuntarily separate quality Soldiers. Closely managing
accession levels, selectively promoting and following more stringent
retention standards will help shape the force over time.
Although the Army expects to lose combat-seasoned Soldiers and
leaders, throughout this process, our focus will be on retaining
individuals with the greatest potential for future service in the right
grades and skills. As Soldiers depart the Regular Army, we are
committed to assisting them and their Families as they reintegrate into
civilian communities. Leaders across the Army are engaged in ``Soldier
for Life,'' a continuum of service concept that facilitates transition
to civilian employment, educational opportunities and service in the
Reserve Components.
ensuring a ready army
During this period of drawdown, the Army is reorganizing,
realigning and restructuring forces. The Brigade Combat Team
reorganization enhances brigade combat power by adding a third maneuver
battalion to 38 BCTs by the end of fiscal year 2015 and reducing the
total number of BCTs to 60 (32 Regular Army and 28 Army National Guard)
in the Total Force.
Since May 2014, we have been developing a sustainable force
generation and readiness model to account for the new, volatile,
strategic operating environment; the need to remain regionally-engaged
and budgetary and force sizing realities. The Sustainable Readiness
Model will provide force generation policies and processes that
optimize the readiness of the force and balance the Army's steady state
missions, contingency response capability and available resources. We
cannot predict the specific events that will cause the next demand for
Army forces, but history suggests it will come sooner than we expect.
All components of the Army must remain sized and postured as essential
members of the Joint Force to protect the Nation and its interests.
Even with funding relief from sequestration in fiscal year 2014, in
fiscal year 2015 we returned to near- sequestration level funding,
resulting in just a third of our BCTs trained in their core mission
capabilities in decisive action. The President's Budget request
increases readiness funding above fiscal year 2015 levels, which is
critical to sustaining and improving readiness of the force. In fiscal
year 2014, the Army completed 19 rotations at the Combat Training
Centers (CTCs), including six rotations for deploying BCTs and 13
decisive action training rotations (12 Regular Army and one Army
National Guard). Fiscal year 2015 funding levels challenge Army
commanders to sustain continuity in readiness across the force;
however, we remain committed to CTC rotations to build leader and unit
readiness. fiscal year 2015 plans fund 19 CTC rotations, with 15
Regular Army and two Army National Guard decisive action rotations,
with fiscal year 2016 continuing this level of CTC exercises. We are
improving Training Support Systems to enable more realistic home
station training, increase collective training proficiency and enhance
operational readiness for contingencies across the globe; however,
funding constraints in fiscal year 2015 impede our ability to maximize
home station training goals. The President's Budget request for fiscal
year 2016 allows the Army to increase training readiness to battalion-
level across the Active Component force and to platoon-level in the
Reserves. Lower funding levels will not allow us to achieve this
balanced readiness.
Although the Army attempts to mitigate the impacts on training
readiness, we must continue to implement the Contingency Force model of
fiscal year 2015 in order to maintain readiness for the 24 of 60 BCTs
that will receive sufficient funding to conduct training at CTCs and
home station. Funding shortages will limit the remaining 36 BCTs to
minimum Individual/Crew/Squad resourcing levels through sufficient
Training Support Systems (TSS). In short, sequestration forces the Army
to ration readiness. Regardless of funding levels, we are committed to
keeping CTCs a priority.
Our aim is to provide tough, realistic multi-echelon home station
training using a mix of live, virtual and constructive methods that
efficiently and effectively build Soldier, leader and unit competency
over time, contributing to the effectiveness of the current and future
forces. Training will integrate the unique capabilities of the Light,
Medium and Heavy forces, as well as the capabilities of Conventional
and Special Operations Forces. Furthermore, we are optimizing the use
of existing training capacity and leveraging other opportunities such
as CTCs, exercises and operational deployments to maximize the training
benefits of fixed overhead and operational costs. Training centers such
as Joint Multinational Readiness Center will increase our
interoperability with Allies. Our goal is to increase readiness from 33
percent to 70 percent of our Regular Army BCTs, allowing the Army to
balance Combatant Command force requirements while maintaining surge
capability--but we need consistent resources to get there. We are also
increasing funding for our individual and institutional training.
Funding increases focus on leader development, entry-level training and
flight training. This allows the Army to develop its future leaders,
prepare its Soldiers to operate in today's dynamic combat environment
and provide trained and ready Soldiers to meet Combatant Commanders'
requirements.
The Army continues to make progress in integrating the unique
capabilities of each of its components to support the needs of the
Combatant Commanders. As part of the Army's Total Force Policy, the
U.S. Army Forces Command is leading the way by partnering every Guard
and Reserve division and brigade with a Regular Army peer unit. The
Army is also piloting a program to assign Guard and Reserve personnel
directly to each Regular Army corps and division headquarters. For
example, the Reserve Component rapidly provided support capabilities in
support of Operation United Assistance in Liberia to augment and
replace elements of the initial Active Component response.
As we transition from combat operations in Afghanistan, our Army is
focused on our ability to rapidly deploy forces around the world in
order to meet the needs of our Combatant Commanders. To do this, we
enhanced prepositioned equipment sets and created activity sets to
support operations in Europe, the Pacific and around the world.
Activity sets are prepositioned sets of equipment that enable U.S.
regionally-aligned forces and multinational partners in Europe to train
and operate. We have also reinvigorated our Emergency Deployment
Readiness Exercise program and enhanced the en route mission command
capability of our Global Response Force. The President's Budget request
provides sufficient capability to respond in each Geographical
Combatant Command's area of responsibility.
The Army continues to be a good steward of the resources
appropriated for replacement, recapitalization and repair of materiel
returning from operations conducted in Afghanistan. In 2014, the Army
efficiently synchronized equipment retrograde out of theater.
Redeployment and retrograde operations remain on schedule; however, the
Army continues to forecast a need for reset funding for 3 years after
redeployment of the last piece of equipment from theater. A steady,
responsible drawdown of personnel and equipment demonstrates good
stewardship of resources while facilitating transition to the post-2014
Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. In addition, we identified
almost $2 billion of potential requirement reductions in Contractor
Logistics and Training Support, and took advantage of our wartime reset
program to reduce Depot Maintenance by over $1.3 billion over 5 years.
These changes allowed the Army to increase the capability of its
prepositioned stocks program without an increase in the associated
costs.
The proliferation of information and communications technologies
increases the momentum of human interaction, creating a constantly
shifting geopolitical landscape. An Army that is globally engaged and
regionally aligned requires access at the point of need, robust network
capacity and capability that is tailorable and scalable. The Army's
strategy is to effectively leverage joint networks, transition to
cloud-based solutions and services, reduce the culture of controlling
network resources and divest legacy systems to make way for resources
to build network modernization. Over time, this will significantly
boost information technology operational efficiency, improve mission
effectiveness and posture the Army to more quickly adapt and innovate.
The Army continually seeks incremental improvements to its
institutional organizations, processes and business systems in order to
provide ready forces in the most fiscally responsible way for the
Nation. The Army is expanding its efforts to control the cost of
business operations by reducing the size of headquarters units, which
we view as a fiscal imperative. Progressive fielding of Enterprise
Resource Planning systems is enhancing accountability, changing
business processes and enabling the retirement of legacy systems that
will ultimately reduce our overall costs. Our workforce is adapting to
new systems and processes inherent in increased internal controls and
enterprise connectivity across business domains. Army leaders are
actively engaged in change management and committed to meeting audit
readiness goals and the September 2017 audit assertion of our financial
statements. We continue to challenge the status quo, enabling the
institutional Army to perform its activities smarter, faster and at
reduced cost to provide more resources for readiness.
ensuring a modern army
Modernization
Decreases to the Army budget over the past several years have had
significant impacts on Army modernization and threaten our ability to
retain overmatch through the next decade. Since 2011, the Army has
ended 20 programs, delayed 125 and restructured 124. Between 2011 and
2015, Research and Development and Acquisition accounts plunged 35
percent from $31 billion to $20 billion. Procurement alone dropped from
$21.3 billion to $13.9 billion. We estimate sequestration will affect
over 80 Army programs. Major impacts include delays in equipping to
support expeditionary forces, delays in combat vehicle and aviation
modernization, increases in sustainment costs to fix older equipment
and increases in capability gaps.
Our intent is to modernize and equip Soldiers with effective,
affordable and sustainable equipment that is ready and tailorable to
support the full range of Combatant Command requirements. The
President's Budget request would provide over $2 billion to address the
growing gaps in our modernization accounts. Even with this additional
funding, modernization remains more than $3 billion short of the
historical average as a percentage of the Army's budget.
The Army will continue to protect Science and Technology (S&T)
investments critical to identifying, developing and demonstrating
technology options that inform and enable affordable capabilities for
the Soldier. S&T efforts will foster innovation, maturation and
demonstration of technology-enabled capabilities, maximizing the
potential of emergent game-changing landpower technologies. Key
investments include Joint Multi-Role Helicopter, the foundation for the
Army's Future Vertical Lift capability; combat vehicle prototyping;
assured Position, Navigation and Timing and enhancing cyber operations
and network protections. We continue to explore the possibilities of
cyber, high-energy laser, materials, human performance and quantum
science technologies for a variety of applications.
The centerpiece of the Army's Modernization Strategy continues to
be the Soldier and the squad. The Army's objective is to rapidly
integrate technologies and applications that empower, protect and
unburden the Soldier and our formations, thus providing the Soldier
with the right equipment, at the right time, to accomplish the assigned
mission. The Army will support this priority by investing in
technologies that provide the Soldier and squad with advanced war
fighting capabilities such as enhanced weapon effects, next generation
optics and night vision devices, advanced body armor and individual
protective equipment, unmanned aerial systems, ground based robots and
Soldier power systems.
Improvements to mission command will facilitate the decisionmaking
of leaders and Soldiers across all tactical echelons for Unified Land
Operations in support of the Joint Force and allies. The Army will
develop and field a robust, integrated tactical mission command network
linking command posts, and extending out to the tactical edge and
across platforms. We will build enhanced mission command capabilities
and platform integration by fielding software applications for the
Common Operating Environment, while working to converge operations and
intelligence networks. Based on the current and projected demands for
ISR, the Army adjusted the Gray Eagle unmanned aerial system program's
fielding schedule to make more assets available to strategic and
operational commanders this year. The Army also expanded the Aerial
Intelligence Brigade with an additional 18 Gray Eagles for a total of
36 aircraft, and an increase from 48 to 165 soldiers per company.
With respect to combat platforms, and those desired to enable
greater protected mobility, the Army's objective is to consider the
most stressing contingency operations and make its fleets more capable.
In addition to the Apache AH-64E and Blackhawk UH-60M investments,
which support the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative, the Army will
continue development of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle to replace
the obsolete M113 family of vehicles and begin to produce the Joint
Light Tactical family of vehicles. The Army will also continue to make
improvements to the survivability, lethality, mobility and protection
of the Abrams tank, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Paladin self-
propelled howitzer fleets. While resource constraints will force the
Army to delay new system development and investment in the next
generation of capabilities, we will execute incremental upgrades to
increase capabilities and modernize existing systems.
Few choices remain if modernization accounts continue to bear the
brunt of sequestration. Most programs are already at minimum economic
sustaining levels, and further reductions will rapidly increase the
number of cancellations. Those programs remaining will have higher unit
costs and extended acquisition schedules. Sequestration will create
severe reductions in buying power and further delays filling capability
gaps, forcing the Army to tier modernization--creating a situation of
``haves and have nots'' in the force. Rapid regeneration to fill
modernization gaps and the ability to ensure interoperable, networked
formations will come at a premium in cost and time. Most complex
systems in production now take 24-36 months to deliver once Congress
appropriates funding, while new starts or re-starts take even longer.
To address the steep reductions in modernization accounts, the Army
emphasizes early affordability reviews, establishing cost caps (funding
and procurement objectives), synchronizing multiple processes and
divesting older equipment quickly.
Organic and Commercial Industrial Base
The Army's Industrial Base consists of Government-owned (organic)
and commercial industrial capability and capacity that must be readily
available to manufacture and repair items during both peacetime and
national emergencies. We are concerned that we will not be able to
retain an Army Industrial Base that provides unique capabilities,
sustains the capacity for reversibility and meets the manufacturing and
repair materiel demands of the Joint Force. In the Commercial
Industrial Base, prime suppliers have increased their role as
integrators, and delegated key innovation and development roles to a
vast and complex network of sub-tier suppliers. Sub-tier suppliers have
responded with their own complex network of suppliers, some of which
are small, highly skilled and defense dependent firms--these small and
specialized firms serve as the warning indicator that gauges the health
of the overall industrial base. In fiscal year 2014, the Army
identified those commercial sector industrial capabilities vital to our
national defense and sustainment of a credible and capable smaller
force. We must continue to protect these capabilities.
Cyber
Network dominance and defense is an integral part of our national
security, and the Army is focused on proactively providing increased
capability to the Joint Force. With the evolving cyber environment, the
Army has been proactively adapting to cyber threats and vulnerabilities
by transforming processes, organizations and operating practices. As
the Army restructures LandWarNet to support operations worldwide, it is
imperative we rapidly innovate and fund network and cyber
infrastructure, services, security and capabilities.
A number of institutional transformations are in place or ongoing
to build and sustain the Army's future cyberspace force requirements.
To be more agile and responsive, while improving unity of command and
synchronization of cyberspace operations, we have consolidated Army
Cyber Command (ARCYBER), 2nd Army and the Joint Force Headquarters-
Cyber under one commander. The Army has established the Cyber Center of
Excellence at Fort Gordon, GA, and will serve as our focal point to
drive change across the Army. The proponent lead for cyberspace
operations shifted from ARCYBER to the Cyber Center of Excellence under
the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Additionally,
we established an Army Cyber Institute at West Point to collaborate
with government partners, industry and other higher education
institutions to develop cyber solutions. The creation of a cyber
network defender enlisted specialty and the Cyber Branch within the
officer corps was an effort to help focus and manage the Army's cyber
talent.
In terms of new and emerging initiatives, ARCYBER and the
acquisition community are pursuing ways to bring capabilities,
including big data analytics, to Army operations in order to improve
our cyber defense capability. We play a vital role in cyber operations
across the DOD and the Joint Force by providing Cyber Protection Teams
and Cyber Support Teams. Recent DOD decisions have resulted in the
pursuit of a defense-wide global implementation of network
modernization, including the Joint Regional Security Stacks, to enhance
the security of our networks. We continually conduct assessments to
better understand cyber vulnerabilities in our combat platforms and
communications systems. We must make prudent investments in our cyber
infrastructure, including facilities, networks and equipment to ensure
a capable force. The Army is currently reviewing cyber training range
capabilities and capacities to better assess future requirements. All
these efforts will generate resourcing requirements, which will have to
compete against other equally urgent priorities within the Army.
Installations, Water and Energy
Since 2012, as the Army implemented several rounds of budget
reductions, our installation programs have seen dramatically reduced
services and sustainment. Although we have survived for 2 years at
these reduced funding levels by deferring critical facility maintenance
and cutting back on services, should the increases proposed by the
President not materialize, we will seriously impair our facilities and
have to permanently reduce important programs and services. Even with
these increased funds, facilities maintenance is funded at only 79
percent in fiscal year 2016, which translates to higher future repair
and renovation costs.
As stated in previous testimony, we need another round of Base
Realignment and Closures (BRAC). We simply have too much surplus
infrastructure and will have even more as we downsize. We are already
in the process of separating nearly 152,000 Soldiers, and sequestration
would force us to separate another 60,000--for a total reduction of
212,000. In addition, we have reduced over 50,000 Civilians from these
same installations. Without a BRAC and the realized cost savings, the
only alternative is to make additional cuts in training, manpower and
modernization to make up for shortages in installation funding. These
are not cuts we can afford to make. To date, we have been able to
mitigate the adverse impact by focusing reductions on Europe and
eliminating facilities not associated with U.S. installations. Through
analysis and evaluation, we continue to examine other ways to reduce
infrastructure within our authorities around the world. We are now
reducing personnel at U.S. installations and we expect excess facility
capacity will be about 18 percent Army-wide when we reach the end
strength ramp of 490,000 for the Regular Army in fiscal year 2015.
To improve the resilience and efficiency of our remaining
infrastructure today and in future years, the Army will continue its
efforts to increase energy efficiency, expand the use of on-site
renewable energy, reduce water consumption and reduce waste generation.
This year, we will issue an Energy and Sustainability Strategy that
focuses on building resiliency. Implementation of this strategy will
facilitate continuity of operations and improve the Army's energy,
water and sustainability posture. These actions will also enhance the
Army's ability to mitigate and adapt to the deleterious effects of
climate change.
soldiers and civilians committed to our army and profession
We must never forget our Soldiers will bear the burden of our
decisions with their lives and health. As Army professionals, we must
do everything possible to maintain the trust of our Soldiers, Civilians
and Families who selflessly sacrifice so much. Today, they trust that
we properly prepare them with the right tools and resources necessary
to accomplish the missions that take them into harm's way. To ensure
the Army maintains the trust of the American people we serve, the Army
is evaluating ways to further develop our military and civilian
professionals, and ensure an uncompromising culture of accountability
exists at every level of command. As the Army prepares for the
environment that lies ahead, we must anticipate the unique ethical and
moral challenges the future may present, and remain committed to
developing Army Professionals of Competence, Commitment and Character.
The Army Ethic defines the moral principles that guide us in the
conduct of our missions, performance of duty and all aspects of life.
Our ethic is reflected in law, Army Values, creeds, oaths, ethos and
shared beliefs embedded within Army culture. It inspires and motivates
all of us to make right decisions and to take right actions at all
times. The Army Ethic is the heart of our shared professional identity,
our sense of who we are, our purpose in life and why and how we serve
the American people. To violate the Army Ethic is to break our sacred
bond of trust with each other and with those whom we serve. Army
Professionals must fulfill distinctive roles as honorable servants,
military experts and stewards of our profession.
Adaptive Army Leaders for a Complex World
The Army Operating Concept will require evolutionary change as we
deal with the growing complexity of the operational environment, and
this change begins by changing mindsets. The Army's competitive
advantage, today and into the future, will always be our Soldiers and
Civilians. Our top priority is to develop agile and adaptive leaders at
the tactical, operational and strategic levels. Today and into the
future, the Army must provide well-led and highly trained Soldiers
organized into tailorable and scalable organizations that provide our
Nation's leaders an array of options, both lethal and nonlethal, across
the entire range of missions. The Army Leader Development Strategy
calls for the development of leaders through a career-long synthesis of
training, education and experiences acquired through opportunities in
institutional, operational, broadening and self-development learning
formats, supported by peer and developmental relationships. Leader
development and optimized Soldier performance are directly linked to
the Army's ability to operate in the future. We must develop
multidimensional, adaptive and innovative leaders who thrive in
decentralized, dynamic and interconnected environments.
Leader development is the deliberate, continuous and progressive
process--built on a foundation of trust and founded in Army values--
that grows Soldiers and Civilians into competent, committed
professional leaders of character. As an institution transitioning from
extended combat rotations, we must regain our expertise as trainers and
improve the support and delivery of realistic training. Home station
and centralized training must leverage both current and emergent
technologies and integrate the latest capabilities, such as cyber;
hybrid threats and Joint, interorganizational and multinational
organizations.
Today's combat environment requires dynamic leaders and Soldiers.
To ensure all Soldiers are adequately prepared, entry-level Soldier
training focuses on fostering individual resiliency, battlefield
skills, Army values and developing the credentials to succeed in the
Army and excel afterward. The NCO development model is a deliberate,
analytical and data-driven process that constantly evaluates and
adjusts to ensure all leaders have the right tools to lead and mentor
others in today's and tomorrow's dynamic worlds. This model is
collectively known as NCO 2020, which looks at training from the
operational, institutional and self-development domains to ensure a
career of lifelong learning and of harnessing experience and
proficiency at all levels. This includes a revamping of the NCO
education system and a renewed emphasis on individual and collective
task training to help mitigate the effects of a reduction in Combat
Training Center rotations.
Today, the Army is expanding broadening opportunities for its NCOs,
Warrant Officers and Officers with programs like Training with
Industry, Strategic Broadening Seminars and the Congressional
Fellowship Program. Broadening and educational experiences for senior
field grade through general officers is also an area that must not be
overlooked. Developing well-rounded senior leaders who are capable of
effectively communicating the needs and capabilities of the profession
to Civilian leaders within the larger context of national concerns is
critical to the Nation.
It is imperative that our leaders and organizations are capable of
thriving in Joint interorganizational and multinational teams, and that
they seamlessly integrate multi-domain effects from air, sea, space,
cyber or land. This places a premium on innovation--on leveraging
current and emerging concepts and technologies both today and going
forward. Encouraging innovation and empowering all leaders with the
skills required to win in a complex world, manage complex institutional
processes and influence strategic decisionmaking within a broader
operating environment is paramount to the Army's future.
More than 250,000 people working in nearly 500 unique job series--
about 20 percent of the Total Army Force--comprise the Army Civilian
corps. Given the size, complexity, impact and importance of the
Civilian cohort to the Army, we established the Army Civilian Workforce
Transformation (CWT). CWT is the Army's strategic campaign to transform
the Army's Civilian cohort for the future and develop a more adaptable,
capable and technically proficient Army Civilian who is well grounded
as a leader.
Soldier 2020 and Increased Opportunities for Women
In 2012, the Army initiated a deliberate Service-wide effort--
Soldier 2020--to ensure our units are filled with the best qualified
Soldiers. This effort includes opening previously closed positions and
occupational specialties to women, while maintaining our combat
effectiveness. The Soldier 2020 initiative seeks to remove as many
barriers as possible and allow talented people--regardless of gender--
to serve in any position in which they are capable of performing to
standard.
Over the past 27 months, we have opened six previously closed
Military Occupational Specialties and over 55,000 positions across all
Army components to women. This includes opening 1,562 positions in
United States Army Special Operations Command, including the 160th
Special Operations Aviation Regiment. The Army is validating gender-
neutral physical standards and completing a gender integration study,
work that will inform decisions on opening the 14 remaining Military
Occupational Specialties currently closed to women. Once the study is
completed, we will make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on
opening as many as 166,000 positions across the Active and Reserve
Components to our women in uniform. As part of the Soldier 2020
initiative, the Army Ranger School assessment program will begin this
spring to assess female Soldiers and Officers into Army Ranger School.
The Army continues to proceed in an incremental and scientific-based
approach to integrating women into previously closed units, positions
and occupations while preserving unit readiness, cohesion, discipline
and morale. The Army will complete all actions to meet Office of the
Secretary of Defense requirements prior to January 1, 2016.
Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program
From the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army down to our
newest Soldiers, we continue to attack the complex challenges of Sexual
Assault. While we have made progress, much work remains. Sexual assault
is a crime that violates the core values on which the Army functions,
and sexual harassment shatters good order and discipline. Sexual
harassment and sexual assault must be stamped out, and doing so remains
a top priority throughout the Army. Commanders, the Chain of Command,
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice provide the vital tools needed
to prosecute offenders and hold all Soldiers and leaders appropriately
responsible.
Across the Army, we are committed to maintaining momentum in Army
SHARP and making further advances along our five lines of efforts:
Prevention, Investigation, Accountability, Advocacy and Assessment. In
the last year, our efforts along the Prevention Line of Effort resulted
in actions such as consolidating SHARP training under TRADOC and
Initial Entry Training and Professional Military Education to increase
the quality and accessibility of our prevention tools. Our
Investigation Line of Effort showed advances in Special Victim
capabilities and Trial Counsel Assistance Programs. The Accountability
Line of Effort had successes through our Special Victim Investigation
and Prosecution capability and through tools such as Command Climate
Surveys and Commander 360 degree assessments. Our Advocacy Line of
Effort resulted in initial indicators of progress in establishing SHARP
resource centers in over 12 installations. We continue to see interim
progress along our Assessment Line of Effort as noted in the
President's report and we continue to closely monitor the established
metrics to measure compliance.
In sum, we have seen some progress as evident in the recent
statistics outlined in the 2014 ``Department of Defense Report to the
President of the United States on Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response'' that indicate a decrease in unwanted sexual contact in
fiscal year 2014 compared to fiscal year 2012. Within the Army, survey-
estimated rates of unwanted sexual contact for the past year decreased
significantly for active duty women (4.6 percent), compared to fiscal
year 2012 (7.1 percent). In addition, reporting data demonstrates more
victims are coming forward to report sexual harassment and sexual
assault. In fiscal year 2014, sexual assault reporting in the Army
increased by 12 percent over the previous year. We view this as a vote
of confidence and a sign of increased trust in our leaders, in our
response services and in changing Army culture. The decline in
prevalence of unwanted sexual contact, combined with the increase in
reports received, suggests the Army's efforts to prevent sexual assault
and build victim confidence in our response system are making progress.
Nevertheless, we must continue to work on fostering a climate where
individuals are not afraid of retaliation or stigma for reporting a
crime by ensuring individuals, units, organizations and specifically
commanders and leaders understand their responsibilities. Retaliation
takes many forms and originates from many sources--leaders, family,
friends and, most pervasively, peer to peer. Retaliation in its
simplest form is bullying. It is intimidation that deters people from
acting. It enables offenders, threatens survivors, pushes bystanders to
shy from action, and breeds a culture of complacence. Retaliation has
no place in the Army and we must stamp it out.
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Victim Advocates are now credentialed through the DOD
Sexual Assault Advocate Certification Program, and the Army's SHARP
Academy is expanding their knowledge, skills and abilities. Based on
national experts' guidance, the Army's Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examiner's course now surpasses Department of Justice requirements and
establishes a best practice for all DOD to follow.
The chain of command is at the center of any solution to combat
sexual assault and harassment, and we must ensure it remains fully
engaged, involved and vigilant. Toward this end, we enhanced the
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reporting Systems to assess how
officers and NCOs are meeting their commitments--holding them
accountable through mandatory comments on how those leaders are acting
to foster a climate of dignity and respect and their adherence to our
SHARP program. With commanders at the center of our efforts, we will
continue to decrease the prevalence of sexual assault through
prevention and encourage greater reporting of the crime. We expect to
see reporting numbers to continue to rise. As our efforts to enforce
discipline, prosecute offenders and eliminate criminal behavior mature,
we expect the number of sexual assaults occurring within the Army to
eventually decrease. There is no place for sexual harassment or sexual
assault in our Army or our society.
The problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment will only be
solved when every Soldier, Civilian and Family Member stands up and
unequivocally acts to stamp it out. Together, we have an obligation to
do all we can to safeguard America's sons and daughters, as well as
maintain trust between Soldiers, Civilians, Families and the Nation.
Army leaders, at every level of the chain of command, are doing this
through prevention, investigation, accountability, advocacy and
assessments.
maintaining the premier all volunteer army
As we shape the force of the future, we must enhance force
readiness, while taking care of the men and women who serve. This
means, while providing Combatant Commanders with versatile and trained
forces, we also have an obligation to support our Soldiers, Families
and Civilians while they serve in the Army, and as they transition back
to civilian life. Those who make up the Total Army--Soldiers, Families
and Civilians; Regular Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve--
represent its strength. ``Total Army Strong'' expresses our enduring
commitment to Soldiers, Families and Civilians, and to sustain a system
of programs and services to mitigate the unique demands of military
life, foster life skills, strengthen resilience and promote a strong
and ready Army. ``Total Army Strong'' provides commanders flexibility
to prioritize and adjust programs and services, regardless of
geographic location.
We recognize that attracting and retaining highly-qualified
individuals in all three components is critical to readiness. However,
the stronger economy, including lower unemployment, poses challenges to
recruiting and retention in fiscal year 2016. Due to obesity, medical
conditions and other reasons, less than one-third of otherwise-eligible
Americans would even qualify for military service. Though we face
recruiting challenges in fiscal year 2016, we will man our formations
with highly-qualified and diverse Soldiers by continuing and
strengthening those recruitment and retention programs that best
enhance and sustain the All-Volunteer Army.
Ready and Resilient Campaign
We must support and appropriately resource the Army's Ready and
Resilient Campaign. This campaign provides holistic, evidence-based
tools, training and resources to our commands and leaders who care for
our Soldiers, Civilians and Family members so they can strengthen their
resilience and achieve and sustain personal readiness. The Army's Ready
and Resilient capabilities improve the physical, emotional and
psychological resilience of the entire force, attack the foundation of
acts of indiscipline and prevent negative behaviors from escalating to
damaging events such as suicide or sexual assault. We must ensure the
overall readiness and resilience of the Total Army Family through
optimal sleep, activity and nutrition--the Performance Triad. The
Performance Triad strengthens individual and unit readiness through a
comprehensive approach that promotes leadership and behavior change
strategies to improve personal and unit readiness and resilience, as
well as physical, emotional, and cognitive dominance through optimized
sleep, physical activity, and nutrition. The Performance Triad empowers
leaders to coach and mentor health readiness using technology to
actuate behaviors that support lasting cultural change as a mandate of
the Army profession.
Soldier for Life
Soldier for Life is not just a program; it is a change in mindset.
One way we encourage this frame of mind is through senior leader and
installation engagements, as well as changes in training curriculum. We
want Soldiers to understand and believe from the time they come into
the Army and for the rest of their lives, that they deserve our utmost
care and attention throughout the Soldier lifecycle--``Once a Soldier,
always a Soldier . . . a Soldier for Life!'' As Soldiers return to
civilian life, they will continue to influence young people to join the
Army and, along with retired Soldiers, will connect communities across
the Nation with its Army.
As we reduce the Army's end strength, we owe it to our Soldiers and
their Families to facilitate their transition to civilian life. The
Army supports continuum of service initiatives to help in this effort
by communicating the benefits of continued service in the Reserve
Components. Additionally, the ``Soldier for Life'' Program connects
Army, governmental and community efforts to facilitate the successful
reintegration of our Soldiers and Families back into communities across
the Nation through networks in employment, education and health. Our
pre- and post-retirement services ensure those who served become and
remain leaders in their community. For example, we have developed
strong relationships with government, non- government and private
sector entities to include direct collaboration with the Departments of
Veterans Affairs, Labor, and the Chamber of Commerce to bring
employment summits to installations worldwide.
closing
We face a period of critical decisions that will impact the Army's
capability and capacity for the next decade. It is important that we
make the right decisions now. The operational and fiscal environments
are straining the Army as we attempt to balance end strength, readiness
and modernization to meet current demands while building the
foundations of a force that can meet future challenges. The velocity of
instability continues to increase worldwide, whether of ISIL and
terrorism in Iraq, Syria and Yemen; anarchy and extremism in North
Africa; Russian belligerence; provocation by North Korea; or complex
humanitarian assistance requirements and the unpredictable nature of
disaster relief missions. But despite all of this, we continue to
reduce our military capabilities, degrade readiness and erode trust
with the specter of sequestration. We ask the help of Congress to
eliminate sequestration and provide our Soldiers with greater
predictability in these uncertain times. We must not reduce the Army
below 980,000 Soldiers and leave the Army unprepared to meet Defense
Strategic Guidance or respond to some unforeseen event.
Our strategic partnership with Congress is absolutely critical to
the Army's success. Simply put, our Soldiers and Civilians could not do
what they do each day without your support. Our Army needs
Congressional support now more than ever. The decisions we make this
year and next on our fiscal policy, and related end strength, readiness
and modernization will directly impact the security of the United
States and the world for decades to come. Today, we have the most
capable and professional Army in the world. Our Soldiers have gained
invaluable experience and expertise; built relationships among
interagency partners, allies and each other and developed an intimate
understanding of the world we live in. As we reduce the size of our
Army, each Soldier leaving the ranks takes with him or her invaluable
experiences and a deep understanding that has come at great cost and is
impossible to replace in short order.
We look forward to working with Congress to ensure the Army is
capable of fulfilling its many missions, while continuing to be good
stewards of the taxpayers' money. Despite ongoing fiscal uncertainties,
we are pleased to report professionalism and morale within the Army
remains strong. Whether advising and assisting in Afghanistan and Iraq,
supporting allies in Europe and the Republic of Korea, serving in the
homeland or engaging our partners around the world, the indomitable
spirit of our greatest assets, our Soldiers--our Nation's Trusted
Professionals--stands ready: Ready to safeguard our Nation's liberty,
deter aggression and protect our national interests at home and abroad.
With your assistance, we will continue to resource the best-trained,
best-equipped and best-led fighting force in the world: the U.S. Army.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
General Odierno, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO, CHIEF OF STAFF
General Odierno. Thank you, Chairman, and Vice Chairman
Durbin. I also want to send my prayers to the families of our
soldiers and marines that we lost today. I believe that this is
a reminder of the sacrifices and commitment that so many of our
young men and women are providing every single day to our
country, and it's important for us to ensure they are resourced
properly.
Chairman, today the international security environment
continues to be challenged by transnational extremist
organizations, as well as by the aggressive actions of several
nation states. We face the ruthless behavior of ISIL in Iraq
and Syria and persistent threats in Yemen and Libya and other
parts of North and Central Africa. Russian aggression pressures
the resolve of both the European Union and NATO; while in the
Pacific, China and North Korea alarm our allies and concern our
regional interests. We also continue to have ever-evolving
threats to our homeland.
This is not the time to be divesting of our military
capabilities and capacities. But over the last 3 years, we have
done just that, decreasing the Active component end-strength by
80,000, and our National Guard and Reserves by 18,000. We have
deactivated 13 Active-Duty brigade combat teams, and we are in
the process of eliminating three active component combat
aviation brigades. We are reducing the total aviation force by
800 aircraft, with almost 700 coming out of the Active
component. We have slashed our investments in modernization by
25 percent. We have purged our most needed infantry fighting
vehicle modernization and Scout helicopter developmental
programs.
The unrelenting budget impasse has also compelled us to
degrade readiness to historically low levels. Today, only 33
percent of our brigades are ready, when our sustained readiness
rates should be closer to 70 percent.
The compromises we have made to modernization and
readiness, combined with reductions to our force size and
capabilities, translates into strategic risk. We are unable to
generate residual readiness to respond to unknown contingencies
or to reinforce ongoing operations. We have fewer soldiers, the
majority of whom are in units who are not ready, and they are
manning aging equipment at a time when demand for Army forces
is much higher than anticipated.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget submission
recognizes these challenges. But even the President's budget
represents the bare minimum needed for us to carry out our
missions and execute and meet the requirements of our defense
strategy.
In order for this budget to work, all of our proposed
reforms in pay and compensation must be approved. All of our
force structure reforms must be supported to include the
aviation restructuring initiative. And we must be allowed to
eliminate a half billion per year of excess infrastructure
capacity that is currently in the Army.
We can undertake the proposed reforms or we can accept
increased risk. If these reforms and force structure reductions
are not approved, this equates to a potential $12 billion
shortfall in our budget, comprised of $6 billion in reforms and
$6 billion in costs that are masked in OCO (overseas
contingency operations) funding that must ultimately transfer
into our base budget.
If BCA (Budget Control Act) caps come back, I want to
emphasize again that it would render us unable to meet the
defense strategy. Sequestration would compel us to reduce even
further the Army end strength, forcing out another 70,000 over
the next 5 years from the Active component, 35,000 from the
National Guard, and 10,000 from the Army Reserves. We would cut
out 10 to 12 additional combat brigades. Modernization would
come to a standstill, training would go unfunded, and readiness
rates, both unit and individual, would fall to very low levels.
Anything below the President's budget compromises our
strategic flexibility. It inadequately funds our readiness. It
further degrades an already underfunded modernization program.
It impacts our ability to conduct simultaneous operations and
shape regional security environments. It puts into question our
capacity to deter and compel multiple adversaries.
But even as the Army confronts a fragile budget and looming
BCA caps, we do continue to seek efficiencies while adapting to
an unstable world. We have taken advantage of a war-time reset
program to reduce depot maintenance by $3.2 billion. We are
reducing our reliance on contract logistic support, which will
result in nearly $2 billion in cost savings. We have identified
and are avoiding costs in excess of $12 billion through our
aviation restructuring initiative. We have eliminated 12,000
positions by reducing all two-star and above headquarters by 25
percent. We have reorganized our brigade combat teams,
eliminating overhead and maximizing our combat capacity. And we
continue to achieve individual and collective training
efficiency as we move forward.
Our sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention remains
our top priority. While recent reports are clear that we have
made some initial progress on sexual harassment and assault
prevention, we still have much work to do. Our men and women
deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and should
expect a work environment that is free of harassment, assault,
and retribution. A culture of inclusion and of mutual and
shared trust is essential.
Chairman, I continue to be inspired by the unparalleled
experience and professionalism of the men and women of the
United States Army. They demonstrate unwavering dedication and
commitment to the mission, to the Army, and to our Nation. We
have units engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kosovo, and
across the African continent. We have rotational forces in
Europe, Kuwait, and throughout the Pacific to include Korea. We
owe it to them to ensure they have the right equipment, the
best training, and the appropriate family programs, healthcare,
and compensation packages commensurate with their sacrifices.
The decisions we make today and in the near future will
impact our soldiers, our Army, and our Nation for the next 10
years. The burden of miscalculation and under-investment will
directly fall on the shoulders of our men and women who we will
ask to defend this nation. We simply cannot allow this to
happen.
I look forward to working with you to solve these difficult
problems, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very
much, Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, General. We appreciate your
comments.
I'm going to yield to other Senators in order of their
position on the committee and attendance to the hearing.
With that, I'm going to yield to the distinguished Senator
from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
I have two questions. I'll pose both of them. Each of you
can decide who will answer.
The first question is this: Sequestration is an awful
alternative, and it is not only harmful when it comes to our
national defense, it has equally onerous impact on our non-
defense spending as well. So I hope we don't lapse or fall into
this mindless strategy of following sequestration. I'm glad the
President's budget did not, and we should not. I hope we have
the leadership to overcome it.
Speaking of saving money, I've asked questions for many
years around here, the Sampson Bowles Commission and other
places, of the Department of Defense. Tell me about the
contractors that are working for you. How many people are
working as contractors, and what do they cost, and how many of
them are being reevaluated or reduced?
It turns out most of the professional estimates say that a
contractor employee costs almost three times as much as a
civilian employee for the Department of Defense. The reports
from the GAO (Government Accountability Office) suggest that
the data coming out of the Department of Defense in general--
and I'm not specifying the Army, Mr. Secretary, but in
general--are not very specific in terms of keeping an eye on
the costs there and reducing those costs where necessary.
So I'd like you to address what you're doing when it comes
to contractors.
The second area is more specific, and it's a result of my
sitting on a lot of airplanes reading a lot of magazines, and
in this case reading Atlantic magazine and an article written
by Robert Scales. It was entitled, ``Gun Trouble,'' and I'll
summarize it with this heading.
He says, ``The rifle that today's infantry uses is little
changed since the 1960s and it's badly flawed. Military lives
depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic, so why
can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better
ones?''
So I'd like to ask you to address both of those questions,
please.
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYMENT COSTS
Secretary McHugh. Well, if I may, Senator, I'll start on
the contractor issue, and the data points that you referenced I
think we all generally agree with as to a unit-for-unit cost,
and we're doing everything we can to respond to that reality
and to save money by reducing contractor reliance.
I would tell you, frankly, and I can't speak for the other
services, the Army finds contractors in the right time and
place is absolutely essential. What they do bring to the table
is a necessary expertise, hopefully within not a prolonged
state of time, the ability to bring them on and off-board them
much more efficiently than we can a full-time civilian
equivalent within the Army. So we will be using them.
But to your larger question, we measure contractors and
full-time equivalents, FTEs, and over the last several years
we've reduced and in-sourced contractor positions by more than
10,000. So that's a straight reduction of our contracting
utilization, in no small measure because we're coming down in
Afghanistan in numbers, but that's come down by nearly 13
percent. There's about 5,000 Army contractors left in
Afghanistan at this moment.
So as part of our restructure initiative--and the Chief
mentioned what we're doing at headquarters and up levels,
taking 25 percent of the administrative staff--is trying to
ensure that where we do use contractors, it's justifiable both
in terms of the mission and in terms of dollars. Certainly, the
Chief could add some more comments if he chooses to on
contractor logistic support. As he mentioned, we're saving
significant money there as well.
General Odierno. Chairman, two comments. We're absolutely
aware of this issue of contractors, and what's important is
over the last 10 or 12 years we became more reliant on
contractors as we were burdened by two wars at the same time.
So we're very conscious of the problem.
There are two things that I would suggest we are doing
specifically. One is contractor logistic support. We took much
of the work out of the hands of our soldiers and put it in the
hands of contractors in order to meet the increased demand. We
are in the process of significantly reducing that.
We have saved $2 billion already in contractor costs by
training our soldiers and giving them back the expertise that
is necessary to sustain our equipment, and I expect that will
double in the next several years as we continue to transition
these responsibilities back to our soldiers, who I want to be
experts in sustaining our equipment. Some of that had to do
with the purchase of new systems as we were still at war.
The second part is at our installations. We have over-
relied on contractors to do tasks at our installations that I
believe can be done in many different ways to include using
soldiers, because I think in some cases our soldiers--it's part
of their training in order to be used in some areas. For
example, guarding our installations. For us, they do that while
they're deployed. It's an important task. It's a leadership
task.
So we can reduce contractor costs by using our soldiers to
do some of these tasks which we think are military related. So
we are in the process of reviewing all of that.
We still have to take a look at where we have some
contractors that are doing some things that I believe should be
done either by Department of the Army civilians or by uniformed
military, and we are continuing to look at that. So we
understand and are working very hard to continue to work those
efficiencies.
On our rifle, I would disagree with the comment that we do
not have a good weapon system. We have made approximately--I
think it's 96 modifications to our rifle over the last 10 or 12
years. We have done that by lightening the system, by giving it
better sights, by giving it better ammunition, by continuing to
make ease of use more reliable, and I'm very confident in the
system that we have now, and I believe it still is performing
extremely well, whether it be in Afghanistan, whether it was in
Iraq or anywhere where we use it around the world.
Senator Durbin. If you have not seen this article in the
Atlantic, I wish you'd take a look at it and comment
separately.
General Odierno. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA
General Odierno, on November 7, 2014, President Obama
authorized a further 1,500 troops, in addition to the 3,100
American troops already deployed to Iraq. That's my
understanding. It's also my understanding that these troops
have not been called up for deployment yet.
Given President Obama's recent request to Congress for an
authorization for the use of military force, what role do you
see, General, American ground forces playing in the battle
against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)?
General Odierno. Senator, if you don't mind, first we do
actually have 3,100 or about 3,000 in Iraq now. About 2,400 of
those are U.S. Army soldiers, and they are there now.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
General Odierno. Their role in Iraq right now is to train
and advise Iraqi security forces, provide them the expertise
and necessary competence in order to take the fight to ISIS. We
are doing that on several fronts in Baghdad, up in Irbil with
the Peshmerga, and out west in Al Asad Airbase.
Senator Shelby. What can you tell us as to the progress
that you feel has been made, if there is progress, on training
a lot of these troops who we saw cut and run on the battlefield
just a few months ago?
General Odierno. What I would say, Senator, is that my
opinion is that the reason we saw them cut and run a year ago
or 10 months ago has more to do with leadership than it has to
do with training. I believe that the leaders that had been
replaced were ineffective and inefficient, and I think that
drove the young men and women to decide not to fight.
I also think a lack of confidence in their own government
caused that. So an important part of the strategy is rebuilding
the confidence in the government, and also us rebuilding the
confidence of their soldiers in order to fight as we move
forward.
Senator Shelby. Will that be tested soon on the battlefield
there?
General Odierno. It has begun to be tested. We've seen some
success as we operated out west, and we'll continue to see it
tested on the battlefield.
CYBERSECURITY
Senator Shelby. General, I want to shift to another area,
cybersecurity, which we have talked about before. Secretary
Carter's testimony during his confirmation hearing last month,
he affirmed that a cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor is a threat
that we face for which as a nation we're basically unprepared.
I find that possibility to be disconcerting and worrisome. I'm
sure you do as well.
I think we all agree that it's essential that we protect
our nation against cybersecurity attacks. I understand that the
President's budget request increases cybersecurity, or would
increase the funding to $5.5 billion.
Could you discuss just for a few minutes here the greatest
cybersecurity threat to the U.S. stems from where, and what can
we do about it, to combat this?
General Odierno. I believe that we're seeing the
development, not only in certain nation states--Russia, China,
Iran--but also in non-nation states, the ability to potentially
conduct attacks on the United States, and I think it's
important for us to understand that, in some ways, that's a
very inexpensive way to try to disrupt the United States. I
think it's something that we have to be very, very aware of,
and it could be done on several fronts, whether it's attacking
our governmental structure, our military structure, or it could
be attacking our civilian infrastructure.
For me, I think it's something that is very, very
important, and we are investing in that quite heavily right
now.
Senator Shelby. It's essential for our future security, is
it not?
General Odierno. It is. It's absolutely a central part of
our national security.
SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Shelby. General, I want to get into, with the few
minutes I have here, the space and missile defense. I was
pleased to see this year that the President's budget request--
and we know it's just a request--$8.1 billion for the Missile
Defense Agency, which is an 8-percent increase over last year's
budget request.
Could you discuss just for a minute or two the importance
of adequately funding missile defense and how important it is
for national security?
General Odierno. We're seeing a growing proliferation of
ballistic missile capability, whether it be the testing we see
in North Korea, whether we see the fact that the Russians seem
to be reinvesting in their nuclear program as well. I think
it's important for us to have the ability to protect our nation
from these threats. It's important that we not only ensure that
we have high readiness to all our ballistic missile forces but
that we continue to look at more efficient and effective ways
for us to protect our Nation and our forces that are forward
deployed.
I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the ballistic
missile threat that is faced by our soldiers that are operating
in the Middle East as well. So we have a large portion of the
Army ballistic missile force deployed around the world not only
to protect our homeland but also to protect our soldiers and
citizens that are operating, as well as our allies, around the
world.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
HELICOPTER MAINTENANCE
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I think
all Americans--I just read more breaking news on the helicopter
crash and the recovery of bodies. I can only imagine how awful
both of you gentlemen must feel, and your colleagues, because
you got the news first. Again, our thoughts and prayers go to
the families of soldiers and Marines who were involved.
I would hope and maybe just ask a general question. We
always see news when a helicopter goes down. It's one thing if
it goes down in a combat area, if it was shot down. This went
down in training. Is this something that is constantly reviewed
by the Department of Defense, both the training and the
readiness and maintenance of these helicopters?
General Odierno. Senator, absolutely. We review this
constantly. We have monthly reviews of readiness. We also have
a safety organization specifically responsible for
understanding safety throughout the Army, but it spends a lot
of its time specifically on aviation safety for the Army, and
rotary wing safety. So we spend a lot of time and effort on
this, making sure that we look at it thoroughly across the
total force and that we pass lessons learned as we see mishaps
occur throughout the force.
Senator Leahy. We all know the training is necessary, and
the training is often going to be under less-than-ideal weather
conditions because you're training for combat and you don't
know what the weather conditions are going to be, and we
understand that. I have great confidence in both of you in
maintaining the readiness and the review. Once the review has
been done, I'd be pleased to have your staff let me know just
what happened.
READINESS
I'm probably going to be parochial a bit. The Vermont
National Guard's 86th Infantry Brigade combat team was the only
National Guard brigade to attend the joint readiness training
center last year. They've spent this year ready to deploy if
called upon. It was the first brigade to go through this force
generation cycle without then deploying to Iraq or to
Afghanistan.
Are there additional resources and experiences that can
help keep readiness level up in Guard brigades in their 1 year
when they're not deploying?
General Odierno. So we have actually, over the last several
years, our percentage of the budget that we're spending on the
Guard has gone up, and it's because we understand that we have
a challenge in sustaining the readiness levels. So what we're
trying to do is we have a cycle, a sustainable readiness cycle
that we're in the process of developing that will help us to
sustain a higher level, or at least try to sustain an
appropriate level of readiness in the Guard. But there are
challenges. I would not be honest with you if I didn't tell you
there are challenges with that because of the budget that we
have, because we relied a lot on our OCO budget to sustain a
higher level of readiness in our Guard.
So what we're trying to do is take portions of the Guard
and invest in them, and then we adjust it year to year. So, for
example, as you mentioned, this year we gave more money to the
Vermont National Guard, the 86th, to prepare for their
rotation, and then go to the rotation. Now they are available
if we need them. So if we have something that comes up, we will
now use them over the next year or two, and we then provide
them funds to try to sustain that after they come out of the
rotation.
Senator Leahy. And you were very forthright and candid
about these problems, and I agreed with you on the problems on
the budget when you and I met privately. I just would like to
make sure that, whether it's the Vermont Guard or any other
Guard, once they've gone through that training to get that
degree of readiness, that we'd be able to utilize it in other
things. None of us are saying let's go to war somewhere so we
can utilize it, but that they'd be utilized in areas where they
could be helpful to you and the Army.
I don't think Americans have an interest in becoming
involved in another long war like Iraq or Afghanistan or
Vietnam, but if assumptions about the duration of future
conflict are again wrong, what additional risk would a total
Army of 980,000 soldiers incur, and what strain would they have
with a Reserve of just about half million soldiers?
General Odierno. If I could just comment, Senator. At the
height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had over 200,000
National Guard and Reservists on full-time active duty. So
although the Active Duty was 500,000, we actually had almost
775,000 actually full-time Active Duty in order to meet the
requirements.
So the assumptions that we've made are that our wars will
be short duration and we will not conduct Phase 4 operations,
which is a follow-up to any wartime, and I believe the risk is
there. If the assumption is about 6 months to a year, frankly,
if we get into a conflict, they last longer than that. So that
will put a significant strain on our military, a significant
strain on our Reserve and National Guard forces, because they
provide the depth in order for us to sustain this over a long
period of time, and I believe that we will be challenged to
meet that at a 980,000 end strength if those assumptions are
wrong.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Leahy. I have questions that I'll submit to the
record for the Secretary on Apache helicopters. I would like an
answer on that.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, the request is granted.
The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for joining us.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your comments with regard to
sequestration, the Budget Control Act. I didn't vote for the
Budget Control Act for a number of reasons. The two primarily
of importance today is a belief that across-the-board cuts
don't establish priorities. It suggests that every program has
equal value and that therefore they all should be treated the
same, and in my view we should spend more money on some things,
spend less money on some things, perhaps spend no money on
others, and to defer to an across-the-board cut in my view
demonstrates an irresponsibility on our part.
Secondly, I think the primary function and responsibility
of the Federal Government is to defend our Nation, and defense
cuts, while it was described as half the cuts coming from
defense and half the cuts coming from domestic spending, the
outcome is something significantly different from that, and I
continue to pledge my efforts to work with my colleagues, many
of them in this room today, as we try to find a solution.
You indicate that words are no longer sufficient, so I'm
sorry that mine are just words at the moment, but I can tell
you, Mr. Secretary, that many of us are actively pursuing a
legislative fix to the issue of sequestration and the Budget
Control Act, and I hope that we are successful for the sake of
the defense of our Nation. I'm sorry that you have the
difficult responsibilities the two of you have should we fail
in that regard, but we want to give you the flexibility to make
decisions that are based upon the best interests of defending
our country. So, thank you in that regard for your service, and
we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Secretary, I've asked for an appointment to see you. I
hope that at some point in time we can accomplish that. I'm a
new member of this subcommittee and I'd like to utilize your
expertise to find out how I can do my job well based upon your
experiences in the House and now as the Secretary.
Secretary McHugh. I absolutely commit to that meeting. I
wasn't aware of that, but I look forward to it at your
convenience. Thank you for your vote, some of that old House of
Representatives wisdom no doubt.
FORT RILEY
Senator Moran. When I was in the House, I despised the
Senate. When I'm in the Senate, we despise the House. We ought
to find the best of both bodies.
Secretary McHugh. And some despise--no, I won't say that.
Senator Moran. I'm not sure I need your advice, Mr.
Secretary.
You wouldn't be surprised for me to highlight a topic at
Fort Riley, Kansas in our conversation this morning. Fort Riley
is the home of the Army's 1st Infantry Division, known as the
Big Red One, centered between Junction City and Manhattan,
Kansas. We had a recent visit by a brigadier general, General
Cloutier, part of the listening tour across the country. I
thought that the General was very observant and very
appropriate in the way he conducted himself in listening to
Kansans, as well as viewing the great attributes that Fort
Riley offers the Army and the country.
A couple of things that were said that day that I want to
highlight to you, that Fort Riley is often overlooked at the
Pentagon. Not everyone has served there, and it has great
qualities that sometimes are not known by those here in
Washington, DC.
One of the things that happened just yesterday that I
wanted to highlight for you, Kansas became the first State ever
to receive Statewide certification of authorization by the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) for Statewide use of drones
or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and highlight to you that
there are 100,000 acres of Fort Riley but 35,000 acres of Guard
property, both land and air, now available to the Army, in part
for purposes of unmanned aerial vehicle training, again
something that is brand new to the ability to train and utilize
that new mechanism by which we can hopefully win many wars
without significant loss of life.
I was at Fort Riley on Saturday, saw the new Irwin Army
Hospital. One of the things that was said at the listening post
was how much infrastructure investment has occurred at Fort
Riley, $1.8 billion, including a new hospital to open this year
of nearly $350 million.
FUTURE AND STRENGTH REDUCTION
Here's the question I want to highlight for you and get
your thoughts on today, you or General Odierno. How will the
future end strength reduction affect the Army's force structure
and the total number of brigade combat teams?
Secretary McHugh. If I can start off, I would just note,
Senator, I can't speak for the Pentagon but Fort Riley is
certainly well known and deeply appreciated in the Army portion
of that building, and it is, as it has been, one of our most
important facilities.
That really brings us back to the challenge that we're
facing, the cuts that we're highlighting here and in our other
hearings. They're not something we chose to do, but it's really
an inescapable outcome of the budget realities that we're
facing.
As to your specific question, we had a height in BCT and
the active component of about 45 to 47. We're down to 32, with
a 450K force, and the Active component will be down to 30. And
as I mentioned in my opening statement, should sequestration
return in 2016, although it's a back-of-the-envelope
calculation, we'd be looking at another six BCTs, four of which
are likely to be Active.
So just the major fighting components that we have, our
BCTs, are greatly diminished from recent numbers, and obviously
it places significant limits on our capacity to go out and do
other things.
I'm going to put in what I know will be a very unpopular
comment here. Another part of the challenge and one of the
reasons, again as I mentioned in my opening comments, that
we're looking at having to make reductions across the entire
structure of the United States Army, every post, camp and
station should sequestration return, is that we don't have BRAC
(base realignment and closure) authority.
I went through three BRACs when I was a member of the
House, and I know how hard they are, and I lost a base, and it
was one of the more painful things I've had to deal with in
many, many years. But absent the authority to truly take out
excess infrastructure, we have to again distribute the cuts and
distribute where we're taking forces across the broader range.
So it ends up that it actually helps more bases to actually
authorize a BRAC than hurt it.
Right now, we're paying about $500 million a year, roughly,
just to maintain empty infrastructure, unused infrastructure.
That's a $\1/2\ billion that we'd like to put into training and
into readiness, into family programs, into any number of good
areas. That's one of the reasons, at about 20 percent excess
capacity in the Army, just a rough estimate, we think a BRAC
would help us to alleviate a significant part of the cuts that
we're all looking at and that, understandably, the folks at
Fort Riley and just about every other post, camp and station
are understandably concerned about.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz.
U.S. ARMY PACIFIC
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Durbin.
Thank you, Secretary McHugh and General Odierno. I
appreciate you being here today.
I share the concerns of every member of this committee, and
certainly the two of you, about the effects of sequester on the
Army. These arbitrary spending limits will force you to make
hard choices, almost impossible choices, about how to invest in
the Army's future, assuming risks that would have consequences
for our soldiers, their families, and the national security
interests.
That's why Vice Chairman Durbin and I introduced the
Sequestration Relief Act, and I know there are other members
working on other legislative solutions. But our bill provides
breathing room for both defense and non-defense budgets this
year, and I hope my colleagues will embrace common-sense
alternatives. We've got to repeal sequester.
General Odierno, I'd like to discuss with you the SPEA
(Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment) and the
potential consequences for soldiers and civilians at Schofield
Barracks and at Fort Shafter in Hawaii. The USARPAC (U.S. Army
Pacific) is doing such incredible work in Hawaii and throughout
the Asia Pacific region, General Brooks and his excellent
leadership throughout the region, but also specifically in
PACOM (U.S. Pacific Command) and on the island of Oahu. He's
been doing excellent work in positioning Hawaii as we pivot and
rebalance to the Asia Pacific region.
So my first question for you, General, is do you believe it
is the right strategic choice to cut soldiers from Hawaii given
our priority on the Asia Pacific rebalance?
General Odierno. Thank you, Senator. As you might know, I
was just there. I visited recently. So for us it's important
because of distance and having them available there in Hawaii,
that they are prepared to conduct operations in the Pacific. So
they're very valuable for us, both U.S. Army Pacific--we've
actually invested a new four-star position there, as you
mentioned, and our forward-deployed combat teams, as well as
our sustainment and other capabilities there are critical to
the region.
So for us, they are an important part of the strategy. It
is a place that we deem to be incredibly important. But as the
Secretary said, unfortunately, no matter how important we deem
it, these cuts based on sequestration will touch everywhere,
even though they are forces that are so important to our
national security.
But as I've said publicly, the forces that are in Hawaii
are very important to our strategy as we rebalance.
PACIFIC PATHWAYS INITIATIVE
Senator Schatz. Thank you, General.
I want to talk a little bit about the Pacific Pathways
initiative, which is designed to develop relationships and
elevate the Army's commitment to the region. I'm glad to see
these efforts are backed up with the Army assigning more
soldiers to PACOM. But obviously, cutting soldiers from
Schofield and Shafter would walk that back.
Could you talk a little bit about the Pacific Pathways
initiative, what you've been able to accomplish, and how
sequester would threaten that progress?
General Odierno. So the important part for us is that many
people don't realize that eight out of the ten largest land
armies in the world are in the Pacific. The majority of the
influential services in each one of them are actually Army
forces. So what Pacific Pathways has allowed us to do is engage
in a much more systematic and capable way with our force.
For example, we did an exercise this year where we had
units deployed to Indonesia, Malaysia, and Japan to do joint
training with those forces. That enables us to build
partnerships, to build relationships, and to gain access to
very important parts of the Pacific region as we look to
execute our national security and regional security issues.
It's starting to open doors for us in places like Vietnam, and
other places as well. So for us, it's essential to our strategy
of the future.
If sequestration occurs, it's going to do two things.
First, it will make it more difficult for us to fund exercises
and training exercises like Pacific Pathways, and it could
reduce the volume of capability that we have in order to
conduct exercises and reach out to these very important
countries as we try to develop mutual understanding and
security relationships across the Pacific.
ASIA PACIFIC REBALANCE
Senator Schatz. And just a final question. I have just
about 40 seconds left. Could you talk about the signals that
might be sent under the sequester in terms of whether or not
both our friends and our allies believe that we're really
committed to the Asia Pacific rebalance in the case that we
have to pare back our presence in the Pacific?
General Odierno. I think our ability to deter and compel
are very important aspects of what we do. I think Admiral
Locklear is very succinct when he talks about this. Our job in
the military is to prevent war, and our job is to shape the
environment that makes it a better place for our country. And I
believe the potential, if we have to reduce our capacity and
capabilities there, affects that, our ability to shape a very
important region for us, which is the Pacific region.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
I wouldn't want to be the only person on the panel that
didn't mention bases in our State. I know you both visited Fort
Leonard Wood within the last year or so, and I would suggest
again that's one of the locations we have, and there are a few
others, but there's no energy problem, there's no water
availability problem, there's no environmental problem, there's
no encroachment problem.
We did have a hearing, as Senator Moran mentioned, that
they had of the SPEA (Supplemental Programmatic Environmental
Assessment) group. The Governor was there. I was there. Senator
McCaskill, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, was
there. Congresswoman Hartzler, who serves on Armed Services in
the House, was there. In addition, there were 2,000 people at
Nutter Field House, and they had an overflow facility that they
put people in who could listen to that hearing. You have both
been there. You know the incredible community support for that
facility. I'm not sure there's a turnout that compares to that.
I was told by the person who conducted that session that
there had been 11,000 emails regarding these various sessions,
and over 4,000 of them came from the Fort Leonard Wood
community, and having been there, you wouldn't be surprised by
that.
General, there's one question I do have that relates
specifically to the Fort. I don't think we've told you that
question was coming, so you may want to take it for the record.
But the Surgeon General last year, when I was serving on the
Armed Services Committee, said that the number-one medical
priority for the military was on MILCON (Military
Construction), was the hospital at Fort Leonard Wood. It then
went off the FYDP (Future Years Defense Program) for 2015. It's
not on the FYDP for 2016. It serves that facility. It also
serves quite a bit of the community.
The last upgrade there was about 40 years ago. At least a
year ago, the Surgeon General for the Army was still saying
this was the number-one priority for medical facilities. Do you
want to respond to that?
General Odierno. I would just say it remains very high on
our priority list. The bottom line is our MILCON (Military
Construction) budget. Because of the reduced dollars, we had to
take risks. So that is one of the areas we have taken risk.
It is still a priority for us to get an upgraded medical
facility at Fort Leonard Wood. The problem is we simply don't
have the dollars to do that right now, and we understand the
fact that it is in great need. So as the Surgeon General has
stated, it's clearly her top priority. So as we go forward, we
had to choose where we took risk, and that was one of the
places we decided to take risk. Frankly, it's one of those very
difficult decisions we have to make.
Secretary McHugh. It was precisely that, as the Chief said,
Senator. It's a MILCON, a MEDCOM (U.S. Army Medical Command)/
MILCON cut that caused us to have to realign not just that
facility but a number of others. It's not a place where we
particularly enjoy taking risk, for obvious reasons. But if you
talk to some of your colleagues, we have other hospital
projects that have been similarly delayed that we want to get
to as soon as we can. But as I know you understand, it's a
product of money available.
Senator Blunt. While we're talking about medical, I will
say something. I know both of you were supportive of, and I've
been really active in that same hearing. I asked the Surgeon
General of the Army, based on the NIH (National Institutes of
Health) view that one out of four adult Americans has a mental
health issue, diagnosable and almost always treatable, would
that be different in the military? And her answer was no.
She said we recruit from the general population. We don't
have any reason to believe that that same impact is not in the
military, and whatever we can do to continue to move, as we are
moving, mental health into the area of all other physical
health so it's treated the same way, expensed the same way,
available to dependents and retirees the same way, and I know
you're both supportive of that.
Secretary McHugh. We are dedicating significant resources,
particularly in hiring behavioral health specialists. When I
first came to this job nearly 6 years ago, our stated
requirement for those professionals was about 2,300. It's now
over 5,500. We're about 85 percent of that filled.
The reason for that growth is that we have begun to
recognize, as we should, that the need for these kinds of
providers is absolutely essential. So we've embedded behavioral
health specialists at the brigade level. We've tried to get the
care delivery system further disposed out through our ranks,
and I would say as well another part of it is the de-
stigmatizing, the reaching out for help. There is a certain
attitude in the military that you just pull yourself up by the
bootstraps, number one. And number two, if you do get help,
somehow that will hurt your career.
We have worked hard to make it easier for soldiers to reach
out for mental healthcare, and if you look at the number of
help-seeking activities that have occurred, they have grown
astronomically, as they should. That's what we want. I think
we're getting there, but it's been a long fight, and it will be
a long fight yet to go given, as the Surgeon General and you
noted in your data, the very widespread nature of these
challenges.
Senator Cochran. The Chair has to advise the Senator that
his time has expired.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Washington, Ms. Murray.
ASIA PACIFIC REBALANCE
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, it's good to see you. Thank you for
being here.
General Odierno, during the brigade combat team realignment
a few years ago, the Army cut units from bases across the
country. And if the Army is forced into further reductions, I
want to be sure that it will be a well-balanced, strategy-based
approach. The units and bases in my home State of Washington
are really critical to our national security strategy,
including the rebalance to Asia and the threat of instability
on the Korean Peninsula.
We need more investments in Washington State, certainly not
more cuts, and I just wanted to say I really hope that you will
really protect those critical assets.
General Odierno. Ma'am, Senator, as we move forward, we'll
take into consideration not only strategy. We'll take and
consider the mix of heavy, Stryker, light. We've got to make
sure we sustain the right mix of capabilities, and that's part
of the assessment that we'll do. It will be based on strategy
and need, and that will be the underlying, the most important
factor as we look at where we need to go.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Murray. Okay. And I also wanted to thank you for
your focus on helping soldiers transition successfully when
they leave the Army. And I especially want to thank you for
standing up the Soldier for Life Office and all the focus
you've brought to improving the transition programming.
If the Army is forced to make serious cuts to force
structure under sequestration, I wanted to ask you how will the
Army make sure those critical transition programs have the
resources to support the number of soldiers that will be
separated?
General Odierno. There's two things that we've learned.
First, we are absolutely dedicated to this because, as you
mentioned, the Soldier for Life program, we want those who
leave to understand that they gained from being in the Army,
and that helps us in the long run.
Secondly, it's a combination of our resources and using the
private sector resources that are out there. What we have found
is there are so many organizations that want to work with us.
We've had some great programs, as you know, out of Fort Lewis
that have helped us to do this. So we want to invest in where
we use our resources to help us find the private resources that
can help us to transition. You have my word that we will
continue to dedicate ourselves to that as we transition.
JOINT BASE LEWIS-MC CHORD
Senator Murray. Okay. I think that everybody wants to
participate in that, and we want to make sure that that's
ongoing.
And finally, I know you absolutely share my view that
soldiers deploying in harm's way should have what they need to
get their jobs done safely and effectively. My office has been
working with the Army for the last several months to speed the
consideration of an operational needs statement for a unit from
Joint Base Lewis-McChord. I understand the need to carefully
consider these requests, but this unit is already deployed, and
we're told this process is still going to take a few more
months, and I'm concerned about how long this is taking.
I really believe, General, that this issue needs your
personal attention. Can you give me your commitment on that?
General Odierno. It's been approved.
Senator Murray. It's been approved. When will they be
notified?
General Odierno. They should have been notified already, in
the last couple of days.
Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate it.
General Odierno. This process we've been working through,
it's a process that took a little bit too long.
Senator Murray. Yes.
General Odierno. But it has been approved.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from South Carolina.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both.
We have Army bases, Fort Jackson in South Carolina, and
we're very proud of what Fort Jackson does for the Army. So
rather than asking you about Fort Jackson, I think, Mr.
Secretary, you expressed very well that if the Army continues
to have to implement sequestration numbers, the Army is going
to be much smaller, and if you don't have a BRAC, we're really
putting the Army in a bad spot.
Secretary McHugh. Certainly a much more difficult spot.
Senator Graham. So at the end of the day, as much as we all
love our bases, we're going to have to address this problem.
And if we want to insist upon sequestration, then we'd better
be willing to go back home and tell people you can't get there
from here, and everybody that's open today is not going to
survive. Does that make sense?
Secretary McHugh. It does.
Senator Graham. Okay.
General Odierno, how many years have you been deployed
since 9/11?
General Odierno. Approximately 6 years, sir.
Senator Graham. Your son lost his arm. Is that correct?
General Odierno. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. You're a pretty typical military family in
that regard, aren't you?
General Odierno. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. You're a four-star general, but there are
other people under your command who have been deployed for 6
years or longer. Is that correct?
General Odierno. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. And they've lost friends and been injured
themselves. Would you say this has been a long war?
General Odierno. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Do you think the war is remotely over?
General Odierno. No, sir.
Senator Graham. If we are smart, once we clear ISIL out of
Iraq, if we can ever do that and not give the place to Iran,
would you recommend a residual force to maintain the gains
we've----
General Odierno. I think one of the things that we have not
done a very good job with is consolidating our gains, and I
think it's important that we come up with a way to do that.
Senator Graham. Well, General, this is an important moment
because we've got to figure out what kind of military needs
we're going to have. So, from a commander's point of view, it
would be very wise to leave a residual force behind this time
so the same thing doesn't happen again.
General Odierno. I would say we should take it under real
consideration. I think it does make a difference.
Senator Graham. Do you agree that if you don't leave any
American forces behind, it's likely to happen again?
General Odierno. I think what it does, it keeps us engaged
and reduces the possibility of it happening.
Senator Graham. Yes, and that makes us safer.
General Odierno. It does, absolutely.
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT
Senator Graham. We're at risk by ISIL, right? ISIL is just
not a regional problem. It's a threat to the homeland?
General Odierno. It is growing. It is growing across the
region. I think over time, it's going to become a threat
regionally and internationally.
Senator Graham. Gotcha. Would you recommend that we look at
our force structure in Afghanistan based on conditions, not
just an arbitrary date?
General Odierno. I always believe we should do a
conditions-based strategy.
Senator Graham. If we can find a force to go in and destroy
ISIL in Syria, if we can ever find one, would we be smart to
make sure Syria doesn't go bad again?
General Odierno. That would be in our best interest,
Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. Would you agree with me, when you
look down the road, the Army is going to be fighting terrorism
over there for a long time to come, if we're smart?
General Odierno. I think we'll be fighting terrorism, and I
also think there will be some other regional instability that
we're going to have to deal with.
Senator Graham. Okay. So is this a generational struggle?
General Odierno. I think it's--yes, I do. I absolutely
agree with that.
Senator Graham. So from a planning point of view, the
likelihood of us being deployed forward to deal with what is a
growing threat is high.
General Odierno. Yes.
Senator Graham. And there are other problems just beyond
terrorist organizations. Is that correct?
General Odierno. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Graham. We want to have a deterrent effect against
rogue nations.
General Odierno. That's correct.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. If that's the case, then why would we even
consider going down the sequestration road? Can you give me a
good reason why we would do that?
General Odierno. No, I cannot. In fact, if I could just
make a quick comment on what you just said, one of the things
that we're really having a problem with, as you bring combatant
commanders in to testify, they're going to tell you that they
need more forward station capability.
Senator Graham. Which protects us.
General Odierno. Which protects us. And the problem we have
is as we reduce our force structure, it makes it more and more
difficult for us to provide forward stationed forces, which
puts us more at risk. That's one of the problems we're having.
Senator Graham. Obviously, it makes it more difficult to
modernize.
General Odierno. Right.
Senator Graham. Are you looking for a fair fight in the
future with the enemy?
General Odierno. No, sir.
Senator Graham. I'm looking for an overwhelming, decisive
advantage over the enemy, and that will be lost if we don't
modernize our forces, because wars change.
In terms of morale, how is morale given the uncertain
nature of the budget?
General Odierno. So, for the Army, I would say as I go
around and I see our soldiers and they're preparing, they
inspire me. They continue to do what they're asked. That said,
there's a lot of pressure on our soldiers right now, especially
in the Army, because of the massive reductions that we've
already gone through and the massive reductions that we're
facing. There's uncertainty. And then on top of that, there's
lots of discussion about pay and benefits. There's lots of
discussion about retirement. There's lots of discussion about
other things. And all of this is putting pressure on them and
their families.
And so although we have not seen the breaking point yet, I
worry when that will occur in the future.
Senator Graham. One quick question. I know my time is up.
Senator Cochran. Your time has expired.
Senator Graham. Could I just have 30 seconds, Chairman?
Senator Cochran. The Senator from South Carolina.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Great Britain is having an argument among itself about how
much to spend on their forces. Is that correct?
General Odierno. That is correct.
Senator Graham. Is it a fair statement that the free world
is reducing its military capability across the board as radical
Islam and rogue nations increase their capability?
General Odierno. My assessment is the majority of our
allies are in the process of reducing their capabilities today
at a significant rate.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RUSSIAN ACTIVITY IN THE ARCTIC
General, Secretary, welcome. Thank you for all that you do,
your leadership.
I want to move from questions about the hot spots to colder
places and hopefully keeping colder places from becoming hot
spots.
Last week in testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Chairman Dempsey made mention that the Russians are
standing up six new brigades, four of them to be placed in the
Arctic. The Secretary followed up that the Russians are, in
fact, very active in the Arctic. That prompted a letter to both
of you from the full Alaska delegation, suggesting that instead
of drawing down the Army presence in Alaska, which was the
subject of the listening sessions up there last week, that
perhaps the Army should be doing exactly the opposite; in fact,
growing its presence in Alaska.
So to you, General, can you expand on the statement that
the Chairman made last week, and the Secretary, about Russian
activity in the Arctic? What is Mr. Putin up to here?
General Odierno. So we have seen over the last several
years an obviously increased interest in the Russians in the
Arctic. There are clear indications, as the Chairman mentioned,
that they are increasing their presence and building bases so
in the future they will be able to increase their presence and
have an impact in the Arctic region, and it's one that clearly
has gotten our attention.
Senator Murkowski. And given that it has gotten your
attention, what are you doing to adjust your plans within Army
going forward?
General Odierno. So first off, what I'm waiting for is we
need a strategy of how we're going to deal with the Arctic from
NORTHCOM (Northern Command), who is responsible for that. And
as they develop that strategy, we will then work to see what
our contributions are to that strategy. I have talked to the
commander of Army Alaska who has some thoughts on this. So we
have taken that from him and we are looking at that internally
to the Army now to see what that means to us in the future. So
we are taking a look at that.
But we have to rely on NORTHCOM in order to develop a
strategy that would allow us, then, to understand what our
commitments need to be.
Senator Murkowski. We've had discussion over the past
several years, talking about whether it's prudent to reduce
Army's presence given the pivot to the Pacific, the realignment
there, and you've responded several times that the Army didn't
view it as prudent to reduce its presence in the Pacific
because Alaska sits at the top of the Pacific there.
So I'm taking from our conversation here this morning that
you would agree that it is not wise for a change in view or
change in perspective as it relates to the Pacific and Alaska's
role.
General Odierno. Senator, I have not. I believe it's an
important piece of what we do in the Pacific. That's the
problem we have now. There's lots of areas I could make that
same comment, and that's the problem. We now have to make
difficult decisions that impact our security, and that's
somewhat distressing, frankly.
SMALL UNIT SUPPORT VEHICLE
Senator Murkowski. Distressing for all of us.
I understand that you were back home in Alaska, my home, in
Alaska in February to observe our U.S. Army Alaska troops in
training. You got to go out to Black Rapids. I think they
treated you well. I'm told that the weather was about 40 below
zero, which is a good sense of what it means to be Army strong,
Arctic tough, because it really does develop a toughness out
there.
But just in terms of our preparation as an Army in dealing
with interests in high altitudes and cold places, you've got
some pretty exceptional training grounds right there. But I
think we also need to recognize that perhaps we have some of
the requirements, the assets that are perhaps not sufficient or
not ready for Arctic climate, specifically the SUSV (Small Unit
Support Vehicle). Can you speak very quickly to the Arctic
focus here?
General Odierno. So, first off, the ability to conduct
training and the necessity for us to be able to have that
capability is important. So I would say, first of all, the
overall training is unmatched anywhere. I also believe we can
actually use it for other things beyond just Arctic training. I
think the capability, the training areas up there could help
the Army in many different environments because of the terrain,
because of the elevation, and because of other things. So I
think it has broader application as well, and I've asked us to
take a look at the broader application in how we can use that.
In terms of SUSV, it is problematic. It is a program, as
you know, we have not invested in. We're maintaining what we
have, but we have not invested in any improvements. I think
that's something that as we look to the future, we have to take
a look at how we want to operate in a very cold weather
environment, what our capabilities are.
The problem we have is we simply don't have the budget
right now and the modernization capability to do it as it falls
on our current priority list. That does not mean we don't think
it's essential or important. It's just not high enough right
now for us to invest in that.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby has asked for recognition.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary McHugh, we see from our testimony and our basic
knowledge of what's going on in the world, you do and the
General does, we've discussed here. As we reduce our forces
because of sequestration and other things and we're living in a
dangerous world with a resurgent Russia, a looming threat from
China down the road, turmoil in the Middle East which is
probably going to be with us a long time, it just defies logic
that we would not fund our military, our Army, our Navy, our
Marines, our Air Force, realizing the threat now and the threat
in the future to the security of this country. That's been well
said. Do you agree with that?
Secretary McHugh. Absolutely, Senator. I want to
acknowledge, however, the challenge that lies before all of
you. If sequestration were easy to fix, I believe with all my
heart you would have fixed it already. The political challenge,
small P, of getting 435 members of the House and 100 members of
the Senate to agree, at least a majority of each, on a way
forward and to get it to the President, who hopefully will sign
it, is, I understand, a high mountain.
But the challenges that you describe, Senator, and that
many of your colleagues have spoken about on this day are
absolutely real. And again, as the Chief noted in his opening
comments, if we go to sequestration with 420,000 in the active
component, we cannot meet the Defense Strategic Guidance, which
I think is a very dangerous place to put this country.
Senator Shelby. Do you believe it's incumbent upon you and
the General, as well as us, the Members of the Congress, and
the President, to tell the American people the truth of the
threats in the world over and over? Because we can't fund
defense on the cheap and expect to be the number-one military
power in the world and protect our interests in the world, as I
see it. Do you disagree?
Secretary McHugh. I fully agree with what you say, and
that's why we appreciate opportunities such as this.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Secretary McHugh. Because it gives us the very important
chance, through your questions, to put a fine point on exactly
the risks that we'll be taking and to better describe them,
because most Americans in their lives, thankfully, have other
things that gain their attention rather than the threats that
all of you deal with, and obviously we're dealing with as well.
We need to help them get a better picture of that.
SUPERSONIC WEAPONS
Senator Shelby. Secretary McHugh, moving into some
specifics here, reports indicate that China completed a third
flight test of its hypersonic weapon in December of last year.
Shouldn't we complete a third flight test of our own supersonic
weapon? And what do you expect to be the timeline, if there is
one, and I hope it would be, for operational deployment of the
advanced hypersonic weapon, should the need arise? And how
important ultimately is the advanced hypersonic weapon to
deterring this hypersonic weapons threat from hostile nations,
or would-be hostile nations like China and Russia, and wherever
else?
Secretary McHugh. As you noted very accurately, Senator,
our potential adversaries continue to show great interest in
and develop that hyper technology. We believe that we have to
advance a similar effort. As I know you're aware, the Army did
a test in I believe it was 2014 to test the current level of
technology of our hypersonic weapons platforms. That was
successful. We did have some launch problems in a scheduled
follow-up test. My understanding is now the Defense Department
has scheduled a Navy-led test. I believe it's in fiscal year
2017.
And as it is with all things, particularly in these kinds
of high-tech, S&T-centric developments, funding is absolutely
essential.
FORT RUCKER
Senator Shelby. I'm going to shift to another area, to Fort
Rucker, Alabama. It's my understanding that the Army has
conducted or is conducting a feasibility analysis of moving two
warrant officer courses from Fort Rucker to Fort Leavenworth.
According to the data--and I don't have all the data--that I've
received, there would be no savings there.
Do you want to speak to that, or can you furnish the
committee the analysis you're coming up with where we can look
at that?
Secretary McHugh. I can certainly do both. You're correct,
we are conducting a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of our warrant
officer training program writ large. Part of that would be the
efforts and the training aspects that you've mentioned. That
CBA has not yet been finished. I believe we have, through
letters, made a commitment to you, to come and to brief you on
the results of that analysis.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Secretary McHugh. But the entire initiative is progressing.
I don't want to mislead you or other members of the committee,
but we have not yet completed the study that you mentioned.
Senator Shelby. You mentioned some excess capacity earlier
in our forces and probably a need down the road for a BRAC,
which none of us particularly like and often fear.
Secretary McHugh. I understand.
Senator Shelby. But I was thinking about Fort Rucker as the
helicopter training, basic training for the Army and the Air
Force, and so many other things. But it's not the basic
training for the Navy and the Marines. We've been down that
road before. But haven't there been some studies that would
show great savings if we did that, if we did the basic training
at Fort Rucker of all the military? I'm not talking about
specific, the Marine's specific missions, and the Navy has. I'm
talking about the basics.
Do you want to address that, or do you want the General to?
Secretary McHugh. I'll defer to General Odierno. Of course,
that would be a Defense Department-level decision.
Senator Shelby. There's some inner-service rivalry there. I
understand that. And we probably can't solve it here today. But
it's something, if we're starting to say we need to save money,
and we do, and we've got to have money to have the number-one
security forces in the world, we've got to look everywhere.
But, go ahead.
WARRANT OFFICER TRAINING
General Odierno. Senator, I'm not aware of a study we've
done on this, but certainly it's something we can take a look
at, and I think it's worth taking a look at, working with the
other services.
If I can just comment on the warrant officer, I am not
happy with our warrant officer training. I just want to make
sure you understand that. And it's not just in Fort Rucker. In
very general terms, I believe we have to do much better in
training our new warrant officers and our senior warrant
officers, and we are in the process of revamping this program
so it is a combination of cost benefit analysis as well as
providing a place where we can do the right training with the
right access to our educational institutions.
So, we owe you an answer on that, but it's something that's
very important to me, sir.
Senator Shelby. Well, it's very important to have the best
training. It's also important to have the best savings. Both,
right?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The Senator from Missouri.
Senator Moran. From Kansas, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. From Kansas.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much. Although I would follow
up on the comments from the Senator from Missouri, the
listening tour that involved General Cloutier in Kansas was
very well received. The general indicated that the Army knew
the square footage of Fort Riley, knew he had all the facts and
figures, but came to learn about the heart of Fort Riley, and
4,300 Kansans showed up at Fort Riley, at Junction City,
Kansas, to demonstrate their love and care, compassion for the
soldiers who serve at Fort Riley, who are deployed from Fort
Riley, and their families.
I wanted to compliment the Army. I was, as I said earlier,
at Irwin Army Hospital on Saturday last, and a major
improvement in the facilities, a great opportunity for us to
care for soldiers and their families. We understand that we are
one of a few that have that new facility in the works, and we
appreciate the Army's decision to proceed with that hospital.
I also want to ask a couple of questions, perhaps for the
record. But I wanted to ask you, General, the division
headquarters from Fort Riley is now in Iraq. General Funk is
leading our operations in Iraq. We are expecting his return to
Kansas, to Fort Riley, later this year. We would invite and
welcome you both to be there to welcome General Funk and his
mission, the division headquarters, home.
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT
What do you see happening next in Iraq and the war on ISIL?
General Odierno. This is something we see going on for some
time. The 1st Infantry Division will be replaced by another
headquarters that will go in and do that. We have not yet
announced that, but we will soon. So I can see this continuing
for some time. The President has said 3 years. I would say it
will be that minimally, and we'll have to look to see. We'll go
back to the President if we need longer than that. But I see
this going on for some time.
The other comment I would make, by the way, and you
mentioned UAVs earlier, we just made the first appointment of
our Gray Eagle UAV that came out of the 1st Infantry Division,
and they are now in Kuwait, and they will stand up and really
conduct the first combat operations of our Gray Eagle
capability under Division control. That's a very important step
for us in our investment, and it goes back to the comments you
made about the ability to train with that at home station is
very valuable to us. It's going to be an integral part of our
ability to conduct future warfare. So I think this is a very
important milestone for us as they are now deployed in Kuwait
to support this operation.
Senator Moran. General, thank you for saying that. I wasn't
very articulate in my comments, but the point I was attempting
to make was that while there are 100,000 acres at Fort Riley,
there's another 35,000 acres at Great Plains Training Center
located near Salina, home of Kansas State University--Salina,
and Kansas State University has received the Certificate of
Authorization from the FAA this week for the use of unmanned
systems statewide. And that we see in Kansas as a significant
development not only militarily but commercially. It's a
significant development.
Let me ask the Secretary in the time that I have left, Mr.
Secretary, perhaps these are questions for the record, but for
each of the seven division-level Army posts, could you tell me,
give me a cost comparison on the following factors and describe
how they might inform stationing recommendations and decisions?
BCTs to sustain a division headquarters and a two-brigade
combat team set to be housed and maintained at readiness level
as part of the Army force generational model?
Environmental; what are the installation environmental
management costs?
What are the operations and maintenance costs?
And what's the population density, and how does the Army
consider potential impact on future growth when making
stationing decisions?
So I'm looking for the comparison in costs among those
seven installations.
Mr. Secretary, if it would be helpful, I'll just submit
that question to you in writing.
Secretary McHugh. I wish I had the command of knowledge
that that very insightful question requires, but I don't.
Senator Moran. I wish I had your political skill in
responding.
Secretary McHugh. I have a lot of different ways to say I
don't know, but we'll certainly do our best to get that
information to you.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much, and I look forward to
us having a meeting sometime.
Secretary McHugh. I, too.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Thank you, General.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. If there are no other questions for the
panel, we want to express our appreciation for your cooperation
and your attendance here today and your willingness to respond
to our questions. We thank you for not only your testimony but
your distinguished service to our nation as the leaders and
commanders of our armed forces.
We're very grateful for your distinguished service, and we
look forward to a continuing dialogue throughout the fiscal
year 2016 appropriations process. Senators may submit
additional written questions, and we would request that you
respond to those when we submit them.
[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. John M. McHugh and
General Raymond T. Odierno
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
deactivation of national guard brigade combat teams (bct)
Question. During the Army's 2015 budget hearings this office
submitted questions for the record inquiring about the prudence of
imposing drastic force structure cuts to ground units in the Army
National Guard--a particularly relevant topic given the numerous crises
occurring throughout the world today. As an example, Mississippi is
home to the 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team-- a combat hardened unit
that ranks as one of the most capable and technologically modernized
brigades within the National Guard having recently fielded the new M1A2
SEP Abrams Main Battle Tank, the new M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and
upgraded to the latest digital communication suite of equipment. As
part of total force reductions directed by the Army, the 155th is one
of the BCTs identified for elimination. Why, given our current budget
constraints, is there a push to disassemble National Guard units that
we have invested substantial resources in--units that cost
significantly less than their Active component counterparts to
maintain?
Answer. To meet the reductions imposed by the Budget Control Act
and the resulting sequester and achieve the right balance among the
three components, we looked to the Secretary of Defense's guidance that
we not retain structure at the expense of readiness. We also considered
Combatant Commander warplan requirements, operational commitments,
future requirements, costs, and necessary readiness levels.
Additionally, we directed that initial cuts should come
disproportionately from the Active Component (AC) before the Army
National Guard (ARNG) or United States Army Reserve (USAR). The result
is a plan that recognizes the unique attributes, responsibilities, and
complementary nature of the three Army components, while ensuring the
ARNG and USAR are maintained as an operational, and not a strategic,
reserve. The Army has yet to formally announce which formations in the
ARNG will be reduced. The timeline for the ARNG force reductions
mirrors the total Army's under this budget submission. If the AC
reduces 40 thousand soldiers from 490 thousand to 450 thousand by
fiscal year 2017, the ARNG will reduce 15 thousand from 350 thousand to
335 thousand by fiscal year 2017. Also, if sequestration level funding
remains in place and the Active Army reduces another 30 thousand
Soldiers from 450 thousand to 420 thousand, the ARNG will reduce
another 20 thousand Soldiers from 335 thousand to 315 thousand by the
end of fiscal year 2019. Currently the ARNG will reduce one BCT in both
fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and two more, one in fiscal year 2018 and
fiscal year 2019, if sequestration remains for a total of four. All
Army reductions (AC, ARNG and USAR) are considered through the lens of
the total force and a collaborative approach. We work with the ARNG and
USAR on all force structure decisions with the final decision resting
with myself.
We are currently conducting Listening Sessions at the Army posts
and communities that may be affected by the drawdown. Once completed,
we will evaluate the comments and make a decision on where to reduce in
the future. An announcement is not expected before the end of June
2015.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. The Modular Handgun System (MHS) concept, which began in
2003, has been plagued by uncertainty and delays. Yet the Army appears
to be moving forward with a plan to develop a new handgun during a
period of significant defense-spending reductions.
Given our current fiscal constraints, why is now the appropriate
time to pursue a completely new handgun program that has been delayed
for 12 years?
Is there a safety concern with the current M9 or M11 handguns?
What other options has the Army considered that would be more cost-
effective than pursuing the MHS?
Has the Army evaluated the cost of changing ammunition from a 9mm
round to something else? If so, what are the estimated costs associated
with this decision.
What are the estimated costs of replacing holsters, accessories and
other add-ons that are currently used for the M9 and M11?
Please provide the data on the maintenance and replacement rates
for the M9 and M11 that justify the need for a new program.
Answer. The competition for the Modular Handgun System will take
advantage of the best technologies industry has to offer and will
provide the Army with an improved, cost effective weapon. In today's
competitive and fiscally constrained environment, full and open
competition is the most effective strategy to control cost.
Additionally, upgrading the existing M9 inventory would cost nearly as
much as replacing them, as M9s are becoming uneconomical to repair;
therefore, the Army's competition for a new modular handgun system will
leverage the significant improvements that industry has made over the
past few decades and select a commercial/non-development solution.
No, there are no safety concerns with the currently fielded M9 and
M11 handguns.
The Army has procured the M9 as the handgun of choice for the past
several decades. While it performed admirably, conducting a competition
will enable the Army to take advantage of the best industry has to
offer while reducing costs. Prior to the start of this program, the
Army considered multiple options, including conducting a competition
for a new M9. However, none of these options met the Army's
requirements for a handgun. The MHS program is cost-effective and will
leverage the robust commercial handgun industry to provide the
Warfighter with increased lethality, modularity, and ergonomics at a
cost equal to or less than refurbishing an M9.
The Army is taking a non-caliber specific approach in seeking the
``Best Value'' solution through full and open competition among mature
commercial designs in the procurement of a new handgun system. As part
of this analysis, the Army has considered the cost of changing
ammunition in the development of the MHS Strategy. Currently, the Army
purchases ammunition from commercial manufacturers. It is currently
estimated that changing from the current 9mm round to something larger
would result in a negligible cost increase of up to $0.06 per round;
however, the Army will evaluate the proposals from vendors on the
overall system cost and performance.
Handgun accessories are expendable and durable items that are
continuously procured in sustainment to support the M9. The MHS
accessories will be procured along with the handgun as a system in the
replacement of the M9. The total estimated cost for all accessory items
that will transition from support of the M9 to support the MHS
acquisition objective is $89 million.
The overhaul rate for M9s varies greatly from year to year. The
range spans from 2,000 to over 6,000 per year. The current cost of
overhaul is in excess of $400 per weapon, due to the aging inventory.
Over half of the M9 weapons frames are excessively worn and damaged and
must be thrown away during the overhaul process. The high percentage of
worn out frames is a leading factor why rebuilding the aging system is
no longer cost effective; however, the need for the new MHS is also
based on system requirements in the areas of reliability, accuracy,
terminal effects, and ergonomics that the current M9 does not meet.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
distributed common ground system--army (dcgs-a)
Question. As you approach the second increment of the Distributed
Common Ground System, what is the Army doing to address critical
capability gaps? Has the Army taken into consideration the opinions of
its men and women on the ground when evaluating its approach to
implementing this second increment? Has the Army considered using
commercially-available programs currently in use by other services that
would save costs and more efficiently benefit our men and women in
uniform? What tangible steps has the Army taken to look at ending
development of pieces of the program that are already commercially
available today?
Answer. In response to Soldier feedback, the Army will conduct a
full and open competition for a new version of the Distributed Common
Ground System--Army (DCGS-A), Increment 2, in fiscal year 2016. The
competition will allow the Army to take advantage of commercial
innovation and incorporate ``best of breed'' technologies into the
program, addressing capability gaps and improving the interface that
Soldiers use to access and analyze intelligence data. As the Army
develops the Increment 2 strategy, we will continue to assess
capabilities used by other Intelligence Community (IC) organizations
and agencies. The Army will not spend any additional funding to develop
the current version of the program. fiscal year 2016 RDT&E funding for
DCGS-A Increment 1 will be used for integration and testing to sustain
the capability until Increment 2 is fielded.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
division level post cost comparison
military value analysis
Question. For each of the seven Division-level Army posts, please
provide a cost comparison on the following factors and describe how
each might inform stationing recommendations and decisions:
--To sustain a Division Headquarters and a two-Brigade Combat Team
set to be housed and to maintain readiness levels as part of
the Army's force generation model?
--What are the Installation Environmental Management Costs?
--What are the Operations and Maintenance costs?
--What is the population density and how does the Army consider the
potential impact of future growth when making stationing and
basing decisions
Answer. We do not currently have the data in sufficient detail to
give you the requested cost comparisons, but we are working to collect
the data from numerous sources with a goal of providing both you and
the Committee a detailed and coherent response mid-summer after our
analysis is complete.
The Army considers a broad array of criteria when making basing
decisions about which forces should be aligned with which
installations. Criteria is based on strategic considerations,
operational effectiveness, geographic distribution, cost, and the
ability to meet statutory requirements.
--Strategic Considerations: Aligns Army Force Structure to the
Defense Strategy and Defense Planning Guidance.
--Operational Considerations: Seeks to maximize training facilities,
deployment infrastructure and facilities to support the well-
being of Soldiers and their Families. Aligns appropriate
oversight/leadership by senior Army headquarters for better
command and control.
--Geographic Distribution: Seeks to distribute units in the United
States to preserve a broad base of support and linkage to the
American people.
--Cost: Considers the impacts of military personnel, equipment,
military construction, and transportation costs.
--Statutory Requirements: Complies with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as appropriate,
including an environmental and socio-economic analysis.
The Army is currently conducting Listening Sessions at the Army
posts that may be affected by the drawdown. Once completed, the Army
will evaluate the comments and make a decision on where to reduce in
the future. An announcement is not expected before the end of June
2015.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
army aviation
Question. The transfer and remanufacture of all the AH-64 Apaches
in the National Guard to the Active Component to replace the OH-58D
Kiowa Warrior as a scout reconnaissance helicopter was the only
controversial part of the Army's Aviation Restructuring Initiative. We
have legislated on the Apache transfer, but one thing not well
discussed is the new role of the Apache as a reconnaissance platform.
What progress has been made in developing the technology and training
needed for the mission? Considering the Apache is the best but not an
ideal fit for the mission by the Army's estimate, how long does the
Army plan to use it in this role?
Answer. A 2009 Analysis of Alternatives study to determine and
classify key capabilities of manned and unmanned platforms to perform
and satisfy armed reconnaissance helicopter missions identified a
manned/unmanned mix concept as providing the most cost-effective mix of
capabilities. The AH-64, teamed with an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS),
is the best alternative for the new Armed Aerial Scout (AAS).
The ARI is the Army's plan--approved by the Secretary of Defense--
to reduce the size of its aviation force structure in response to the
congressionally mandated spending reductions as a result of the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The resultant divestment of the OH-58D Kiowa
Warrior and the cancellation of associated upgrade programs enable the
re-purposing of $1.8 billion for critical Army aviation modernization
programs and training. With the reduction in the aviation force and the
divestiture of the OH-58 fleet, the AH-64 Teamed with UAS employs
aircraft the Army already owns.
Although designed as an attack helicopter, AH-64 crews conduct
attack, reconnaissance, and security operations and have performed
these combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, we have
already experienced significant progress in cultivating a scouting
culture and training the pilots for a shift in the primary role from
attack to reconnaissance for Apache helicopter battalions.
Additionally, from fiscal year 2017-2019 approximately 173 OH-58 pilots
will learn to fly the Apache further mitigating the training gap by
capitalizing on the experience of these aircrew members.
Technological advances with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and
communications networks allow manned Apache helicopters to control
unmanned aircraft payloads, and receive and transmit real-time video. A
rapid increase in the number of UASs allowed Army aviation to fly more
than 5 million flight hours in manned-unmanned teaming scenarios, both
in training and on the battlefield. These opportunities allowed our
aircrews to refine tactics and ultimately increase the Apaches' ability
to fill the reconnaissance mission.
Technological advances in the Apache's Target Acquisition
Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor or M-TADS/PNVS system
provide immediate performance improvement over legacy systems,
increasing the Apache's ability to conduct reconnaissance while
enhancing situational awareness. Additionally, the Longbow Fire Control
Radar enables the Apache helicopter to detect, classify, and prioritize
ground targets, improving the Apache's ability to fill the
reconnaissance mission. Technological advances and the unmanned systems
are programmed and do not represent additional expenditures.
The complexity of these systems and training required to gain and
maintain proficiency necessitates dedicated multi-echelon, combined
arms home-station training resulting in a significant increase in
combat effectiveness. Pilot transitions from the OH-58 to the AH-64 and
home station training are reflected in current budget projections.
Finally, The Future Vertical Lift program will incorporate new
technologies before fleet replacement begins sometime in the 2030s. The
Army is studying some new capabilities in its joint multi-role
technology demonstrator but there is currently no program of record for
replacement of the AH-64E.
sexual assault
Question. What lessons learned has the Army come away with after
the last 2 years of developing and deploying improved training to
prevent and respond to address sexual assault? Where are the areas that
additional work needs to be done?
Answer. We continue to work very hard at sexual harassment and
sexual assault. It remains our top priority. While recent reports show
some indications that we've made some initial progress, we have much
work to do.
From the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army down to our
newest Soldiers, we continue to attack the complex challenges of Sexual
Assault. Sexual assault is a crime that violates the core values on
which the Army functions, and sexual harassment shatters good order and
discipline. Sexual harassment and sexual assault must be stamped out,
and doing so remains a top priority throughout the Army. Commanders,
the Chain of Command, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice provide
the vital tools needed to prosecute offenders and hold all Soldiers and
leaders appropriately responsible.
Across the Army, we are committed to maintaining momentum in Army
SHARP and making further advances along our five lines of efforts:
Prevention, Investigation, Accountability, Advocacy and Assessment. In
the last year, our efforts along the Prevention Line of Effort resulted
in actions such as consolidating SHARP training under TRADOC and
Initial Entry Training and Professional Military Education to increase
the quality and accessibility of our prevention tools. Our
Investigation Line of Effort showed advances in Special Victim
capabilities and Trial Counsel Assistance Programs. The Accountability
Line of Effort had successes through our Special Victim Investigation
and Prosecution capability and through tools such as Command Climate
Surveys and Commander 360 degree assessments. Our Advocacy Line of
Effort resulted in initial indicators of progress in establishing SHARP
resource centers in over 12 installations. We continue to see interim
progress along our Assessment Line of Effort as noted in the
President's report and we continue to closely monitor the established
metrics to measure compliance.
In sum, we have seen some progress as evident in the recent
statistics outlined in the 2014 ``Department of Defense Report to the
President of the United States on Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response'' that indicate a decrease in unwanted sexual contact for
females in fiscal year 2014 compared to fiscal year 2012. Within the
Army, survey-estimated rates of unwanted sexual contact for the past
year decreased significantly for active duty women (4.6 percent),
compared to fiscal year 2012 (7.1 percent). (Note: Survey estimated
rates of unwanted sexual contact increased for males during that same
timeframe from 0.8 percent in fiscal year 2012 to 1.2 percent.)
In addition, reporting data demonstrates more victims are coming
forward to report sexual harassment and sexual assault. In fiscal year
2014, sexual assault reporting in the Army increased by 12 percent over
the previous year. We view this as a vote of confidence and a sign of
increased trust in our leaders, in our response services and in
changing Army culture. The decline in prevalence of unwanted sexual
contact, combined with the increase in reports received, suggests the
Army's efforts to prevent sexual assault and build victim confidence in
our response system are making progress. Nevertheless, we must continue
to work on fostering a climate where individuals are not afraid of
retaliation or stigma for reporting a crime by ensuring individuals,
units, organizations and specifically commanders and leaders understand
their responsibilities. Retaliation takes many forms and originates
from many sources--leaders, family, friends and, most pervasively, peer
to peer. For example, bullying is a form of retaliation. It is
intimidation that deters people from acting. It enables offenders,
threatens survivors, pushes bystanders to shy from action, and breeds a
culture of complacence. Retaliation has no place in the Army and we
must stamp it out.
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Victim Advocates are now credentialed through the DOD
Sexual Assault Advocate Certification Program, and the Army's SHARP
Academy is expanding their knowledge, skills and abilities. Based on
national experts' guidance, the Army's Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examiner's course now surpasses Department of Justice requirements and
establishes a best practice for all DOD to follow.
The chain of command is at the center of any solution to combat
sexual assault and harassment, and we must ensure it remains fully
engaged, involved and vigilant. Toward this end, we enhanced the
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reporting Systems to assess how
officers and NCOs are meeting their commitments--holding them
accountable through mandatory comments on how those leaders are acting
to foster a climate of dignity and respect and their adherence to our
SHARP program. With commanders at the center of our efforts, we will
continue to decrease the prevalence of sexual assault through
prevention and encourage greater reporting of the crime. We expect to
see reporting numbers to continue to rise. As our efforts to enforce
discipline, prosecute offenders and eliminate criminal behavior mature,
we expect the number of sexual assaults occurring within the Army to
eventually decrease. There is no place for sexual harassment or sexual
assault in our Army or our society.
The problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment will only be
solved when every Soldier, Civilian and Family Member stands up and
unequivocally acts to stamp it out. Together, we have an obligation to
do all we can to safeguard America's sons and daughters, as well as
maintain trust between Soldiers, Civilians, Families and the Nation.
Army leaders, at every level of the chain of command, are doing this
through prevention, investigation, accountability, advocacy and
assessments.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
mobile camouflage system requirements
Question. During combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, many
Allied partner nations had adopted Mobile Camouflage Systems for their
combat vehicle platforms--taking advantage not only of the Mobile
Camouflage System multi-spectral signature management sensor defeat
capabilities but also capitalizing on the Mobile Camouflage System
heat/temperature reduction capability and significant fuel savings.
Recognizing the potential value and increased capabilities the Mobile
Camouflage System enables, please provide the Committee with details of
your plan to develop, demonstrate, test, and field Mobile Camouflage
Systems for use on U.S. Combat Vehicle platforms.
Answer. The Army's current camouflage system is the Lightweight
Camouflage Screening System (LCSS). The LCSS is a modular system
consisting of a hexagon screen, a diamond-shaped screen, a support
system, and a repair kit. The system conceals targets by: casting
patterned shadows that break up the characteristic outlines of a
target; scattering radar returns (except when radar-transparent nets
are used); trapping target heat and allowing it to disperse; and
simulating color and shadow patterns that are commonly found in a
particular region.
The Army is currently validating the requirements document for the
Ultra-light Camouflage Net System (ULCANS) as a replacement for the
legacy LCSS. The ULCANS will provide signature reduction to combat
systems for near infrared, radar, electro-optics, and visual, and
significantly increases thermal infrared suppression capability. As
ULCANS is more snag resistant, lighter in weight and less voluminous
than the LCSS it can be erected and removed faster and with less
manpower. This ease of use will encourage greater use of camouflage,
which will improve survivability for friendly personnel and equipment.
The system will be fielded in desert, arctic, woodland and jungle
patterns. The ULCANS Capability Development Document is in Army
staffing.
The Army will continue to review the capability in the Protection
Capability Portfolio Review to refine methods for mobile protection in
the camouflage, concealment, and detection strategy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
white sands missile range
Question. What plans does the Army have for maintaining and
updating the facilities at White Sands Missile Range . . . what does
the range need to meet the needs of customers in the future, and how
much will it cost to ensure that White Sands Missile Range will be able
to maintain its state of the art capabilities into the future?
Answer. The Army executes its Facility Investment Strategy to
maintain and update its facilities Army-wide, to include White Sands
Missile Range. The installation's current strength of 7071 personnel is
projected to decrease by another 207 through fiscal year 2021. The
installation completed nearly $100 million in MILCON projects from
fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2011. Based on mission requirements,
there are currently no MILCON projects in the program for White Sands
Missile Range. In fiscal year 2014, the Army invested $16 million for
restoration and modernization of the installation's facilities and
infrastructure. The Installation Management Command has identified
$84.5 million in restoration and modernization projects for White Sands
Missile Range to compete across all Army requirements during fiscal
year 2015 midyear and end-of-year reallocations.
Question. Maintaining access to airspace is extremely important at
White Sands Missile Range, but almost as important is the ability for
our civilians and uniformed personnel to be able to travel overland
over an extremely large area. Unfortunately, it is my understanding,
that just like the roads across the nation, the roads at White Sands
Missile range are increasingly in need of repair, and cuts to the
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization budget are taking a toll on
White Sands. My understanding is that there is currently a $220 million
backlog in restoration and maintenance road work at White Sands. What
does the Army need to prevent further deterioration of these roads, and
does this budget fund such work?
Answer. The current road work backlog at White Sands Missile Range
is a subset of the Army's approximately $30 billion restoration and
modernization backlog, which presents a fiscal challenge across all
Army installations. Based on current budgets and pending
congressionally approved installation realignment and closure, the Army
has a $3 billion sustainment backlog, equating to an estimated 5520
major work orders. In fiscal year 2014, of the Army's $16 million
invested in repairs for White Sands Missile Range's facilities and
infrastructure, $11 million went to road networks. In fiscal year 2015,
the Command has prioritized one project at White Sands Missile Range to
repair part of its range road, valued at $1.1 million. The Installation
Management Command identified $84.5 million in restoration and
modernization projects for White Sands Missile Range to compete across
all Army requirements during fiscal year 2015 midyear and end-of-year
reallocations.
Question. One of the worst impacts of sequestration has been cuts
to research and development. Can the Army tell me how this has impacted
White Sands and whether the Army has assessed the impact on White
Sands, given its need to rely on a steady customer base from all the
military branches?
Answer. Sequestration cuts to Army Research and Development (RDA)
funding at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) have resulted in a
decreased test customer workload. The Army continuously assesses the
size, skill mix, and required capacity of the test workforce at White
Sands Missile Range to ensure we can meet the needs of all our test
customers.
Our assessment shows that funding reductions for testing are in
line with the overall RDA funding reductions for programs. At this
time, we believe the current planned workforce at WSMR is adequate to
meet known customer test requirements; however, there could be cost and
schedule risks associated with reduced capacity as details of the RDA
reductions become clearer over time.
The Army is currently working to improve the predictability of
future test requirements for all customers at WSMR in order to posture
the workforce to meet those customer needs.
energy
Question. How important is it to the Army to continue work towards
energy independence at our Army bases, and what can you tell me about
the success of such initiatives at Ft. Bliss and how you plan to
replicate this progress at other military bases? Even with lower gas
prices, does the Army still see it as a priority to diversify its
energy sources?
Answer. A sustainable and energy secure Army reduces mission and
financial risk. Accordingly, the Army gives high priority to increasing
energy independence and security on our installations. This includes
working closely with our partners in the utility industry. The Army's
energy security initiatives are broad based and include decreasing
consumption, increasing the use of renewable energy, and focusing on
development of microgrids.
As a Net Zero Pilot installation, Fort Bliss participated in the
development and demonstration of best practices which are now being
implemented across the Army to reduce energy consumption. Fort Bliss
has made excellent progress towards improving its energy posture.
Through the use of appropriated funds and third-party financing the
installation has made significant investments in energy efficiency and
renewable energy that are contributing to the energy security of the
base. Moving forward, Fort Bliss anticipates continued expansion of the
use of on-post renewable energy and continued investment in energy
efficiency.
Since fiscal year 2003, the Army has reduced its total energy
consumption by 16.9 percent and will continue to invest in energy
efficiency investments through the use of both appropriated funds and
third-party financing. The Army is working to site large scale
renewable energy projects on Army land to enhance energy security.
These projects will provide power at or below the cost of electricity
purchased from the grid. In addition, the Army is working to develop
microgrid projects on its installations. The Army is leveraging lessons
learned from microgrid initiatives at Fort Bliss and Fort Carson to
inform these efforts.
The decreasing price of oil reduces short term energy costs, but
the Army's energy security efforts, including the renewable energy
program, will continue. Decisions regarding renewable energy projects
are made based on the price of purchased electricity. The country gets
less than 4 percent of its electricity from petroleum based fuels.
Utility rates are predicted to continue to increase (although less so
than the early 2000's) while the costs of renewable energy are expected
to decrease. It is these trends, and not the price of oil that will
lead to expanding opportunities for cost-effective use of renewable
power on Army installations.
iraq and syria train and equip fund
Question. $600 million is budgeted for the Syria Train and Equip
Fund and $715 million for the Iraq Train and Equip Fund. With regards
to Syria, I am very concerned about this effort . . . not because of
the Army. I believe our soldiers are capable of carrying out their
objectives. What I don't trust is the ability of the Syrian rebels to
use, and maintain a chain of custody of the weapons given to them by
the United States. How do you plan on addressing these issues and how,
in your opinion, can we ensure that weapons we give to Syrian rebels
are not turned against us in the future?
Answer. There is risk associated with Syrian rebels maintaining a
chain of custody for weapons given to them by the United States. While
the Army remains committed to supporting the training and development
of the Syrian rebel groups who will be equipped under this program,
CENTCOM, as the Combatant Command, is responsible for developing and
implementing a mitigation plan to help ensure the weapons remain under
the control of the selected rebel groups. The Army will support
CENTCOM's efforts to mitigate this risk.
morale
Question. How would you assess the morale of our soldiers and their
families after over a decade of war? How has sequestration, and the
impact on readiness in particular impacted the morale of our soldiers?
Answer. Our Soldiers have done everything that we have asked of
them and more over the past 14 years, and they continue to do it today.
Today, our Soldiers are supporting five named-operations on six
continents with nearly 140,000 Soldiers committed, deployed, or
forward-stationed in over 140 countries. They remain professional and
dedicated--to the mission, to the Army, and to the Nation.
They continue to do what is asked of them; however, there's a lot
of pressure on our Soldiers right now because of the massive reductions
that we've already gone through and the massive reductions that we're
facing--there's uncertainty. On top of that, there's discussion about
pay and benefits, retirement, and other issues facing our Soldiers and
Families. All of this is putting pressure on them. Although we have not
seen a breaking point yet, I worry when that will occur in the future.
The center of everything we do is our Soldiers. The Army is our
Soldiers, and without them and their capabilities, our ability to do
our job becomes very, very difficult.
We owe it to them to ensure they have the right equipment, the best
training; and the appropriate family programs, healthcare, and
compensation packages commensurate with their sacrifices.
If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and method of
the reductions under the sequestration, the Army will be forced to make
blunt reductions in end strength, readiness, and modernization,
potentially affecting our Soldier's morale. It is our shared
responsibility to ensure that we never send members of our military
into harm's way who are not trained, equipped, well-led, and ready for
any contingency to include war.
tow missile
Question. There are many skilled workers who have supported the TOW
missile, including many in New Mexico. Has the Army made an effort to
work with these businesses, to ease their transition to other work once
the TOW missile is retired? In short, what can we do to help these
businesses and employees remain active in supporting Army missions into
the future, so that their expertise and training is not lost?
Answer. The Army has no plans to retire or discontinue TOW
production through fiscal year 2029. Accordingly, it would be premature
to address concerns regarding employee transition at this time.
iraq and train and equip fund
Question. How does the $715 million for the Iraq train and equip
fund compare to the support currently being given by Iran to Iraq and
how does this impact our strategic goals vis a vis Iraq?
Answer. There are various Intelligence Estimates regarding the
support Iran is providing both directly and indirectly to Iraq. I
remain concerned about Iran's efforts to spread its influence and its
ideology to Iraq. Our efforts both in and around Iraq aim to minimize
the threat Iran poses to Iraq and our interests in the region.
Ultimately, our strategic goal is a free and stable Iraq capable of
defending itself from both external and internal hostile actors. There
remain many obstacles to achieving this objective, but we believe that
given time and space, Iraq can prevail.
federal i.t. reform
Question. Describe the role of the Army's Chief Information Officer
(CIO) in the development and oversight of the IT budget for the Army.
How is the CIO involved in the decision to make an IT investment,
determine its scope, oversee its contract, and oversee continued
operation and maintenance?
Answer. The Army's CIO holds the fiscal integration role in the
Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process. The CIO
executes the CIO annual operating budget and Overseas Contingency
Operations funding. The CIO's role in the development and oversight of
the Army's IT budget is to provide management oversight and, in
partnership with the Army's Deputy Chief Management Officer and with
support from other organizations, quarterly updates to the Secretary of
the Army regarding execution of the IT budget. The CIO maintains fiscal
discipline by tracking all Army IT expenditures to ensure budgets are
specifically linked to IT investment strategies. The CIO also
implements the Army Request for Information Technology initiative to
provide visibility and accountability of IT procurement.
The CIO defines overall Army network modernization plans and
recommends priorities for the resourcing of network modernization
activities. The CIO ensures that the IT portfolio supports the
published LandWarNet 2020 strategy and architecture and is optimized
with effective and affordable IT solutions. The CIO also refines the
requirements validation process, to include consideration of specific
organizational needs, e.g., Army Corps of Engineers, Army National
Guard, Army Reserve, Army Medical Command and organizations with
executive agent status, such as the Information Technology Agency. The
CIO publishes IT architecture guidance, enterprise-level rules, and
technical standards. In addition, the CIO makes recommendations to the
Secretary of the Army regarding the alignment of organizational roles,
responsibilities and levels of authority in order to improve each
mission area's ability to perform effective portfolio management. The
CIO uses the Network Integration Evaluation process to evaluate cutting
edge technologies for incorporation into Army programs.
Additionally, the CIO/G-6 is a voting member of the Army Business
Council, which provides governance for investments in business systems
(i.e., acquisition, logistics, installation management, financial
management, and human resources systems). Program managers determine
scope and oversee contracts and operation and maintenance for business
systems. They also coordinate with the CIO/G-6 for the integration of
these systems into the Army's network.
Question. Describe the existing authorities, organizational
structure, and reporting relationship of the Chief Information Officer.
Note and explain any variance from that prescribed in the newly enacted
Federal Information Technology and Acquisition Reform Act of 2014
(FITARA, PL 113-291) for the above.
Answer. The Army CIO reports directly to the Secretary of the Army
with the authorities identified in Titles 5 (Sec. 552), 10
(Sec. Sec. 2222 and 2223), 31 (Sec. Sec. 1115, 1116, 1119 and 1120), 40
(Sec. 11315) and 44 (Sec. Sec. 3506 and 3544). The CIO is organized
around three directorates: (1) Architecture, Operations, Networks and
Space (AONS), which develops Army IT strategy and the integrated IT
architecture, and manages IT infrastructure; (2) Policy and Resources
(P&R), which oversees IT policy and governance, capital planning,
investment management and enterprise service management; and (3)
Cybersecurity, which develops and manages cybersecurity strategy,
identifies potential network risks and associated impacts and
mitigation based on Army objectives, and oversees policies and
processes to ensure adherence to security standards. As a member of the
Department of Defense, the Army CIO participates in DOD CIO councils,
as well as the Joint Information Environment. There is no variance in
relationships or authorities noted in FITARA 2014.
Question. What formal or informal mechanisms exist in the Army to
ensure coordination and alignment within the CXO community (i.e., the
Chief Information Officer, the Chief Acquisition Officer, the Chief
Finance Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer, and so on)?
Answer. Several formal and informal mechanisms for Information
Technology (IT) coordination and governance exist within the Army,
which divides IT management into four governance categories, called
Mission Areas.
The Army has three formal governing bodies for the coordination and
synchronization of IT capabilities supporting Army processes and
forces. Each body is chartered by the Secretary of the Army and
includes like membership from across the CXO community.
--The Army Business Council (ABC) coordinates and manages the
Business Mission Area (BMA), which focuses on Army business
processes, process reengineering, and IT investments supporting
acquisition, logistics, installation management, financial
management, human resources, and training and readiness.
--The Land War Net Mission Command General Officer Steering Committee
(LWN MC GOSC) coordinates and manages the Warfighter Mission
Area (WMA), which focuses on mission command in tactical and
operational environments and associated IT investments
supporting tactical units and systems.
--Army Enterprise Network Council (AENC) coordinates and manages the
Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area (EIEMA), which
focuses on network deployment, operations, and IT investments
supporting enterprise services, network modernization, and
cyber security.
Title 10, United States Code does not directly apply to Defense
Intelligence Mission Area (DIMA). The DIMA IT portfolio is managed in
accordance with Title 50, United States Code and is integrated into the
greater Intelligence Community (IC) with coordination pathways to the
other three Army mission areas.
The Army Management Action Group (AMAG) is the Army's top level
governing forum and membership includes the primary CXO executives. The
AMAG provides oversight ensuring coordination among and between the
above governing bodies.
In addition, the Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting and
Execution (PPBE) process is another formal mechanism that ensures
coordination and synchronization of IT investments and capabilities
delivery across all mission areas.
The Army also has a number of informal, non-chartered activities
that drive solutions to cross-mission area and cross-domain IT
challenges. These activities include but are not limited to specific
task focused planning teams and working groups formed to analyze
synchronization and coordination challenges, make recommendations for
overcoming identified challenges, and conduct solution implementation
planning.
Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 46
percent of the more than 80,000 Federal IT workers are 50 years of age
or older, and more than 10 percent are 60 or older. Just 4 percent of
the Federal IT workforce is under 30 years of age. Does the Army have
such demographic imbalances? How is it addressing them?
Answer. Army civilian IT workforce demographics are compared to the
overall Federal Government civilian IT workforce in the table below.
IT WORKFORCE AGE DEMOGRAPHICS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ARMY (2210 SERIES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal....................................... 4% Not Not 36% 10% 80,000
Provided Provided
Army.......................................... 2% 18% 30% 38% 12% 10,475
(255) (1,878) (3,129) (4,019) (1,192)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic imbalances similar to those of the broader Federal
workforce exist in the Army. The low percentage of civilian IT
employees under age 30 can be attributed, in part, to many early/mid-
career hires who are former military in their 30s or 40s when they
transition from military to civilian service (or military to contractor
to civilian status). As veterans' hiring preferences apply, and many
veterans have active security clearances and choose to work for the
Army, a significant number of veterans are hired to work as Army
civilians.
The Army has an active intern program that hires 50 to 70 IT
interns per year. To add to the feeder population of ``under 30''
hires, the Army (and the Federal Government) will need to do several
things: (1) promote the organization as an agency of choice for young
civilians (who may not know the full opportunities available in a
civilian Army career); (2) expand hiring authorities for non-veterans
who are excluded or eclipsed from competition due to veterans' hiring
preferences, especially in the under 30 age set; and (3) promote the
hiring of graduates from STEM (science, technology, engineering and
mathematics) and other IT/cyber academic programs, and seek ways to
assure their placement.
Question. How much of the Army's budget goes to development,
modernization and enhancement of IT systems, as opposed to supporting
existing and ongoing programs and infrastructure? How has this changed
in the last 5 years?
Answer. Appropriations for Other Procurement, Army (OPA) and
Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation, Army (RDTE) comprise
development and modernization funding (DEVMOD). The Army's maintenance
and support activities constitute the Operation and Maintenance, Army
(OMA) appropriation known as Current Services. The proportions from
fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014 are shown in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVMOD Current
IT (OPA Services
& RDTE) IT (OMA) DEVMOD C/S Base/OCO
Fiscal year percent percent (million) (million) Budget
of Base/ of Base/ (billion)
OCO OCO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010........................................................ 2 2 5.3 4.8 243
2011........................................................ 3 2 6.3 4.9 240
2012........................................................ 3 3 5.5 5.3 207
2013........................................................ 2 3 4.0 6.1 177
2014........................................................ 2 4 3.2 6.1 162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army's investment in development, modernization, and
enhancement of business IT systems is roughly 40 percent of business IT
expenses (as opposed to operation and maintenance). Over the last 5
years, sustainment expenses (i.e., O&M) for business IT systems has
increased from approximately 40 percent to 60 percent, while the amount
for development, modernization and enhancement of business IT systems
have decreased accordingly. From fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015,
the Army's overall business IT expenditure decreased from approximately
$2.4 billion to $1.97 billion.
Question. What are the 10 highest priority IT investment projects
that are under development in the Army? Of these, which ones are being
developed using an ``agile'' or incremental approach, such as
delivering working functionality in smaller increments and completing
initial deployment to end-users in short, 6-month timeframes?
Answer. Ten priority IT capabilities for the Army are:
--Joint Information Environment (JIE) capabilities to include Joint
Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) and Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS)
--Assured Global Positioning System position, navigation and timing
--Mounted/dismounted on-the-move communications and information
networks
--Tactical data and network radios
--Joint Battle Command
--Processing, exploitation and dissemination of intelligence
information
--Cyber security
--Network management
--Strategic, operational and tactical command and control
--Enterprise resource planning and management
The program managers responsible for delivering these capabilities
focus on providing them in accordance with Army requirements and
timeframes, to include incremental delivery when appropriate.
Question. To ensure that steady state investments continue to meet
agency needs, OMB has a longstanding policy for agencies to annually
review, evaluate, and report on their legacy IT infrastructure through
Operational Assessments. What Operational Assessments have you
conducted and what were the results?
Answer. Recently, the Army conducted several operational
assessments of legacy infrastructure. These evaluations resulted in
initiatives, such as Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS), and data center consolidation, which
will modernize the network and provide both efficiencies and improved
capabilities.
An assessment of the Army's legacy security architecture led to the
conclusion that efficiencies could be gained by replacing the localized
security architecture (TLA stacks) with a regional security
architecture (JRSS). The Army also is replacing Asynchronous Transfer
Mode switches with MPLS, which increases network speed and lays the
groundwork for enterprise solutions such as Voice over Internet
Protocol and Unified Capabilities. Additionally, the Army is
dramatically shrinking the time required to replace installation
infrastructure from 5 years to 3 months per location.
To date, the Army has completed 42 Installation Discovery Reports,
which are critical to planning and executing data center consolidation.
Additionally, the Army recently completed phase one of the Redstone
Pilot, which examined collapsing a data center. Phase one involved
discovery of applications and capabilities within the data center to
determine which could be moved and which should remain local. Phase two
will determine the cloud hosting environment (commercial or government)
for the applications that should be moved.
The Army Test and Evaluation Command plans, integrates and conducts
experiments, developmental testing, independent operational testing and
independent evaluations and assessments to provide essential
information to acquisition decision makers and commanders. Other types
of infrastructure assessments that the Army is leading include the
technical assessments at the Central Technical Support Facility at Fort
Hood to certify programs of record for interoperability. Network
Integration Evaluations, which occur in a more experimental
environment, look at the impact of new technology on existing
infrastructure.
Question. How does the Army's IT governance process allow for the
Army to terminate or ``off ramp'' IT investments that are critically
over budget, over schedule or failing to meet performance goals?
Similarly, how does the Army's IT governance process allow for the Army
to replace or ``on ramp'' new solutions after terminating a failing IT
investment?
Answer. The Army complies with the National Defense Authorization
Act for IT portfolio management and manages IT investments by mission
area. IT investments are divided into four categories: business
systems, warfighting/weapons systems, enterprise network systems, and
intelligence systems. The Army employs several three-star-level
governance forums to review, validate, and prioritize IT requirements.
The business systems' governing body is the Army Business Council; it
is responsible for evaluating and managing the business system
portfolio, including ``on-ramp'' and ``off-ramp'' decisions. In his
role as Chief Management Officer, the Under Secretary of the Army also
exercises oversight of the business system portfolio. The Office of
Business Transformation and the Army's DCMO chair the Army Business
Council and oversee all business system program investments, which
include acquisition, logistics, installation management, financial
management, and human resources systems. The Army conducts annual,
periodic, and directed reviews of business IT systems to assess
continued suitability.
The weapons systems' governing body is the LandWarNet Mission
Command General Officer Steering Committee; it is responsible for
evaluating and managing weapons systems' portfolio, including ``on-
ramp'' and ``off-ramp'' decisions. G-3/5/7 and CIO/G-6 co-chair this
committee and oversee all tactical IT program investments.
The enterprise network systems' governing body is the Army
Enterprise Network Council, which is responsible for evaluating and
managing the enterprise network, including ``on-ramp'' and ``off-ramp''
decisions. The CIO/G-6 chairs the Army Enterprise Network Council and
oversees all enterprise network investments.
Title 10 United States Code does not directly apply to the
intelligence systems mission area.
The Headquarters, Department of the Army Deputies Forum regularly
shares perspectives on various topics. This body is comprised of
personnel from across the Army Secretariat and Staff, including the
Chief Management Office, the Office of the Administrative Assistant,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller), the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology), the CIO/G-6, the Director of the Army Staff,
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (G-3/5/7) and others.
Acquisition reviews, portfolio reviews and resourcing reviews for IT
programs are also part of the department's governance processes.
Question. What IT projects has the Army decommissioned in the last
year? What are the Army's plans to decommission IT projects this year?
Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Army terminated 92 obsolete or
redundant business IT systems. This figure constitutes a substantial
increase from the 35 originally planned and is a 14 percent reduction
in the overall number of Army business IT systems. The Army plans to
terminate at least 19 additional business IT systems and will merge the
majority of their functions into one of four enterprise resource
planning systems.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Army intends to close the
commercial data center that currently houses Army Knowledge Online's
Disaster Recovery (DR) site, and to transition that capability to a
government facility. This change will reform the DR site into one that
can be activated when necessary, rather than being on continuously. The
anticipated cost avoidance is $5 million per year.
With the successful migration of Army email to the joint solution,
Defense Enterprise Email, the legacy Army Knowledge Online (AKO) email
service is now redundant. The Army will shut down AKO email before the
end of 2015. The anticipated cost avoidance is $3 million annually.
The Army continues to invest in network modernization and
implementation of the Joint Information Environment. Increases in
bandwidth, better traffic management (via Multi-Protocol Label
Switching), consolidation of security stacks and enclaves into Joint
Regional Security Stacks, and the transition to cloud-enabled
infrastructure and services will allow future divestiture of analog
services whose maintenance bills continue to grow.
The Army data center consolidation initiative also is making good
progress. In fiscal year 2014, the Army consolidated 142 data centers
(120 small and 22 conventional facilities), which produced aggregate
savings of more than $4.5 million. In fiscal year 2015, the goal is to
close 135 data centers, which will keep the Army on pace to meet the
overall DOD fiscal year 2018 goal of a 60 percent reduction in
facilities. (Currently, the Army is at 40 percent, which meets the
Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative requirement.) So far this
year, the Army has closed 26 facilities.
Question. The newly enacted Federal Information Technology and
Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 (FITARA, PL 113-291) directs CIOs to
conduct annual reviews of their IT portfolio. Please describe the
Army's efforts to identify and reduce wasteful, low-value or
duplicative information technology (IT) investments as part of these
portfolio reviews.
Answer. The Army CIO uses a combination of policy, resourcing and
governance to oversee the IT portfolio. Policy is employed to set the
conditions for how IT is procured, operated and secured, and reinforces
best buying practices. For governance, the Department of the Army uses
three-star-level forums to review, validate and prioritize IT
requirements, allocate resources and identify efficiencies. These
include the Army Business Council, the Army Enterprise Network Council
and the LandWarNet Mission Command General Officer Steering Committee.
In a May 2014 memorandum, the Under Secretary of the Army
delineated governance roles, responsibilities and structure to manage
alignment of Army business IT investments. This memo serves as the
governing document for annual IT investment decisions across all Army
mission areas. The Army Business Council, chaired by the Director of
the Office of Business Transformation and of which the CIO/G-6 is a
member, manages the Army business systems capability life cycle. The
Army Enterprise Network Council, chaired by the Army CIO, reviews all
enterprise network-related requirements and resources to facilitate,
secure and sustain synchronized end-to-end network capabilities and
services to support the Army's business and warfighting requirements.
Additionally, as the Army's IT integrator, the CIO/G-6 fully
participates in the Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution
process, which oversees the prioritization of IT programs and the
allocation of IT resources across the Army.
These three cross-cutting governance forums provide integrated IT
oversight and direction to eliminate waste by determining whether to:
(1) develop a new, or modify or enhance an existing, capability; and
(2) terminate an initiative that has outlived its purpose. Also, the
department uses the Army Portfolio Management System to catalogue and
track all IT investments reported to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.
As an extension of the Title 10 USC Sec. 2222 requirement for a
business enterprise architecture, the Army Business Council (ABC) is
developing and maturing its Business Systems Architecture (BSA) as a
decision support tool for portfolio management of its business IT
systems. The BSA matches all of the Army's business IT systems to each
of the processes that the Army is required to perform under Title 10
(i.e., operation activities). The intent is to maintain a high ratio of
operation activities to systems (i.e., one system does many things),
and to reduce instances of many systems performing the same activities
and single systems performing few activities. The BSA continues to
mature and is reviewed on a perpetual basis by the ABC, system owners,
and Army Commands.
Question. In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a ``Cloud First'' policy that required agency Chief Information
Officers to implement a cloud-based service whenever there was a
secure, reliable, and cost-effective option. How many of the Army's IT
investments are cloud-based services (Infrastructure as a Service,
Platform as a Service, Software as a Service, etc.)? What percentage of
the Army's overall IT investments are cloud-based services? How has
this changed since 2011?
Answer. The Army's cloud computing strategy was published in March
2015. It will soon be followed by a commercial cloud computing policy
that further shapes cloud-hosting opportunities.
Over the past year, the Army has made great strides in cloud
computing through participation in the Defense Information Systems
Agency pilot for commercial cloud. As part of this effort, the Army
migrated the Proactive Real-property Interactive Space Management
System and the Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange
Knowledge Based Corporate Reporting System to the cloud. These ongoing
pilots are evaluating security architectures, cybersecurity
requirements and cost baselines. The pilot programs will also inform
refinement of the minimum legal, contract and service-level agreement
language required to leverage fully multiple commercial clouds while
ensuring the protection and sovereignty of data.
The Army G-2 is actively participating in Intelligence Community
cloud development efforts, known as the Intelligence Community
Information Technology Environment (IC ITE). In fiscal year 2015 and
fiscal year 2016, as part of the IC ITE roadmap, the Army will
participate in several pilots. Lessons learned will be used to
influence broader Army intelligence, mission command and cyber cloud
activities.
Army Recruiting Command has migrated its frontline recruiting force
to the commercial cloud to conduct unclassified and publicly releasable
business activities. The Army also is migrating U.S. Army Europe's
public facing website, the Ammunition Management and Information
Tracking System, and the Army's Strategy Management Systems in order to
gain additional insights into public cloud offerings and to refine
processes and procedures related to migration.
Question. Provide short summaries of three recent IT program
successes--projects that were delivered on time, within budget, and
delivered the promised functionality and benefits to the end user. How
does the Army define ``success'' in IT program management? What ``best
practices'' have emerged and been adopted from these recent IT program
successes? What have proven to be the most significant barriers
encountered to more common or frequent IT program successes?
Answer. The Army has a number of recent IT program successes
including the Global Combat Support System--Army (GCSS-Army), the
Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A), and the General Fund
Enterprise Business System (GFEBS).
GFEBS is a commercial off-the-shelf web-based Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) solution to integrate financial, real property and other
asset, cost and performance data and is the first accounting system for
Army-wide application. The system enables the Army with the ability to
streamline and share critical financial data across the Active Army,
the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve at over 200 locations,
worldwide. As a result, GFEBS supports the Army's goals of achieving an
unqualified opinion on financial statements and providing a new cost
accounting system. GFEBS completed deployment in July 2012 and is
operational at Headquarters Department of the Army, 29 Army Commands,
Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units, over 200
locations world-wide and in 71 countries.
The system brings the Army into full compliance with the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) Act of 1990 and other statutory and regulatory
requirements. GFEBS is the cornerstone for the Army obtaining an
unqualified audit option; it provides real-time visibility of
transactions as well as access to historical data. The system enables
the Army to produce cost management data from a single integrated
financial and cost accounting system. GFEBS, additionally, enables real
property management in compliance with DOD Real Property Information
Model (RPIM) and DOD Financial Management Regulation (DODFMR).
GCSS-Army is a commercial off-the-shelf solution that will reach
full deployment in fiscal year 2017. It is one of the Army's top
priority modernization efforts and enables the Army for the first time
ever to field, at the installation and tactical levels, an integrated
logistics and financial capability in one system. It provides a
singular web-based, worldwide transparent view of transactional and
authoritative logistics and financial data and is an improvement from
our legacy systems, as it transforms our capabilities for global
interoperability, connectivity, uniformity, visibility, accountability,
and auditability within our business areas of supply, maintenance,
property accountability, and finance.
The GCSS-Army program successfully completed full testing and is
currently conducting training and Wave 1 fielding in accordance with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Full Deployment Decision. As of
March 20, 2015, GCSS-Army Wave 1 had been fielded to 68 percent of the
Army. The GCSS-Army system also integrates with GFEBS, an enterprise-
wide financial capability, in order to provide a single, financial
solution within the Army. GCSS-Army also integrates its capabilities
with the Army's national level logistics ERP system called the
Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). GCSS-Army Wave 1 fielding
provides the financial solution for installation and tactical logistics
as well as supply capabilities for Supply Support Activities and Army
Warehouses. During fiscal year 2015, GCSS-Army will continue Wave 1
fielding and continue Wave 2 fielding.
Wave 2 limited deployment has begun and fielding group 2 has been
successfully fielded with the GCSS-Army Capability. Wave 2 capabilities
will integrate and enhance unit level maintenance operations, supply
operations, property accountability functionality, and additional
financial capability by fiscal year 2017. GCSS-Army remains on schedule
and within cost thresholds to complete Full Deployment by the end of
September 2017 and is a key component for the Army to be financially
auditable by 2017.
IPPS-A is a modern, multi-component human resources system that
gives Soldiers and commanders 24/7, self-service access to personnel
and payroll information, while providing decision-makers with precise,
relevant, timely, and authoritative data. IPPS-A is being developed in
two increments. Increment 1 provides a trusted data source for
personnel and human resources data for the entire Army in one database.
Increment 2 will deliver full integrated personnel and pay services for
all Army components building on the trusted database delivered by IPPS-
A Increment 1.
Deployment of IPPS-A Inc 1 has been fielded to the entire Army
population, including Active, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve and
provides Soldiers the ability to view their own Soldier Record Brief.
It received a formal Full Deployment Decision in April 2014 and
completed deploying in January 2015. IPPS-A Increment 1 was completed
within the schedule and cost thresholds dictated in the Acquisition
Program Baseline.
The Army has refined its governance with respect to managing long-
term investments in the Army's business IT systems portfolio. We have
grouped our best practices into three major categories: (1)
Requirements review; (2) In-Progress Review (IPR) and refinement; and
(3) Testing. Keys to success include:
--using trusted industry commercial solutions;
--focused user and program manager continual Business Process
Reengineering (BPR);
--General Officer Steering Committees that focus on limiting
interfaces and scope creep issues;
--imbedded functional teams that work with program managers daily to
insure the product meets functional capabilities;
--use of virtual training environments to get user input and
understanding early; and
--continual operational testing through 24 hour web based test
environments.
Some examples of the biggest barriers to successful IT
implementation include: programs not receiving sufficient funding or
receiving funding later than needed; program staff being over-utilized
or lacking the necessary skills and experience on business systems;
development work being slowed by inefficient governance and oversight
processes; and program requirements and interfaces not being stable and
prioritized. Many of the Army's best practices have come from analyzing
and determining means to address these challenges.
Question. Terry Halverson, the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO),
has outlined a vision for DOD use of cloud computing that empowers the
military departments and components to procure their own cloud
computing solutions. How will the implementation of this transition to
cloud computing be rationalized across the Army to ensure that common
standards, data portability and other enterprise-wide issues are
properly managed and addressed?
Answer. The Army created the Army Application Migration Business
Office (AAMBO), within the Program Executive Office Enterprise
Information Systems, to serve as the single focal point for application
and system owners during the migration process. The Army intends to
leverage pre-negotiated terms and pricing at the DOD and Army
enterprise levels through AAMBO. AAMBO is responsible for assisting
system and application owners with defining modernization and migration
requirements, determining the most appropriate cloud deployment model,
and negotiating and acquiring cloud capabilities from approved cloud
service providers (CSP). In coordination with the DOD CIO, AAMBO has
already developed standard contractual terms and conditions, as well as
service level agreements, to be used for all commercial cloud
contracts. This will help to drive adoption of agnostic solutions and
to avoid platforms or technologies that lock the Army into a particular
product. Additionally, application developers will ensure that the
infrastructure interfaces provided in the cloud are generic, or that
data adaptors at least can be developed so that the portability and
interoperability of the application are not significantly impacted.
Army Commands or functional domain managers that represent the
various applications/systems are responsible for sponsoring and funding
an application's or system's functionality, which includes
modernization, if required, and migration to a CSP. All application/
system owners must work directly with AAMBO to acquire cloud services
regardless of the deployment model ultimately selected. In the event
that certain cloud capabilities required by the Army are not readily
available, Product Director Enterprise Computing will design and
implement such capabilities to meet the requirements and architecture
of the Data Center/Cloud Computing Environment.
high-performance computing modernization program
Question. The Army's budget request includes $177 million for the
High-Performance Computing Modernization Program, funding that is
essential to helping the Department of Defense meet its data-intensive
supercomputing requirements.
The Department's supercomputing network is essential to the
military's ability to exploit cutting-edge software and hardware to
perform complex data-intensive missions, such as research and
development in areas like space and astrophysical science, fluid
dynamics, as well as analysis in support of cyber security and signal
and image processing for military operations. Without these
supercomputing systems, these data-intensive missions would grind to a
halt.
I have concerns about the allocation of these funds to the five
regional supercomputing centers and wonder whether the Army is
appropriately modernizing each of the Department's supercomputing
centers so that they can continue to support long-term military
requirements.
Can you please describe how the Army allocates modernization funds
to each of the DOD supercomputing centers, including any programming
criteria that are considered for technology refreshes, such as COCOM
mission requirements? In your response, please address how the Army
spent the fiscal year 2014 appropriation for the High-Performance
Computing Modernization Program, including the breakdown for each of
the supercomputing centers, and how much is programmed for each of the
supercomputers in fiscal year 2015.
Answer. The High-Performance Computing Modernization Program
(HPCMP) contains five DOD Supercomputing Resource Centers (DSRC): Air
Force Research Lab (AFRL), Army Research Lab (ARL), Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), Navy DOD Supercomputing
Resource Center (Navy DSRC), and Maui High-Performance Computing Center
(MHPCC). Use of supercomputing centers is not regionally based: Users
are assigned to specific centers according to the technological
capabilities needed to solve their problems, not geographic locality.
The HPCMP primarily supports the DOD research, development, test and
evaluation (RDT&E) community, using a structured process for assigning
computational requirements. Senior representatives from each of the
Services and Defense agencies who serve on the HPC Advisory Panel
validate these requirements.
The HPCMP conducts detailed user-requirements analysis for future
classified and unclassified high-performance computing needs. The
decision to place new technology at the centers is based on each
center's ability to accommodate the new computers in terms of raised
floor space, power and cooling infrastructure, and the cost of power.
Each year, the HPCMP buys supercomputers for two DSRC locations as part
of an annual technology refresh. In even years, the Army ERDC and the
Army Research Laboratory DSRCs are refreshed, and in odd years Navy and
AFRL DSRCs are refreshed. The HPCMP budget does not include programmed
funds for technology refresh for Maui. Funding for supercomputers
technology refresh was $62.7 million in fiscal year 2014 and $65.3
million in fiscal year 2015.
Every July, each DSRC submits an annual operations budget request
for the coming fiscal year along with a budgetary projection for the
subsequent 5 fiscal years. These submissions are based on projected
workloads derived from validated user requirements. HPCMP leadership
reviews the submissions and allocates funding based on each center's
mission scope and ability to execute the requirements.
In fiscal year 2014, $84.7 million was allocated to the centers for
operations: AFRL, $15.542 million; ARL, $15.258 million; ERDC, $20.361
million; MHPCC, $12.532 million; Navy, $12.300 million; and Program-
Wide Center Support, $8.711 million.
In fiscal year 2015, $85.3 million was allocated to the centers for
operations: AFRL, $16.218 million; ARL, $13.229 million; ERDC, $18.371
million; MHPCC, $14.119 million; Navy, $11.129 million; and Program-
Wide Center Support, $12.197 million.
Beyond the DSRCs, the HPCMP budget includes the DOD Research and
Engineering Network, which provides secure connectivity to high-
performance computing capability and software applications that allow
researchers to effectively and efficiently utilize high-performance
computing. Together, these elements make up the ecosystem (hardware,
software, network and expert support) required to provide high-
performance computing capabilities for DOD.
iraq train and equip fund, overseas contingency operations account
Question. Department of Defense programs to train and arm foreign
military and security forces (including irregular forces) are a key
pillar of the U.S. campaign to combat the spread of the Islamic State
(IS) in Iraq and Syria. In the 2015 Omnibus appropriations legislation
Congress appropriated $1.6 billion to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund as
part of the DOD's Overseas Contingency Operations request. These funds
were intended to train and equip the Iraqi and Kurdish forces so that
they may be able to launch effective counter-offensive operations,
regain territory, and prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL) from exercising its particularly violent brand of extremism in
its de facto state. ISIL still holds key territory and continues to
exert their will on the citizens of Iraq. In your professional military
opinion, when can we expect to see a significant return on this
investment in the Iraqi and Kurdish forces?
These funds, in concert with the more than 2,000 U.S. military
advisors currently deployed to Iraq, provide the means by which to
train the Iraqi, Kurdish and Tribal forces to defeat and reverse the
spread of the IS in Iraq, and to provide them equipment that is common
to their current fleets. A failure to provide equipment already in use
within their security forces will exacerbate training and logistical
challenges for their brigades. Are we providing them the training they
need to be successful? Is the equipment we are providing them common to
their already-existing fleet of weapons and vehicles? If the equipment
we are providing is not already resident in their fleets and arsenals,
what is the justification for providing non-similar equipment?
Answer. The Iraqi Campaign Plan to defeat ISIL and re-establish
control of its sovereign territory is conditions based more so than it
is driven by a timeline. It is part of a broad coalition effort that
will be executed over several years. Therefore it would be speculative
to determine when the United States can expect to see a return on its
investment. Regarding the training and equipment being provided, we are
supporting the request made to us by the Iraqi government and in
support of CENTCOM's efforts to meet those requirements.
The Iraq Train and Equip Legislation provides a variety of vehicles
to build eight Iraqi Security Force Brigades, three Peshmerga brigades,
and provide support to tribal units. Among these are light/medium
trucks and counter IED vehicles. The funding is being apportioned by
the DOD to provide immediate Iraqi capability to conduct counter
offensive operations against ISIL.
To date (MAR 15), 25 percent of these funds have been released for
execution. The Army is providing up to 184 light and medium trucks and
a small number of IED detection vehicles. The Coalition Forces Land
Component Command--Iraq (CFLCC-I), in coordination with the Iraqi
government, will determine which vehicles will go to the Peshmerga or
tribes.
Separately, the Army has provided 250 MRAPs with an additional 50
MRAPs to be delivered soon. Of these, 25 MRAPs have been provided to
the Peshmerga via the Iraqi government with up to 16 more to be
provided in the future.
Most of this equipment is desired by the end of MAR 15. Given the
very short timeline, most vehicles will be provided from existing Army
stocks.
The Iraqi Security Forces have and continue to struggle with
maintaining all of their equipment, to include the vehicular fleet.
Centralized maintenance facilities and lack of supply chain discipline
continues to hamper Iraqi readiness rates across the board. To assist
the Iraqis in maintaining their vehicle fleets, the Army provides spare
parts, training, special tools, and contractor logistics support as
part of the ITEF support with the ultimate goal of making Iraqi
sustainment independent.
readiness
Question. According to testimony, you are developing a readiness
cycle to sustain a high level of readiness among Army National Guard
units that are in their deployable status. In the absence of
deployment, and given the cost-saving nature of the National Guard,
could you elaborate, citing examples, on how the Army is ensuring that
the readiness status of Guard units is sustained after they reach
deployable status and its cost-saving capabilities leveraged, including
for steady-state operational needs?
Answer. In the last 12 months, we reduced the size of the Active
Component (AC) from 532,000 to 503,000, with end strength set to fall
to 490 thousand in fiscal year 2015; and then to 450 thousand.
Similarly, the end strength in our Army National Guard is set to fall
to 335 thousand and the Army Reserve to 195 thousand. But if
sequestration returns, we will need to reduce end strength even further
to 420 thousand in the AC by fiscal year 2020; and 315 thousand in the
National Guard and 185 thousand in the Army Reserve. Yet, the reality
we face is that the demand for Army forces throughout the world is
growing while the size of the force is shrinking.
The majority of our cuts are coming out of the active Army, and
because of that, we are going to have to rely more on the National
Guard and U.S. Army Reserves to provide us a depth to respond to
complex problems. The issue is that we are going to have to rely on our
Reserve forces more in some areas, such as in logistics. In terms of
the combat capability, our Reserve forces are still going to have to
provide us the depth. And we might have to use that depth earlier
because we are going to have less capability in the active component.
This all gets to this balance that we are trying to achieve.
We are transforming our training strategies. Forces Command has
begun to implement a comprehensive Total Force training strategy. We
are pairing Brigade Combat Teams in the Active component with those in
the National Guard--creating partnerships, increasing training
opportunities, enhancing leader development, and reinforcing the
importance of the Total Force.
The Army National Guard is a vital component of the Total Army.
Combined with the United States Army Reserve, they fulfill a critical
role for the Total Force. Army National Guard units also fulfill a
critical role for the governors of their States.
The Army is committed to building readiness within each National
Guard unit in order to provide ready units for both Federal and State
missions. While the Active Component is best suited for unpredictable
and frequent deployments, for dealing with complex operational
environments, and for dealing with unexpected contingencies, the
Reserve Component (RC) is best suited for predictable and infrequent
deployments, for providing Title 32 support to State and local
authorities, and for providing operational and strategic depth. The
Army is committed to building readiness in these units on a predictable
cycle to help Soldiers balance both their civilian and military lives.
We recognize the significant contributions made by the ARNG and
USAR as a part of the Total Force. We can ill-afford to allow the
skills and competencies acquired by the RC over the past 14 years of
war to atrophy. Our goal is to maintain the RC as an operational
reserve, a key component meeting mission requirements at home and
abroad. The Army continues to strive to increase the mix of RC
formations at our Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and Warfighter events.
The recent Bold Shift Initiative reorganized 1st U.S. Army to be more
responsive to pre-mobilization training support for ARNG and USAR
formations while retaining capability to conduct post-mobilization
operations in order to provide RC personnel able to deploy world-wide
in support of National interests.
The Army has taken several actions to ensure the readiness status
of Guard units is sustained and its capabilities fully leveraged. For
example:
--The Army currently has two National Guard Brigade Combat Teams
(BCTs) scheduled to attend CTC rotations in fiscal year 2015,
and two more in fiscal year 2016, in order to build the unit to
the highest levels of readiness and support contingency
responsiveness. These BCTs are not scheduled for deployment.
--The Army is currently leveraging two National Guard BCTs to fulfill
operational requirements--the 41st Infantry BCT from Oregon and
the 72nd Infantry BCT from Texas. The Army plans to deploy one
more National Guard BCT in fiscal year 2015--the 30th Armored
BCT from North Carolina. In addition, the Army plans to
leverage two National Guard BCTs in fiscal year 2016--the 53rd
Infantry BCT from Florida and the 45th Infantry BCT from
Oklahoma--to fulfill steady state operational requirements,
including deployments.
--The Army uses, and plans to continue using, RC headquarters--the
76th Operational Response Command (Army Reserve) and the 38th
Infantry Division from Indiana (National Guard) to provide
Command and Control for the CBRN Response Enterprise. In
addition, the Army plans to leverage a National Guard Division
Headquarters--the 34th Infantry Division, from Minnesota--to
fulfill the command and control responsibilities of a deployed
mission in fiscal year 2015.
--Other National Guard capabilities, including Fires, Sustainment,
Air Defense, Aviation, and some Engineers are fully utilized in
support of ongoing operational requirements. In addition, the
Army strives to increase the mix of these RC units at CTC
rotations and Warfighter events.
Budget limitations and the threat of sequestration currently
prevent the Army from building additional readiness in the Guard.
The Army is developing a new readiness model, in full transparency
and coordination with the National Guard Bureau. The Army's new
readiness model will empower commanders at all echelons to build and
sustain higher levels of readiness and will clearly articulate the
Army's use of the National Guard to meet steady-state operational
requirements and requirements for contingency response. Consistent with
the Army's Total Force Policy, our goal is to maintain the RC as an
operational reserve and integrate both mission and contingency forces
across all components.
tow missiles
Question. As the Army phases out the TOW missile can you tell me
about the progress towards identifying a replacement and when the Army
expects the TOW missile to be taken out of service?
Answer. The Army will procure TOW missiles each year in fiscal year
2016-2020 with a plan to phase out the TOW missile in the 2029-2031
timeframe. For the future, the Army will invest in science and
technology research to assess future missile requirements for the
period beyond fiscal year 2029.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. The Defense Subcommittee is going to
reconvene on Wednesday, March 18, at 10:30 a.m. to receive
testimony from the Missile Defense Agency.
Until then, the subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., March 11, the subcommittee was
recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 18.]