[Senate Hearing 114-653]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:39 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Shelby, Murkowski, Blunt,
Daines, Moran, Durbin, Leahy, Murray, Tester, Udall, and
Schatz.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MURPHY, ACTING SECRETARY
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Good morning. We appreciate very much the
attendance of our witnesses and committee members. The purpose
of our hearing today in the Appropriations Committee is to
review the budget request for the Department of the Army. The
purpose of the hearing is to give the military leadership an
opportunity to answer questions that members of the committee
might have about the provisions in the draft that we will be
reviewing.
It is appropriate that we begin the hearing with the
leadership, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and the
Secretary of the Army, who are here. We appreciate your being
here. Patrick Murphy, Acting Secretary of the Army, and General
Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army.
We know that you have prepared statements, which we
appreciate very much receiving. It gives our staff and
committee members an opportunity to review the budget request
and to have you answer any questions that we may have.
Today, our Armed Forces are engaged globally more than ever
before. There are 190,000 Regular Army, Army National Guard,
and Army Reserve soldiers serving on Active Duty in 140
countries.
This bill that this subcommittee will recommend to the full
committee deals with the obligations of carrying out the
missions contributing to peace and strength, and the capability
to protect the U.S. interests around the world.
We are looking forward to working with the leaders of the
Army to be sure our men and women in uniform are capable of
performing well and protecting our national interests.
We owe a debt of gratitude and appreciation for all who
serve in the military. We appreciate your service.
The statements that you prepared are appreciated, and will
be made a part of the record in full. I am pleased now to yield
to the distinguished Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator
Durbin.
statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put my
statement in the record in the interest of moving along here.
Two points I would like to make. One is I wholeheartedly
support this effort to strengthen our position in Europe, the
European reassurance initiative, which we have discussed.
I want to thank Secretary Murphy and General Milley for
their service to our country. I am sure Secretary Murphy is
doing a fine job.
I regret the fact that the President's nominee for
Secretary of the Army, which was submitted on September 22,
2015, waited 4 months for a confirmation hearing, and has been
waiting another month for a vote in the committee.
This is another critical nomination being held up by the
Republican Majority, and I do not understand why. I am sure
that the two of you will do an excellent job despite this, but
that is the reality of what we face. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Acting
Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Patrick Murphy, and the Chief of
Staff of the Army, General Mark Milley, to our hearing to review the
Army's budget request for fiscal year 2017. Both of our witnesses are
testifying before this Committee for the first time, and although they
have held their respective positions for only a few months, I commend
them on their leadership and look forward to working with them.
One of the major threats facing the world today is the resurgence
of an aggressive Russia. President Putin has demonstrated that his
ambitions reach beyond Russian borders: first through the annexation of
Crimea, and now by continuing the fighting in Ukraine despite a
ceasefire agreement signed last year.
The readiness and presence of the Army in Europe is an
indispensable element of our Nation's commitment to our allies and
against further aggression. This budget includes $3.4 billion for the
European Reassurance Initiative, and $43.5 billion in operation and
maintenance for the Total Army, which support our promise for a free,
secure, and stable Europe.
The Army will be at the forefront of these initiatives, including
the rotation of additional Brigade Combat Teams to Europe, increasing
training exercises with our allies, and encouraging professional
development for our soldiers, leaders, and Army civilians.
There are nearly 190,000 soldiers serving in deployed status around
the world. The Army's budget request includes $148 billion to support
these women and men, as well as to provide for the training, equipping,
and operation of the entire Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard. Our
country has an obligation to look out for the well-being of those who
have volunteered to serve.
In addition, we also have an obligation to provide our troops with
the best leadership in these difficult times. Unfortunately, partisan
obstruction has led to a vacancy in the office of the Secretary of the
Army with no end in sight.
The President's nomination of Eric Fanning was made on September 21
of last year. Mr. Fanning waited 4 months for a confirmation hearing.
He has been waiting another month for a vote in committee. His
nomination has already had holds placed on it, even though Mr. Fanning
has an extensive and impressive record of service to our government.
Sadly, the obstruction is not limited to this one nomination.
Several other Department of Defense appointments are being blocked,
with some nominations to senior positions waiting nearly 8 months for a
simple hearing before the Armed Services Committee.
The Defense Subcommittee is working quickly and efficiently to be
able to mark up a $576 billion budget in the next 3 months. If we can
review that much in proposed spending in that short of a time, the
Senate must be able to move forward on several important defense
nominations in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in thanking the witnesses for their
service to our country, and I look forward to their testimony.
Senator Cochran. We will now proceed to welcome and invite
the witnesses to make any opening statements or comments about
the budget request as you see fit. We appreciate the Honorable
Patrick Murphy, Acting Secretary of the Army, and General Mark
Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, for their presence and
their leadership. You may proceed with opening statements or
comments.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member
Durbin, and members of the committee. We appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you today about our Army.
This is my 7th week on the job as Acting Secretary, and it
is truly an honor to be back with the Army family. I traveled
to see our soldiers, civilians, and their families at Fort
Hood, Fort Sam Houston, and most recently in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The selfless service and dedication of our team should
inspire us all. We are tasked with the solemn responsibility to
fight and win our Nation's wars, and to keep our families safe
here at home.
Our Army must produce ready units to deter and defeat our
Nation's enemies, defend the homeland, respond to crises, build
global security, project power, and to win decisively. By
``ready,'' we mean units that are fully manned, trained in
their combat tasks, fully equipped according to a designed
structure, and led by competent leaders.
With their $125.1 billion base request, our Army will focus
its efforts on rebuilding readiness for large scale, high end
ground combat today. We do so because we believe that ignoring
readiness shortfalls puts our Nation at great risk for the
following reasons.
First, readiness wins wars. Our Army has never been the
largest in a war, and at times we have not been the best
equipped, but since World War II, we have recognized that ready
soldiers properly manned, trained, equipped, and led can be
larger or more determined forces, whether confronting the
barbaric acts of ISIS or the desperation of North Korea, our
Army must be prepared to execute and to win. We train like we
fight, and our Army must always be ready to right tonight.
Next, readiness deters our most dangerous threats. We are
reminded with alarming frequency that great power conflicts are
not dead. Today, they manifest on a regional basis. Both a
revanchist Russia and China are challenging America's
willingness and ability to enforce international standards of
conduct. A ready Army provides America the strength to deter
such actions.
Readiness also makes future training less costly.
Continuous operations since 2001 have left our force proficient
in stability and counterterrorism operations, but our future
command sergeants major and brigade commanders have not had
critical combat training center experiences as junior leaders,
trained for high end ground combat. Investing in readiness
today builds a foundation upon which future training can be
retained longer, throughout our Army.
Finally, readiness prepares our force for transformation.
Our Army must be prepared to face the high end and advanced
combat power of Russia or more likely Russian capability
employed by surrogate actors. We are dedicating resources and
developing solutions for this and other future possibilities to
allow our force the space to develop new concepts or those
suggested by the Commission on the Future of the Army.
Our formations must first be ready to execute against
current and emerging threats. The choice to invest in near term
readiness does come with risks. Slower modernization
investments risks our ability to fight and win in the future.
We have no new modernization programs this decade. Smaller
investments in strength risks our ability to conduct multiple
operations for sustained periods of time.
In short, we are mortgaging our future readiness because we
have to ensure success in today's battles against emerging
threats. That is why initiatives like the BRAC of 2019 are
needed, to be implemented now.
Let us manage your investment and this will result in $500
million a year in savings, and a return on investment within 5
years.
Lastly, while we thank Congress for the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015, which does provide short term relief and 2 years
of predictable funding, we would request your support for the
enactment of our budget as proposed.
We request your support for continued funding at levels
calibrated to current threats and to our national security
interests, and we request your continued support for our
soldiers, civilians, and their families, so that our Army
remains the most capable fighting force on this earth, and will
fight and win our Nation's wars and keep our families safe here
at home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Murphy and General Mark A. Milley
We would like to thank the committee for their continued support of
the United States Army and the American Soldier. Humbled to be
entrusted with the care of our Soldiers, Civilians, and their Families,
we look forward to working with Congress to ensure our Army remains
unmatched in the world.
introduction
The United States Army is the most formidable ground combat force
on earth. America's Army has convincingly demonstrated its competence
and effectiveness in diverse missions overseas and in the homeland.
Today, these missions include: fighting terrorists around the world;
training Afghan and Iraqi Army forces; peacekeeping in the Sinai
Peninsula and Kosovo; missile defense in the Persian Gulf; security
assistance in Africa and South America; deterrence in Europe, the
Republic of Korea, and Kuwait; rapid deployment global contingency
forces; and response forces for the homeland. Additionally, we maintain
12,000 miles of U.S. waterways; respond to hurricanes, floods, and
severe snowstorms; patrol our Southwest border; and assist with the
response to the outbreak of pandemic diseases. In support of these U.S.
Geographic Combatant Command missions, the Army has approximately
190,000 Soldiers deployed to 140 countries. Largely due to deliberate
investments in Soldier training, equipping, and leader development,
today's Army continues to excel at these diverse and enduring missions.
However, we cannot become complacent, remain static, and look to the
past or present to be a guarantor of future victory. To sustain this
high performance and remain prepared for potential contingencies, the
Army must make the most of the resources entrusted to us by the
American people. This ultimately requires a balance of competing
requirements--readiness, end strength, and modernization--to ensure
America's Army remains ready to fight and win both today and in the
future.
Throughout history, successful armies anticipated the future,
adapted, and capitalized upon opportunities. Today, the Army faces a
rapidly changing security environment that requires the Army to make
difficult decisions in order to remain an effective instrument of the
Nation's military power. An Army ready for combat is the most effective
tool to continually assure allies and deter or defeat adversaries.
However, given the past 3 years of reduced funding coupled with the
uncertainty of future funding, the Army risks going to war with
insufficient readiness to win decisively. Therefore, the Army's number
one priority is readiness.
Increasing Army readiness provides additional options for the
President, Secretary of Defense, and Congress to successfully implement
American foreign and security policy. In this budget, the Army will
focus investments on readiness, key modernization programs, and Soldier
quality of life to sustain the world's greatest Army. Our benchmark of
success is to: sustain and improve our capabilities to prevent
conflict; shape the environment by building partner capacity; win the
current war against terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; and
prepare ourselves to win the next war decisively.
A ready Army is a manned, trained, equipped, and well-led force
that can conduct Joint missions to deter and defeat a wide range of
state and non-state actors. No American Soldier should ever go to
combat unready for the brutal and unforgiving environment of ground
combat-- that is the contract we must ensure is rock solid between the
American people and the American Army. Therefore, this budget requests
Congressional support to fund readiness and end strength, provide our
Soldiers with modern equipment, and ensure adequate Soldier quality of
life.
adapting to new strategic realities
The global security environment is increasingly uncertain and
complex. Opportunities to create a less dangerous world through
diplomacy, economic stability, collective security, and national
example exist, but military strength is both a complementary and
foundational element of National power in a dangerous world. Each
element is necessary in combination with the others; however, each
alone is insufficient to win a war or maintain a peace. The conditions
of diplomatic success, for example, are more likely if military options
are credible, real, and perceived as unacceptable to an adversary.
Therefore, for the Nation to advance its enduring national interests,
our Joint force as a whole, and the Army in particular--in terms of
capacity and capability--must remain strong.
In Europe, Russia continues to act aggressively. While we cannot
predict Russia's next move, its record of aggression in multiple
domains throughout the last decade--Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine (both
eastern and Crimea) in 2014--clearly illustrates the need to be
prepared to deter or defeat further Russian aggression. Russian acts of
aggression are a direct threat to the national security of the United
States and our NATO allies. Accordingly, in this budget we ask for your
support to modify the Army's posture in Europe, including more
rotational forces, prepositioned equipment, and increased operational
use of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Throughout the Middle East and South Asia, radical terrorism
threatens regional order. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-
Qaeda, and other transnational terrorist groups present a significant
threat and must be destroyed. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
is the most lethal and destabilizing terrorist group in modern history.
There are more members of radical Islamic terrorist groups operating in
Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and
elsewhere than ever before. Their ability to seize and hold territory
and spread their ideology through social media is a significant
challenge. They also have demonstrated both capability and intent for
global reach into Europe, Asia, and the U.S. homeland. Additionally,
although the imminent threat of Iran's nuclear weapons development has
reduced, Iran remains a supporter of various terrorist groups and is a
considerable threat to stability in the Middle East and U.S. interests.
Destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other radical
terrorist groups will take considerable time. It is a necessary
commitment and we ask Congress for continued resources to sustain our
efforts in the Middle East and South Asia for the long term.
Strategically in Asia and the Pacific, there are complex systemic
challenges from unresolved territorial disputes, economic and
demographic change, a little noticed ongoing arms race, a perceptible
rise in nationalism, and a lack of multilateral collective security
regimes in Northeast Asia. China is not currently an enemy, but their
rapid military modernization and activities in the South China Sea are
warning signs that cause concern. China continues to militarize
territorial claims in the South China Sea and impede freedom of
navigation in the Asia-Pacific region. The Army, in support of naval,
air, and diplomatic efforts, will play a significant role in
maintaining peaceful relations with a rising China. Meanwhile, North
Korean nuclear and missile developments, in combination with routine
acts of provocation in the Demilitarized Zone, continue to pose an
imminent threat to regional security in Northeast Asia. The Army's
assigned and rotational forces in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and
throughout the Asia-Pacific region today provide a deterrent and
contingency response capability that strengthens defense relationships
and builds increased capacity with our allies. We must sustain and
improve that capability to execute our national strategy to rebalance
to the Asia-Pacific. In short, the conditions for potential conflict in
Asia, as in Europe, are of considerable concern and our Army has an
important role to prevent conflict and if conflict occurs, then to win
as part of the Joint force.
Politically, socially, economically, and demographically, Africa's
potential for positive growth is significant. Realizing this potential
depends on African governments' ability to provide security and
stability for their people against terrorist groups such as the Boko
Haram, al-Shabaab, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb as well as the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Libya. Army forces partner with
ministries of defense to develop and shape the environment and
establish strategic frameworks that employ forces, build professional
military institutions, and partner with European Allies to achieve
shared strategic objectives.
In Central and South America, criminal gang and drug trafficking
activities have wrought devastating consequences in many of our partner
nations, degrading their civilian police and justice systems,
corrupting their institutions, and contributing to a breakdown in
citizen safety. Our annual multinational training exercises with our
partners promote regional cooperation and enhance readiness of partner
nation military forces. To date, we have active partnerships with
defense and security forces from 26 nations in the Caribbean, Central
America, and South America.
Today, state and non-state actors are destabilizing major regions
of the world by combining conventional and irregular warfare with
terrorism. Acts of aggression also occur through surrogates, cyber and
electronic systems, organized criminal activity, and economic coercion.
These groups mobilize people, resources, and sophisticated modern
weapons in unconventional ways that enable hostile actors to be more
agile than traditional militaries. Since these advantages are low cost,
it is likely this form of conflict will persist well into the future
and our Army must adapt.
The U.S. Army, as the principal land force of a global power, does
not have the luxury of preparing to fight only one type of enemy, at
one time, in one place. We cannot forecast precisely when and where the
next contingency that requires Army forces will arise. However, history
indicates that the next contingency will likely require a commitment of
conventional and unconventional forces to conduct operations of
significant scale and duration to achieve strategic objectives. If a
major crisis occurred today, the Army would likely deploy all
uncommitted forces-- from all components--into combat on very short
notice. Therefore, the readiness of the Army is key to the security of
the Nation. Unfortunately, less than one-third of Army forces are at
acceptable readiness levels to conduct sustained ground combat in a
full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat or
near-peer adversary. The risk of deploying unready forces into combat
is higher U.S. casualty rates and increased risk to mission success. To
mitigate this risk, the Army will continue to prioritize readiness to
reverse declines from the past 15 years of continuous combat and
reduced resources. We welcome continued Congressional support in this
effort.
the foundation of america's defense
Fundamentally, America's Army protects the Nation by winning wars
as part of the Joint Force. As the Nation's principal land force, the
Army organizes, trains, and equips forces for prompt and sustained
campaign-level ground combat. The Army is necessary to defeat enemy
forces, control terrain, secure populations, consolidate gains,
preserve joint force freedom of action, and establish conditions for
lasting peace. To do the core tasks globally against a wide range of
threats, the Army must have both capability and capacity properly
balanced. Although important, it is not just the size of the Army that
matters, but rather the right mix of capacity, readiness, skill,
superior equipment, and talented Soldiers, which in combination, are
the key to ground combat power and decision in warfare.
Today's Army maintains significant forces stationed and rotating
overseas that provide a visible and credible deterrent. However, should
war occur, we must terminate the conflict on terms favorable to the
United States--this requires significant ready forces and the
operational use of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Only the
Army provides the President and the Secretary of Defense the ability to
rapidly deploy ground forces, ranging in decisive ground capabilities
from Humanitarian Assistance and Countering Terrorism to high-end
decisive operations. Moreover, the Army conducts these operations in
unilateral, bilateral, or coalition environments across the range of
conflict from unconventional warfare to major combat operations. In the
end, the deployment of the American Army is the ultimate display of
American resolve to assure allies and deter enemies.
While the Army fights alongside the Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast
Guard, and our allies, the Nation also relies on a ready Army to
provide unique capabilities for the Nation's defense. Unique to the
Army is the ability to conduct sustained land campaigns in order to
destroy or defeat an enemy, defend critical assets, protect
populations, and seize positions of strategic advantage. Additionally,
as the foundation of the Joint Force, the Army provides critical
capabilities--command and control, communications, intelligence,
logistics, and special operations--in support of Joint operations. In
short, a ready Army enables the Nation to deploy ground forces in
sufficient scale and duration to prevent conflict, shape outcomes,
create multiple options for resolving crises, and if necessary, win
decisively in war.
ready to fight tonight
The Army's primary focus on counterinsurgency for the last decade
shaped a generation of Army leaders with invaluable skills and
experiences. Nonetheless, this expertise comes at a cost. Today, most
leaders of combat formations have limited experience with combined arms
operations against enemy conventional or hybrid forces. Moreover, the
current operational tempo and changing security environment continues
to place significant demands on Army forces, stressing our ability to
rebuild and retain combined arms proficiency. The Army currently
provides 40 percent of planned forces committed to global operations
and over 60 percent of forces for emerging demands from Combatant
Commanders.
The four components of readiness--manning, training, equipping, and
leader development--describe how the Army prioritizes its efforts to
provide trained and ready forces ready to fight and win our Nation's
wars. Even though investing in readiness takes time and is expensive,
the result ensures that our Soldiers remain the world's premier combat
land force.
The first component of readiness, manning, is about people--the
core of our Army and keystone to innovation, versatility, and combat
capabilities. Unlike other Services that derive power from advanced
platforms, the collective strength of the Army is people. America's
Army must recruit resilient, fit people of character and develop them
into quality Soldiers. After recruitment, the Army develops men and
women into competent Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Soldiers
who possess combat skills and values essential to the profession of
arms. Unfortunately, in order to meet Regular Army end strength
reduction requirements, the Army has involuntary separated thousands of
mid-career Soldiers. While numbers are not the only factor, end
strength reductions below the current plan will reduce our capability
to support the National Military Strategy. Additionally, manning
requires an appropriate mix of forces across the Army--Regular Army,
Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve--to accomplish our National
military objectives. To support Joint Force commitments worldwide over
the last 15 years, the Army increased its operational use of the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve. We will continue this trend as we
draw down the Regular Army. With the support of Congress, we can
maintain the appropriate force mix capable of conducting sustained land
combat operations worldwide with increased operational use of the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve.
To win on the battlefield, the Army must sufficiently resource
training--the second component of readiness--to provide sufficient
combat ready units in a timely manner. Building readiness from the
individual Soldier to collective units across multiple echelons is time
intensive. Moreover, a ready unit is not only prepared in the
classroom; it is prepared by conducting rigorous and repetitive
training under intense pressure and realistic battlefield conditions.
Training at the highest level, the kind the Army conducts at combat
training centers, brings all elements of the force together to practice
firing, maneuver, and leader decisions against a skilled and determined
enemy in all environmental conditions. In fiscal year 2016 and fiscal
year 2017, the Army has programmed 19 combat training center rotations,
giving Soldiers and leaders intensive combined arms maneuver
experiences in anticipation of future combat. Key to success of the
combat training center exercises is preparing at home station. Both
combat training center exercises and home station training have
declined in the past 15 years. Ultimately, training is the most
essential aspect of readiness and we must rapidly improve this area.
Therefore, we request funding for training that will enable our
Soldiers to succeed.
A trained army requires modern equipment to win--the third
component of readiness. An unintended consequence of the current fiscal
environment is that the Army has not equipped and sustained the force
with the most modern equipment and risks falling behind near-peers.
Instead, funding constraints forced the Army to selectively modernize
equipment to counter our adversary's most significant technological
advances. While we are deliberately choosing to delay several
modernization efforts, we request Congressional support of our
prioritized modernization programs to ensure the Army retains the
necessary capabilities to deter and if necessary, defeat an act of
aggression by a near-peer.
The fourth component of Army readiness is leader development. As
stated in the 2015 National Military Strategy, ``Military and civilian
professionals are our decisive advantage.'' The Army is committed to
build leaders of character who are technically and tactically
proficient, adaptive, innovative, and agile. It takes time to develop
Soldiers who can successfully lead, train, and equip a unit for combat.
Leader development starts with a framework of formal training coupled
with professional education and operational assignments. Professional
Military Education serves as the principal way leaders combine
experiences gained during operational assignments with current and
emerging doctrinal methods in preparation for combat. As such, we have
re-established the requirement to have our leaders complete military
education prior to promotion. Ultimately, predictable funding provides
the facilities and faculty that develop Army leaders who provide the
Nation an advantage that neither technology nor weapons can replace.
The deliberate decision to prioritize readiness while reducing end
strength and decreasing funding for modernization places the Army in a
readiness paradox: devoting resources to today's readiness invariably
decreases investments for future readiness. While the Army prefers
investments for current and future readiness, the security environment
of today demands readiness for global operations and contingencies. We
request the support of Congress to fund Army readiness at sufficient
levels to meet current demands, build readiness for contingencies, and
understand the mid and long term risks.
strengthening army readiness
Before the Army can significantly increase readiness, there must be
an infrastructure to support Army manning, training, equipping, and
leader development. Army readiness occurs on Army installations--where
Soldiers live, work, and train. Installations provide the platform
where the Army focuses on its fundamental task--readiness. The Army
maintains 154 permanent Army installations, and over 1100 community-
based Army National Guard and Army Reserve Centers worldwide.
Regrettably, we estimate an annual burden of spending at least $500
million/year on excess or underutilized facilities. In short, smaller
investments in Army installations without the ability to reduce excess
infrastructure jeopardizes our ability to ensure long-term readiness.
To continue the efficient use of resources, the Army requests
Congressional authority to consolidate or close excess infrastructure.
As we spend taxpayer's dollars, the Army makes every effort to
achieve the most efficient use of resources and demonstrate
accountability. The Army is conducting a 25 percent headquarters
personnel reduction to minimize the impact of our end strength
reductions to our combat formations. These headquarters personnel
reductions and future reductions will reduce authorizations for
Soldiers and Civilians at a comparable rate.
The Army is also reviewing the recommendations of the National
Commission of the Future of the Army. After a thorough assessment, we
intend to implement recommendations that increase Army readiness,
consistent with statute, policy, and available resources.
Implementation of any recommendation will include the coordinated
efforts of the Army's three components: the Regular Army, the Army
National Guard, and the Army Reserve. The Army may request the support
of Congress to reprogram funding and, if needed, request additional
funds to implement the commission's recommendations.
In addition to the recommendations of the National Commission of
the Future of the Army, the size and mix of Army forces relates to the
capabilities required in the 2015 National Military Strategy. To
respond to global contingencies or domestic emergencies, the Army has
37 multicomponent units--units that have members of the Regular Army,
Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve. Multicomponent units
strengthen Army readiness by training together today and if needed,
fighting together tomorrow.
The Army has excelled in providing trained and ready forces for
combatant commanders across a wide array of missions for the past 15
years of war. This creates the impression we are ready for any
conflict. In fact, only one-third of Army forces are at acceptable
combat readiness levels, a byproduct of near continuous deployments
into Iraq and Afghanistan. To address this readiness shortfall, the
Army has redesigned our force generation model to focus on Sustainable
Readiness: a process that will not only meet combatant commander
demands, but will sustain unit readiness in anticipation of the next
mission. This process synchronizes manning, equipping, training and
mission assignments in such a way to minimize readiness loss and
accelerate restoration of leader and unit proficiency. Designed for all
three components and all types of units, our objective within current
budget projections is to achieve two-thirds combat readiness for global
contingencies by 2023. But, we will do everything possible to
accelerate our progress to mitigate the window of strategic risk.
modernization: equipped to fight
While rebalancing readiness and modernization in the mid-term, from
2020 to 2029, the Army will not have the resources to equip and sustain
the entire force with the most modern equipment. Informed by the Army
Warfighting experiments, the Army will invest in programs with the
highest operational return and we build new only by exception. We will
delay procurement of our next generation platforms and accept risk to
mission in the mid-term. The Army Equipment Modernization Strategy
focuses on the five capability areas of Aviation, the Network,
Integrated Air Missile Defense, Combat Vehicles, and Emerging Threats.
The Army will resource the first capability area, Aviation, to
provide greater combat capability at a lower cost than proposed
alternatives. Key to the success of this initiative is the divestment
of the Army's oldest aircraft fleets and distributing its modernized
aircraft between the components. The Army will upgrade the UH-60 Black
Hawk fleet and invest in the AH-64 Apache. These helicopters provide
the capability to conduct close combat, mobile strike, armed
reconnaissance, and the full range of support to Joint operations.
Though aviation modernization is a priority, reduced funding caused the
Army to decelerate fleet modernization by procuring fewer UH-60 Black
Hawks and AH-64 Apaches in fiscal year 2017.
Second, the Army must maintain a robust Network that is not
vulnerable to cyber-attacks. This network provides the ability for the
Joint Force to assess reliable information on adversaries, the terrain,
and friendly forces. This information provides a decisive advantage by
enabling the Joint Force commander to make accurate and timely
decisions, ultimately, hastening the defeat of an adversary. Key
investments supporting the network are the Warfighter Information
Network-Tactical; assured position, navigation, and timing;
communications security; and defensive and offensive cyberspace
operations.
The Army will invest in the third capability area, Integrated Air
Missile Defense, to defeat a large portfolio of threats, ranging from
micro unmanned aerial vehicles and mortars to cruise missiles and
medium range ballistic missiles. The Army will support this priority by
investing in an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command
System, an Indirect Fire Protection Capability, and the Patriot missile
system.
Army improvements to Combat Vehicles ensure that the Army's fourth
modernization capability area provides future Army maneuver forces an
advantage over the enemy in the conduct of expeditionary maneuver, air-
ground reconnaissance, and joint combined arms maneuver. Specifically,
the Army will invest in the Ground Mobility Vehicle, Stryker lethality
upgrades, Mobile Protected Firepower, and the Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle.
Finally, the Army will address Emerging Threats by investing in
mature technologies with the greatest potential for future use. The
Army will invest in innovative technologies that focus on protecting
mission critical systems from cyber-attacks. To this end, the Army will
invest in innovative technologies focused on active protection systems
(both ground and air), aircraft survivability, future vertical lift,
directed energy weapons, cyber, and integrated electronic warfare.
The Army modernization strategy reflects those areas in which the
Army will focus its limited investments for future Army readiness.
However, our implementation of the strategy will fall short if we delay
investment in next generation platforms. We request the support of
Congress to provide flexibility in current procurement methods and to
fund these five capability areas--Aviation, the Network, Integrated Air
Missile Defense, Combat Vehicles, and Emerging Threats--to provide the
equipment the Army requires to fight and win our Nation's wars.
We support the ongoing Congressional efforts to streamline
redundant and unnecessary barriers in the acquisition process. Our
adversaries are rapidly leveraging available technology; our
acquisition process must be agile enough to keep pace. Aligning
responsibilities with authorities only improves the acquisition
process. The Army remains committed to ensuring that we make the right
acquisition decisions and that we improve the acquisition process to
maintain a technological advantage over adversaries and provide
requisite capabilities to Soldiers.
soldiers, civilians, and families: our greatest asset
The Army's collective strength originates from the quality citizens
we recruit from communities across America and place into our
formations. We build readiness by training and developing American
citizens into ethical and competent Soldiers who are mentally and
physically fit to withstand the intense rigors of ground combat.
Additionally, the Families of our Soldiers make sacrifices for the
Nation that contribute to Army readiness and play an important part in
achieving mission success. As a result of the dedication and sacrifices
of Soldiers and their Families, the Army is committed to providing the
best possible care, support, and services.
The Army is committed to improve access of behavioral health
services. Beginning in 2012, the Army transformed its behavioral
healthcare to place providers within combat brigades. These embedded
behavioral health teams improve Soldier readiness by providing care
closer to the point of need. However, the Army only has 1,789 of the
2,090 behavioral health providers required to deliver clinical care.
The Army will continue to use all available incentives and authorities
to hire these high demand professionals to ensure we provide our
Soldiers immediate access to the best possible care.
The Army provides an inclusive environment that provides every
Soldier and Civilian equal opportunities to advance to the level of
their ability regardless of their racial background, sexual
orientation, or gender. This year, the Army removed legacy gender-based
entry barriers from the most physically and mentally demanding
leadership school the Army offers--the United States Army Ranger
School. To date, three female Soldiers have graduated the United States
Army Ranger School. We increasingly recognize that we derive strength
from our diversity, varying perspectives, and differing qualities of
our people. The Army welcomes the increased opportunities to bring new
ideas and expanded capabilities to the mission.
The Army does not tolerate sexual assault or sexual harassment. We
are committed to identifying and implementing all proven methods to
eliminate sexual harassment and sexual assault. As an example, the
United States Army Cadet Command shared sexual harassment and sexual
assault prevention best practices with universities and organizations
nationwide. Currently, Cadet Command has 232 Army Reserve Officers
Training Corps programs that have signed partnership charters with
their colleges or universities. These cadets actively participate in
education and awareness training on campuses that include programs such
as ``Take Back the Night'' and ``Stomp Out Sexual Assault.'' Cadets
also serve as peer mentors, bystander intervention trainers, and sexual
assault prevention advocates.
Prevention is the primary objective of the Army Sexual Harassment/
Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program. However, when an
incident does occur, the Army initiates a professional investigation to
hold the offender accountable while providing best-in-class support and
protection to the survivor. Additionally, the Army performs assessments
of SHARP program strategies to measure effectiveness. To increase
effectiveness, the U.S. Army Medical Command ensures that every
Military Treatment Facility operating a 24/7 Emergency Room has a
trained and qualified Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examiner. Our
enduring commitment to the SHARP program strives to eliminate sexual
assault and sexual harassment, strengthen trust within our formations,
and ensure our Soldiers are combat ready.
Another program committed to keeping the faith and improving
quality of life is the Soldier For Life Program. The Soldier For Life
program connects Army, governmental, and community efforts to build
relationships that facilitate successful reintegration of our Soldiers
and their Families into communities across America. Currently, the
Soldier For Life program offers support to 9.5 million Army Veterans
and Soldiers. Moreover, the Army plans to support the transition of
374,000 Soldiers in the next 3 years. In 2015, veteran unemployment in
the United States was at a 7-year low and employers hired veterans at
higher rates than non-veterans. Additionally, the Army distribution of
fiscal year 2015 unemployment compensation for former service members
was down 25 percent, $81.8 million, from fiscal year 2014. The Army
seeks to continue the positive trends for Army Soldiers, Family
Members, and Veterans in 2015. Ultimately, this program provides a
connection between the Soldiers and the American people.
The Army's most valuable asset is its people; therefore, the well-
being of Soldiers, Civilians, and their Family members, both on and
off-duty remains critical to the success of the Army. Taking care of
Soldiers is an obligation of every Army leader. The Army focuses on
improving personal readiness and increasing personal accountability.
Programs like ``Not in My Squad,'' first championed by Sergeant Major
of the Army Daniel Dailey, empower Army leaders to instill Army values
in their Soldiers and enforce Army standards. Our Soldiers and
Civilians want to be part of a team that fosters greatness. It is
through personal conduct and proactive leadership that we seek to
improve on a culture of trust that motivates and guides the conduct of
Soldiers. The American people expect and continue to deserve an Army of
trusted professionals.
the army's budget request
The Army requires sustained, long term, and predictable funding. We
thank Congress for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which provides
short-term relief and 2 years of predictable funding. However, funding
levels are not keeping pace with the reality of the strategic
environment and global threats. Moreover, while the current budget
provides predictability, it does so at funding levels less than
envisioned by the President last year. In short, the fiscal year 2017
Army Budget base request of $125.1 billion is $1.4 billion less than
the fiscal year 2016 enacted budget of $126.5 billion. As a result, the
Army will fully fund readiness, reduce funding for modernization and
infrastructure maintenance, and continue programmed end strength
reductions.
Our major goals in this budget request are to: improve readiness by
fully manning in combat units, increase combat power, streamline
headquarters, improve command and control, and conduct realistic
combined arms training. The Army will also modernize in five capability
areas: Aviation, the Network, Integrated Air Missile Defense, Combat
Vehicles, and Emerging Threats. Additionally, the Army will ensure the
recruitment and retention of high quality Soldiers of character and
competence. The fiscal year 2017 budget also provides adequate funding
so that we can provide Soldiers, Civilians, and their Families the best
possible quality of life. Absent additional legislation, the Budget
Control Act funding levels will return in fiscal year 2018. This
continued fiscal unpredictability beyond fiscal year 2017 is one of the
Army's single greatest challenges and inhibits our ability to generate
readiness. This will force the Army to continue to reduce end strength
and delay modernization, decreasing Army capability and capacity--a
risk our Nation should not accept.
conclusion
The Army's fiscal year 2017 Budget prioritizes readiness while
reducing our end strength and delaying modernization. Prioritizing Army
readiness ensures the Joint Force has the capability to deter, and when
required, fight and win wars in defense of the United States and its
national interests. To fulfil this obligation to the Nation, the Army
requires predictable and sufficient funding to build readiness,
maintain Army installations, modernize equipment, and provide Soldier
compensation commensurate with their service and sacrifice.
The Nation's resources available for defense are limited, but the
uncertainties of today require a ready force capable of responding to
protect our national interests. An investment in readiness is the
primary means that allows the Army to meet the demands of our Combatant
Commanders and maintain the capacity to respond to contingencies
worldwide. By building readiness, the Army provides the Joint Force the
ability to respond to unforeseeable threats, decisively defeat our
enemies, and advance the Nation's national security interests. As a
result of our current fiscal uncertainty, the Army prioritizes today's
readiness and accepts risk in modernization, infrastructure
maintenance, and sustained end strength in the mid and long term. We
request the support of Congress to fund Army readiness at sufficient
levels to meet current demands, build readiness for contingencies, and
understand the mid and long term risks. Ultimately, the American people
will judge us by one standard: that the Army is ready when called upon
to fight and win our Nation's wars.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. General Milley, we
welcome you and ask if you have an opening statement, you may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. MILLEY, ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF
General Milley. Thank you, Chairman Cochran and Ranking
Member Durbin, and all the distinguished members of the
committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about your Army, and we appreciate your consistent support
to our soldiers, civilians, and family members.
Six months ago when I was confirmed as the Chief of Staff,
39th Chief of Staff of the United States Army, I committed to
you and the American people to ensure that this Nation has the
Army it needs, is postured for an uncertain and increasingly
complex future, and that we must remain the world's most
capable, versatile, and lethal ground force, valued by our
friends, and absolutely feared by our enemies.
This mission has one common thread, and that thread is
readiness, combat readiness. A ready Army that is manned,
trained, equipped, and well led is the foundation of the Joint
Force, in order to conduct missions, importantly to deter, and
if deterrence fails, to defeat a wide range of state and non-
state actors today, tomorrow, and into the future.
Fifteen years of continuous counterinsurgency operations
combined with recent reduced and unpredictable budgets has
created a gap in our proficiency to conduct combined arms
operations against enemy conventional forces resulting in an
Army today that is less than ready to fight and win against
emerging threats.
America is a global power, and our Army must be capable of
meeting a wide variety of threats under varying conditions
anywhere on earth.
Our challenge today is to sustain the counterterrorists and
counterinsurgency capabilities that we have developed to a high
degree of proficiency over the last 15 years of war, while
simultaneously rebuilding the capability to winning ground
combat against higher end threats. We can wish away this latter
case, but we would be foolish as a Nation to do so.
This budget prioritizes readiness because the global
security environment is increasingly uncertain and complex.
Today, in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, we see
radical terrorism and the malign influence of Iran threatening
the regional order.
In Europe, Russia has modernized its military, invaded
several sovereign countries, and continues to act aggressively
towards its neighbors using multiple means of national power.
In Asia, in the Pacific, there are complex systemic challenges
with a rising China that is increasingly assertive militarily
and a very provocative North Korea, both situations creating
the conditions for potential conflict.
While we cannot forecast precisely where and when the next
contingency will arise, it is my professional military view
that if any contingency happens, it will likely require a very
significant commitment of U.S. Army ground forces.
If one or more possible unforeseen contingencies happen,
then we the United States risk not having ready forces
available to provide flexible options to our national
leadership, and if committed, we risk not being able to
accomplish the strategic tasks at hand in an acceptable amount
of time, and most importantly, we risk incurring significantly
increased U.S. casualties.
In sum, we risk the ability to conduct ground operations of
sufficient scale and ample duration to achieve strategic
objectives or win decisively at an acceptable cost against the
highly lethal hybrid threat or a near peer adversary in the
unforgiving environment of ground combat.
The Army is currently committed to winning our fight
against radical terrorists and deterring conflict in other
parts of the globe. The Army current provides 46 percent of the
annual DOD global combatant command demand for military forces
of any type, and 64 percent of all the emerging combatant
commander demand, with as the Chairman mentioned, almost
190,000 soldiers currently committed in 140 countries globally.
To sustain current operations and to mitigate the risk of
deploying an unready force into future combat operations, the
Army will continue to prioritize and fully fund readiness,
strength, modernization, and infrastructure. While the Army
prefers investment for both current and future readiness, the
security environment of today and in the near future drive
investment into readiness for global operations and potential
contingencies.
Specifically, we ask your support to fully man and equip
our combat formations, conduct realistic combined arms combat
training of both home stations and our combat training centers,
and additionally, we ask your support for our modernization in
five key capability areas--aviation, command and control
network, integrated air and missile defense, combat vehicles,
and emerging threats programs.
Finally, we ask your continued support to our soldiers and
families to recruit and retain high quality soldiers of
character and competence.
In order to best utilize those resources, we intend to
continue to streamline our headquarters, ruthlessly cut
activities if they do not contribute to the effective fighting
force, and we ask Congress to consider another round of BRAC
(Base Realignment and Closure).
We request your support for the proposed fiscal year 2017
budget, and we thank Congress for the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015, which provided short term relief.
With your support, the Army will fund readiness at
sufficient levels, build readiness for contingencies, and
invest selectively in the readiness of our future force.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
LAKOTA HELICOPTERS
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
leadership, and we know you have to make some hard choices and
you have made some in connection with Army aviation assets.
I specifically was concerned to learn that the Lakota
helicopters in the budget request have been zeroed out. That is
my first question, to what extent is that going to affect your
ability to carry out the missions that you both just described?
Mr. Secretary, will you go first?
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, obviously aviation is our most
expensive asset that we have, but it is critically important,
and we are looking at with the new commission that came out all
the aviation assets and how we implement that to the total
force. That is Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve.
We have divested in other aviation assets such as the Kiowa
Warrior, as you know, Mr. Chairman. As far as Lakota, we
continue to make sure we are doing everything possible to have
the best fighting force and the best assets.
We do not want a fair fight, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
with our enemy. We want the technical and tactical advantage
every step of the way. I know the chief and I are working as
battle parties on this to make sure we can do what is necessary
to fund what is needed.
Senator Cochran. General Milley.
General Milley. Chairman, the Lakota is not a combat
helicopter. It is an administrative helicopter that we use in a
variety of scenarios. We use it for training out at Rucker. We
use it out at the National Training Center and Joint Readiness
Training Center. The National Guard gets good use of it, et
cetera.
In this budget, we sustained the current Lakota's we have
but we have to divest ourselves of those because we have to cut
anything that does not have to do with our core combat tasks.
As you know, the congressionally mandated Commission on the
Future of the Army, and there are a variety of aviation
initiatives in there, some of which includes increasing
Lakota's for the training base down at Ft. Rucker.
We will take a look at that, but it is not a combat
helicopter, so we chose to take some risk there.
Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin.
ARMY CONTRACTORS
Senator Durbin. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask
a question related to saving money and spending money. When I
was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, I asked the Department of
Defense how many contractors does the Department of Defense pay
for. They could not tell me. They just did not know the
numbers.
It turns out that since 2008, we have asked each of the
branches of the military to report to us about contractors. The
reason it is important is that a contractor employee cost about
three times as much as a civilian employee.
When I look at your budget and the budget request cuts more
than 700 civilian jobs while increasing the full time
equivalent of contractor jobs by more than 2,300, it seems like
we are going in the wrong direction.
Would it not save money for us to continue with civilian
employees at one-third of the cost of contractor employees?
Mr. Murphy. Senator Durbin, I will give you the answer, we
have 146,000 contractors right now. The Army team itself, as
you know, is 1.4 million people, about 1,015,000 soldiers, and
that is total force, about 246,000 civilians, and I would agree
with you, they are part of the team and they are cost
effective.
I will say, as you mentioned, we have had to cut with the
downsizing of our Army, not just our soldiers but also our
civilians, we have cut about 37,000 civilians over the last few
years. It is at that number, 246,000 and it was in the 280,000s
previously.
As far as the contractors, we have about 146,000
contractors right now, and I share your concern on the cost of
them. A lot of those contractors are not full time. Some of
them are part time on missions and they hire ones out, whether
that is in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
I am going through the budget like a bulldog on a bone to
find cost savings to make sure that we have combat capability
to fight and win our Nation's wars. Chief Milley and I, as he
just mentioned, we had to make some ruthless decisions which
affect the lives of folks, but these are decisions that need to
be done during these budget constraints that are place on our
Army.
Senator Durbin. Secretary, we have tried to ask for more
information from each of the branches so we know on the
contractor employees what is happening, and the report from the
GAO recently suggested that about 25 percent of your
contractual work was not being reported. This predates your
arrival. I am not pointing a finger.
I have to tell you that if we are going to spend three
times as much for contractor employees and you are cutting
civilians and increasing contractor employees, we need to have
some more data to make sure that we are not making the wrong
decision.
ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSED VEHICLE
Let me ask you this question as well. The Decker-Wagner
Report in 2011 found that the Army had spent $1 billion a year
every year since 1996, that is 15 years, on programs that were
ultimately cancelled. A billion dollars a year. Ground combat
vehicle, future combat systems, Crusader, Comanche helicopters,
armed reconnaissance helicopters, to name a few.
Now we hear that your AMPV program is going to have--I
don't know if it is a cost overrun, but an additional charge of
$2.6 billion. What was the reason for this cost growth of $2.6
billion in the AMPV program, and does the Army have its hands
around this Decker-Wagner Report conclusion that when it comes
to contracting out, you have had some serious challenges?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, there is no doubt that the Army has
had some serious challenges when it came to modernization and
its acquisition programs. I am aware of the report. I do think
there is new leadership within the building that are on top of
this to make sure that we are not wasting taxpayer dollars,
especially as to the fiscal constraints that are placed on us,
even more so.
As far as the AMPV program, I will get you that
information, like I will get you that information on the
contractors that you requested previously, and I will be very
responsive to you and any other members on this committee or in
the Senate to get you the answers that you need.
[The information follows:]
The Army did not have a $2.6 billion cost growth as identified in
the Congressional Research Service Report (CRS), dated October 15,
2015. The CRS misidentification of a $2.6 billion cost growth
discrepancy is primarily the result of using figures from both an early
program estimate (pre-Program of Record), as well as the Program of
Record Independent Cost Estimate for the calculation. In addition to
using both non-Program of Record and Program of Record estimates, the
discrepancy is exacerbated because the early program estimate figures
used in the report were not adjusted for inflation over 26 year program
life giving the impression of a significant program cost growth. The
AMPV program is fully funded to the Independent Cost Estimate, and the
Army continues to manage large acquisition programs closely to ensure
that there is no impact to budget that could deter the development of
the Army's largest weapons development program.
EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE
Mr. Murphy. We need to be partners with you to make sure
that we are not just asking for dollars, but also being good
stewards of those dollars once you give them to us.
Senator Durbin. General Milley, my concluding question is
on the European initiative. What kind of buy in do we have from
our NATO allies to make this stand in Europe to stop any
potential aggression by Putin?
General Milley. Thanks, Senator. Just one comment on AMPV.
I became aware of that cost overrun. I am going to head out
there to take a look at this whole thing, and I will report
back to you on what I see as my increased role in acquisition.
I am going to dig into the AMPV piece.
[The information follows:]
I have found that the cost overruns for the AMPV program were
incorrectly reported. The program is, in fact, on track.
The acquisition reforms included in the fiscal year 2016 National
Defense Authorization Act (fiscal year 2016 NDAA) are a good start
towards improving the acquisition process by strengthening my role as
its principal customer. As part of my increased role in acquisition, I
have re-invigorated my Army Requirements Oversight Council and am using
that forum to implement the new authorities afforded to me by the
fiscal year 2016 NDAA. I am also working a number of other efforts with
Honorable Murphy to improve the Army's acquisition process and ensure
the customer is adequately represented throughout. We will also
continue to explore steps that would improve the process' agility. We
appreciate Congress' support in reducing some of the cumbersome
oversight and bureaucracy while placing decision authority and
accountability within the Services.
General Milley. With respect to the ERI, you know, Russia,
as I mentioned in my opening statement, in my view, and I said
it during confirmation testimony and elsewhere, Russia is the
number one threat to the United States, and the reason is
because they are the only country on earth that has the
capability to be an existential threat to the United States.
In addition to not just having the capability, they have
also demonstrated aggressive intent, at least since 2008, by
invading countries and using national power in ways that are
not favorable to U.S. interests.
The Europeans have reacted to that as well as the United
States. I went on a recent trip over there. I think what I saw
in Scandinavia, what I saw in Germany, what I saw in Poland,
France, the U.K., and other countries, and I met with each of
the Army chiefs of all the NATO counterparts, they are very
much in favor of additional U.S. support over there in order to
deter Russia from further aggression. I think we are going to
get good support in that regard.
As for them, I think that we are in a period of about 10 or
15 years where the European countries have reduced their
military significantly in terms of capability, size,
technologies, weapon systems, et cetera. That realization is
becoming known to them. Some of the countries are turning that
around, others not just yet.
The threat is clear, and it depends on which country you
are. Some countries consider the threat from the East, from
Russia, the most significant, others consider the threat from
the South, which is the refugee crisis coming out of the
instability to the Middle East and North Africa, the greatest
threat.
I do believe there is a clear recognition amongst at least
the military leadership that I met with about the Russian
threat and what needs to be done.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
NORTH KOREA
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Milley, it
has been acknowledged that North Korea possesses several
hundred short and medium range ballistic missiles that could
reach targets on the Korean Peninsula or Japan.
From an operator's perspective, could you describe what
benefits the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense we know as the
THAAD system would provide U.S. forces in the Republic of
Korea?
General Milley. The development of short range, medium
range, and actually ICBMs, that missile technology is worldwide
proliferated. Specific to Korea, North Korea has developed a
lot of these technologies. The deployment of THAAD and Patriot
are critical to the defensive posture that the United States
has in order to deter a North Korean attack.
Specifically, we are looking at medium range to take out
the short range ballistic missiles. That will be a critical
asset in support of General Scaparrotti----
Senator Shelby. Very important in other words.
General Milley. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. It has also been said that North Korea is
committed to developing a long range nuclear armed missile that
is capable of posing a direct threat to the United States. The
ground-based midcourse defense, GMD system, I believe is the
only system in place that offers protections for the American
people from such a limited threat.
Could you tell us what GMD at the moment contributes to the
Army's mission, and explain what it provides from an
operational standpoint.
General Milley. The GMD is part of an integrated air
defense system that includes aircraft, it includes missiles, it
included Aegis cruisers, and it includes the ground missile
defense contributions from the Army, and a wide variety of
radars that are spread out throughout the Asia Pacific region.
Together collectively, the synergistic effect of all of
them provide the United States a defense against the long range
missile attacks coming out of North Korea.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I have a question
for you. The National Commission--I believe this was alluded
to--the National Commission on the Future of the Army issued
recommendations last month that would impact Army aviation and
aviation training.
The final report suggested that proficiency, which is
important, would require additional flying hours, and warned
that declines in readiness and possible increases in accident
rates could occur if additional training hours were not
allocated.
What do you expect, Secretary Murphy, dealing with the
future of pilot training, how important is it to our readiness
and so forth, and how would this impact the Army Aviation
Center and the Army itself?
Mr. Murphy. Well, Senator, it is critical. You heard my
opening statement. We train like we fight. We need to make sure
that we have the tactical and technical advantage over our
enemies.
The chief and I got briefed by the commission where they
were talking about two additional combat flight hours a month.
We are looking at that. As you know, that comes with a price.
The chief and I are going through, we have a commission which
is a Joint Force commission, a tri-chaired team, that are
looking through the commission reports.
As you mentioned, there are 63 recommendations. Some cost
money, some do not. We are trying to make sure we are doing the
cost-benefit analysis but let me be very clear, we believe in a
total force, that we need to get back to our basics on that.
We do not just have a 10 Division Army. We have an 18
Division Army. We have assets in the National Guard, Reserve,
and Active Duty aviation assets that we need to make sure we
are utilizing in the best of our ability.
Senator Shelby. If we shortchange our aviation, Army
aviation, that would cripple ultimately the Army's ability to
project force, would it not?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, we are looking at--I thought it was a
very thoughtful commission. They have great ideas. We are
working with them and with the tri-chaired group, with leaders,
general officers from all three components of our total Army to
make sure we can implement these things, but it is critically
important to make sure that our aviators are the best aviators
on the battlefield; absolutely.
Senator Shelby. These were recommendations. Ultimately,
this subcommittee and this committee will decide what is going
to be funded, where; is that correct?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, Senator. When I taught at West Point, I
used to joke that we have three branches of government, and one
was not more powerful than the other, and it was like rock,
paper, scissors, and you all controlled the budget, and we
execute.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Milley. Senator, could I just add a quick comment?
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, General.
General Milley. The flying air program is critical to
maintaining our capabilities for aviation. We do have great
aviators, but we have reduced it from 14 to 15 hours per
aviator down to about 11. We need to crank that back up because
we do accept some risk there and we do not want to accept risk.
We want the most capable aviators the world has ever seen. We
do need some help there.
Senator Shelby. There is nothing like efficiency and
proficiency in the military or in business, but in this case,
the military.
General Milley. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
being here, and General Milley, thank you for taking the time
for the meeting yesterday morning, too.
I must echo the remarks of Senator Durbin about the Senate
actually doing its work in confirming nominees. It is a
disservice to the country, it is a disservice to the Senate.
General Milley, I understand the report of the Commission
on the Future of the Army is still under review by you and your
staff. Since you have taken command, you have implemented
numerous changes, certainly within the spirit of the report to
develop an army.
What would you do at headquarters putting that total force
initiative into play? I know you have been working extremely
hard on it, and I appreciate that.
General Milley. We want to put teeth into total force, we
want to walk the walk, not just talk the talk sort of thing. In
my view, the National Guard and the United States Army Reserve
are fundamental. It is not just a bumper sticker.
The United States of America cannot conduct and sustain the
land and combat operations without the Guard and the Reserve.
It is that simple. It was designed that way back when by the
Congress, and that is still true today. It is fundamental.
With respect to the National Commission, what we have done
is we have the report, our initial sense is that we like what
we have been reading so far. There are 63 recommendations in
there. We are working through those 63 recommendations one by
one.
There are probably about 10 to 15 of those recommendations
that come with a pretty heavy price tag, so we have to look at
those hard. The others are either relatively inexpensive or at
no cost at all and we will likely take those on. There are a
few that we do not think are worth pursuing.
We are going through that very deliberatively, the
Secretary and I, with the National Guard Bureau, General Grass,
with Tim Kadavy from the Army National Guard, and General
Talley from the U.S. Army Reserve.
The five of us as a group with our Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army will consider all of the recommendations in detail, go
through all the rigor, all the math, all the numbers, and we
will come back with a recommendation to Congress and the
Department of Defense as to which ones we think are the best
ones to implement.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I know the Air Force went through
all these things and have their total force continuum. Is that
a model that could be applied in the Army?
General Milley. It is. In fact, we are taking pages out of
the Air Force play book. We set up a group of three one star's,
a trifecta, if you will, to establish a set of planning teams
to literally go through every one of those recommendations.
They will stay in existence to help us supervise execution of
the implementation.
MUNITIONS
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Secretary Murphy, several years
ago the Army began exploring the development of small precision
initiatives, something 20 years ago we could not even have
considered, but now with the kind of war zones we face, we are
able to do precise munitions and go after our enemies and at
the same time protect civilians.
What is the current status of the research and technology
on small munitions, mortars, and artillery?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I would say it is night and day how we
have evolved as a military, as you mentioned. Our country has
certain values, and we go after the people that have hurt our
families. We kill them or capture them. We do so to make sure
we limit any way possible collateral damage.
Whether it is artillery shells or whether it is even
munitions as far as the bullets that we utilize, again, coming
from Pennsylvania, we have to worry about the new bullets that
we utilize, the ranges that we have, the bullets ricochet off
now like never before because they are more effective and
lethal and accurate. That is positive. It goes back to the
theory of we do not want to have a fair fight. We want to have
the technical and tactical advantage over our enemy. When it
comes to munitions, we are doing so, and doing this through a
public/private partnership. It is going to your communities and
asking these researchers and academia to give us the best
materials.
Senator Leahy. The reason I asked, I do not want to sound
parochial, but I went to a plant in Vermont, and the things I
saw they were able to develop, mortar shells and bombs, is
unbelievable. When I first came on this committee, it would
have been inconceivable. I would hope that you are exploring
those kinds of things, whether it is from my State or any other
State, that we do this kind of highly technical development.
Mr. Murphy. Absolutely. You have our commitment. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Montana, Mr. Daines.
ARMY RESEARCH LAB SOLDIER INITIATIVES
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to see
you again today, General Milley, Secretary Murphy. As a proud
Senator of the birth place of the Army Special Forces, the
infamous Devil's Brigade from Fort Harrison back in the 1940s,
thank you for your leadership to our Nation as well as to our
States, and thank you for what you do for our troops deployed
overseas and those at home who must remain ready for whatever
comes next, and we know there is plenty to come next.
I want to start by talking about the Army Research Lab. As
you know, the Army Research Lab has strong partnerships with
universities across this Nation. I am pleased to see the open
campus initiative, including partnerships with universities in
Montana.
In 2001, the Army's Science Board concluded that the weight
carried by soldiers leads to decreased mobility and increased
fatigue, as well as injury.
Its recommendation that soldiers carry no more than 50
pounds for any length of time has not proven possible in the
field, despite a partnership with leading universities across
the country in 2009 and even developing some lower weight gear,
our soldiers are still carrying well over 50 pounds under
combat loads.
A question first of all is as we look at the budget, does
the research and development in the materials technology this
year cover the full cost to get to really achieving the goal
here of finding a way to reduce the load and get it under 50
pounds?
General Milley. We think there is a balance. We tried to
flat line research and development. We have lowered the amount
of procurement, increased O&M for readiness, but for research
and development, it is a flat line, not as much as we want for
research and development.
Our modernization, we need to invest more money in, but
given the top line, we have what we have, and that is what we
put in, about 18 percent.
With respect to the soldier's load and the soldier
initiatives, we have an entire program that is dedicated
towards developing lightweight materials for equipment, both
personal protection equipment and load carrying equipment,
along with weapons and munitions and so on. Anything to lighten
the load of the soldier is important. It is survival. It is
critical to the soldier's survival.
Since the time of the Romans, we have been carrying a lot
of weight on individual soldiers, and today is no different,
and in some cases more, especially now with the introduction of
body armor.
The research and development for lighter weight materials
is really critical, and it has to do with the survivability of
soldiers on a battlefield.
TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE SYSTEM COST
Senator Daines. I want to follow up on a question Senator
Shelby asked earlier about North Korea. Coming from a State
like Montana, we have a third of the ICBMs in our State. We
understand the power behind nuclear weapons and what is going
on in North Korea I think greatly concerns all Americans.
On the THAAD system, I understand the cost is about $1.6
billion. My question is South Korea responsible for paying half
of the U.S. Force's Korea budget, would their costs increase
with a deployment of the THAAD system?
General Milley. I will have to get back to you on the cost
of that, Senator, and coordinate with Admiral Harris and
General Scaparrotti as to the cost, and then coordinate with
DOD. I do not know the answer to that question. I will have to
get back to you.
[The information follows:]
If U.S. air and missile defense capabilities are increased in South
Korea, the Army will work with OSD and the Department of State to
explore cost sharing through the Special Measures Agreements, which
cover military construction, logistics support, and labor. These
agreements are negotiated periodically with the current agreement going
through calendar year 2018.
ASIAN PACIFIC TERRORISM THREAT
Senator Daines. Thank you. Moving over to Southeast Asia
for a moment, in 2002, the United States and the Philippines
established the Joint Special Operations Task Force to help the
Philippine forces fight Islamic terrorist organizations based
in the Southern Islands.
I spent 5 years working in Southeast Asia in the private
sector, used to spend time right where some of these activities
are occurring.
The Joint Task Force made up of Army, Navy, and Marine
personnel began to withdraw in 2014, but just this year, those
same terrorist organizations joined together and pledged
allegiance to the Islamic State.
The Philippine forces continues to fight these terrorist
organizations today in their Southern Islands. We witnessed the
Islamic State strike just last month in Indonesia, their
presence in the Asian Pacific is just as clear as it is
throughout the Middle East.
My question is you are requesting $1.1 billion for the Army
in the Asian Pacific theater this year. How much did terrorism
in the region play a role in establishing that amount?
General Milley. From an operational standpoint, it played a
role. I would not necessarily put a percentage of how much it
played a role but the three key things as I look at Asia
Pacific and in support of Admiral Harris and what USPACOM is
trying to do in the Pacific, one is a rise in China.
I think if we were historians in 2016 or flash forward 100
years to 2116 and look backwards, I think someone would say
that the definitive international political condition that
defined the century would be the United States and China.
The second piece is North Korea, and a third is terrorism,
because we know that the Islamic State and terrorists are not
just in Iraq/Syria. They have spread into North Africa, they
are in the Caucasus, they are in the Afghan/Pak region, and
they are in the Pacific.
It is a big concern. That was one of the factors from a
security standpoint to support our Army efforts in the Asia
Pacific region.
Senator Daines. Thank you, General Milley.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Washington, if we have
agreed to go out of turn with Senator Schatz's forbearance, is
that all right?
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I know
Senator Tester has a huge time line, everyone does, so I will
keep my questions very short. I do appreciate it.
Senator Cochran. I thank the senator.
SOLDIER FOR LIFE
Senator Murray. Secretary Murphy, I just wanted to ask, in
your written remarks you mentioned the Soldier For Life
Program. Your emphasis on embedded behavioral health
professionals at the brigade level and some of the remarkable
efforts that the Army is making towards ending sexual assault
and harassment, I just want to thank you for that. It is a
priority and incredibly important.
I just want to specifically commend you on recognizing the
importance of transition programs and making the Soldier for
Life Program of record in 2017. Do you have the resources to
transition 105,000 soldiers?
Mr. Murphy. Senator, thank you for the comment. I know we
will be addressing this in the POM coming up. It is not in this
budget as far as the program record, but that is the plan.
Again, it is the right thing to do, not just morally, but also
fiscally, as you mentioned.
For the last 5 years, the Department of Defense spent $4.6
billion on unemployment, because we are responsible for that.
That is a lot of brigade combat teams. The Army has cut our
costs from about $1 billion a year to $242 million last year.
$242 million is almost a brigade combat team.
We need to make sure we do a better job at that transition,
and that is why I fully support and it is a top priority of
mine, the Soldier for Life Program. We cannot just say, well,
we are responsible for fighting, winning the Nation's wars,
taking care of our soldiers, and then we pawn them off or turn
them over to the VA. They are loyal to us. They are part of our
family, they are part of our organization.
That is why yes, we have 1.4 million people on our team
right now, but we also have 9.5 million American Army veterans
out there. To have that connected tissue to the Soldier for
Life Program, which also by the way will also help us with
recruitment and other things, it is critically important.
JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD
Senator Murray. Thank you for that. I also wanted to say I
appreciate the work that the Army has done to find budget
savings, including by increasing home base training, but that
requires some pretty good communication and cooperation with
the local communities.
In my home State of Washington, this increase in home
station training has led to this proposal for a large expansion
of helicopter training areas in the North Cascades and
Southwest Washington that Joint Base Lewis-McChord is currently
working through their environmental assessment.
I wanted to ask you is the Army following the requirements
of the Wilderness Act and other existing land management
requirements, and can you assure me that the Army is doing
everything possible to address the concerns of our local
stakeholders?
Mr. Murphy. The chief and I have talked about this. We will
work with the local commander, the general, and we will make
sure that we are obviously always following the law, and we
will work with you and your team to make sure that we are being
as responsive as possible.
General Milley. I will give General Lanza a call.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
General Milley. And get back to you. The general is a good
man. I am confident that he and his folks are in accordance
with the conflict laws and regulations and procedurally moving
correctly, but I will call him and confirm and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Yes. Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process,
the Army ensures that proposed actions are implemented in compliance
with all applicable local, State and Federal environmental legal
requirements, including the Wilderness Act of 1964. During the NEPA
process, the Army actively seeks input from other agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and the general public. When preparing a
NEPA Environmental Impact Statement, the Army addresses concerns raised
by local communities during the public comment period. This can include
public meetings, public notices in local newspapers, and postings on
the Joint Base Lewis-McChord website.
Senator Murray. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my other
questions for the record, and I really appreciate my colleagues
allowing me to jump in real quick. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Missouri, Senator Blunt.
MILITARY FAMILY STABILITY ACT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Murphy,
and I think I will ask a similar question to General Milley,
Senator Gillebrand, I and others recently introduced
legislation, the Military Family Stability Act.
The principal motivating factor of which would be for
spouses to have a job opportunity, have their own career, or
children staying longer or leaving earlier for education, that
we would have new commitments to be sure that worked.
We are working with the Department on that, particularly
with the Army, to talk about what the exact amount of time
might be to look at the impact this has on whether people stay
in the military or not, and just your thoughts on that.
In our initial discussion of that bill, we had really just
persuasive cases of one spouse whose husband was going to be
transferred from Hawaii to Ft. Leonard Wood. She got in a Ph.D.
program at St. Louis University. She got a teaching contract at
another school nearby, Missouri Science and Technology. She
needed to be there in August. They were going to leave in June.
That was all fine until they did not leave in June, and then
they did not leave in July, and then they did not leave in
August, and the entire cost of the family move was needlessly,
I thought, on them.
Mr. Secretary, your thoughts on those issues generally and
what we can do to make that system work better for families.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I will tell you I applaud the efforts.
The Military Family Stability Act is the type of legislation
that is terrific. It is not just the right thing to do, but it
also allows us to let our soldiers know the programs that are
out there already.
Right now, it is on a case by case basis, but when you look
at an Army soldier, they have two families. It is the soldiers
that they serve with on their left and right, and their
families at home that they are also responsible for.
With the op tempo that we have had since 9/11, almost 15
years now, it is the families that have borne the cost and have
been really stressed, and we are trying to do everything
possible to make sure they know that we are committed as an
Army team and as an Army family.
I looked at that legislation, and I think it is a terrific
example of partnering with the military and with the
legislative branch to let them know that these programs are in
place and to make sure we are articulating that and mandating
that.
I know your legislation provides basically a 6 month
window. Those are the type of things that allow us to focus on
readiness, but take care of soldiers at the same time. I look
forward to working with you.
MILITARY FAMILY STABILITY ACT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Secretary. We are eager to work
with you on that, too. The legislation does say 6 months. If
there is a persuasive argument that 4 months is a better
number, we can certainly talk about that.
When General Odierno was the Chief of Staff of the Army, he
made the very insightful observation that the strength of the
military is military's families, and with everything families
have invested, there is enough you miss already without
needlessly creating stress.
I do not know, General Milley, in your personal experience
or what you have seen in your command and other
responsibilities, what is your sense of how important it is
that we look at this differently than we have been?
General Milley. I think it is a key readiness issue. It is
not just a compassionate issue. It is a key readiness issue
because about 60 percent plus of our Army is married and on
average have two children, which is different than World War
II. In World War II, 10 percent were married with children.
Sixty percent of our force are married with children.
We have to adjust the systems to manage the current talent
pool that we have in this century. If there is one thing that
soldiers care about it is their family. So, if we want our
soldier to be ready to focus on his combat tasks and training
or when deployed to focus on the enemy, then we owe that
soldier to make sure that their family is being taken care of
with good schools, good healthcare, the spouse has a job.
The Stability Act and the Family Act goes towards doing
some of that. I think it is very important, and I am in full
support of anything that helps Army families.
Senator Blunt. Good. We look forward to continuing. I know
all the co-sponsors and the members do, to continue to work
with you so that we come up with something that really works
here.
As more spouses pursue their own professional career, as
students often to either start when school starts or stay until
school is over. Little things like this I am sure make a huge
difference in whether people maintain their commitment to the
military.
It only takes one or two bad situations for many people who
are willing to serve to say you know, I just cannot continue to
put my family through this for what appears to most people
looking at the current situation to be often no good reason at
all.
I thank both of you for your comments on that, and thank
you, Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator, appreciate it. The
distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester.
MENTAL HEALTH AND DISCHARGE PROCESS
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the senior Senator from Hawaii for his flexibility, and I want
to thank both of you for being here, and your service. A
special thank you to you, General Milley, for your support of
the Guard and Reserve that you touched on a little earlier. We
very much appreciate that.
Most of my questions are going to be dealing with PTSD,
TBI, and suicide. The rest of my questions will be written in
writing for you.
I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts that the Army
has done on the discharge process, and how we are handling PTSD
and TBI. I want to dig into that a little more because there is
nothing dishonorable about the men and women who battle with
mental health issues, and they deserve to be treated with
dignity and compassion, and the best care that we can provide.
You guys know this, to be forcibly separated from the
military with a less than honorable discharge for these folks
is not doing a service to the country or the Army, and
especially not to those folks and their families.
This goes for either one of you or both of you. Could you
provide us with an update on the Army's investigation into the
discharge process?
Mr. Murphy. Sure, Senator, let me start. There are two
independent reviews going on right now on that discharge
process. I have read the reports about the 22,000 soldiers. We
are looking at it, and it is due back to us shortly. I know my
predecessor, Acting Secretary Eric Fanning, initiated that
process.
Once that comes back, we will communicate with the Senate
to make sure you know that we are tracking that.
I will say from my initial preliminary investigation on
this and look at this, it is less than 1 percent that we are
talking about that have that discharge, whether it is an OTR--
I'm sorry--OTH or dishonorable discharge, that is related to
PTSD or TBI.
As you know, Senator, as you mentioned, these are the
signature injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan, in my generation.
We need to get on top of it and create health teams and other
things. There is no doubt that we have to address that.
If I could say one last thing, Senator.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. We also do not want to send the message though
that it is a get out of jail free card if you have PTSD or TBI,
and not that you are suggesting that. We need to make sure that
we have a ready force and we are given the resources needed to
make them whole again.
Senator Tester. I think we both can agree what we want to
do is what is right. I think if these folks who acquired PTSD
or TBI in service, we need to take responsibility for that. I
do not hear you saying anything different than that.
Can you tell me when the report is due back? You said
shortly.
Mr. Murphy. I believe we are talking weeks, not months,
Senator. I think within 4 weeks.
Senator Tester. And what are you going to do with that
report when you get it?
Mr. Murphy. First, I will read it and then I will execute,
and then I will----
Senator Tester. Is it going to be open for us----
Mr. Murphy. My understanding is it is a public document.
Senator Tester. Do you know what issues they have
identified at this point?
Mr. Murphy. I think there are some issues, Senator, again
from my preliminary read on this, how it was in the past is
different than how it is now, the last few years.
Senator Tester. All right. There was a provision that I
included in the 2015 NDAA that would say all folks that were
discharged with a mental health condition be reviewed by at
least one mental health professional. Could you give me an
update on the implementation of that?
Mr. Murphy. I will give you that. It is my understanding
when you look at--some of the boards had to hire some health
care professionals to review the medical documents.
Senator Tester. So, what you are saying is that has not
been implemented yet?
Mr. Murphy. I believe--that is not what I am saying,
Senator. What I am saying is from my understanding, and I can
get back to you with more accuracy, but from my understanding,
they have hired mental health professionals to review those
past cases as a shortfall, but they have hired those persons to
execute that piece of legislation that was incorporated last
fiscal year.
Senator Tester. So, what you are saying is the current
discharges are meeting that now?
Mr. Murphy. And they have hired more professionals to do
the past ones.
FEMALE VETERANS SUICIDE RATE
Senator Tester. Okay. Let me go to my last one. It deals
with female veterans who commit suicide at nearly six times the
rates of civilian women, five times more likely than male
veterans to commit suicide.
What is the Army doing to address that, what I would say is
a sudden rise of suicides amongst military in the military.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I will tell you I write a condolence
letter every week, and on the average of about 10 a week.
Several are for suicides. Not that it is getting worse on
Active Duty, better in the Reserve, worse on Active Duty, for
years, it was getting better. 2015 was not a good year. It is
almost one a day. That is the total soldiers and also their
family members and civilians as well. Almost one a day.
We need to do a better job, and I think through these
health teams that we have at the brigade level, which is
getting to the stigma it is okay to go see a mental healthcare
professional, getting at that stigma, I think, is the most
important thing.
That is coupled, Senator, with the ``not in my squad''
issue with our sergeant majors of the Army, when we talk about
sexual assaults.
We have been very aggressive and have had great successes
where incidents are down and reports are up.
Senator Tester. So, what I am hearing you saying is----
Senator Cochran. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Tester. [continuing]. You are on it and you are
going to deal with it, and if we can be of help, please let us
know, to help you do your job. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
425TH BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
thank you for your appearance this morning, and thank you for
your leadership.
I have one priority this morning, and that is with regards
to the proposed reductions to the 425th Brigade Combat Team at
JBER. General Milley, I thank you for visiting Alaska last week
or about 10 days or so ago to observe the 4th Infantry Brigade
Combat Team there at JBER.
In your military judgment, do you think that the 4th
Infantry Brigade Combat Team should be retained as a strategic
deterrent to Russia, and to support our military objectives in
the Pacific?
General Milley. I do, Senator. If I could take a minute
to----
Senator Murkowski. If you would, please.
General Milley. [continuing]. Explain. When I first was
nominated and then confirmed for chief, Senator Sullivan asked
me to take a look at it. I have done that. I have gone to
school on the situation, I think, reasonably well on the
Pacific relative to Russia, in the Arctic, and in the Northern
Pacific.
I have concluded after about 4, 5, 6 months here of pretty
intensive study that Russia is not only acting aggressively in
Europe, they are also asserting themselves in the Pacific and
specifically in the Arctic. They have activated additional
brigades. They put up some command and control capabilities,
and they have done some other things.
I think it would be contrary to U.S. strategic national
security interests to go ahead and pull out 425 at this time.
My thought is we should extend them at least a year to see how
the strategic situation develops, and then move from there.
Right now, that brigade is the only airborne vertical
insertion, forced entry capability, available to Admiral
Harris.
We have a variety of situations that I have already
described with Korea and the Chinese operations in the South
China Sea, et cetera. We just do not know. We cannot predict
the future.
But we want that capability, and for the President of the
United States, the combatant commanders, and Secretary of
Defense to have that tool available if required. They can
rapidly deploy. They are less than 8 hours from any hot spot,
not only in the Pacific but other parts of the world. There is
a great joint strategic deployment platform up there with Air
Force capabilities. They can move by air. They can move by sea.
We have a national capability there that I think is
worthwhile keeping. I confirmed that through personal site
visits, talked to the commanders, talked to the soldiers. I
think we need to at least keep them for an additional year,
defer our decision for 1 year. That would be my best military
advice at this time.
Senator Murkowski. That is very welcomed news and much
appreciated, and just a true recognition of what we have with
this only airborne brigade combat team there for the Pacific,
Arctic trained, mountain trained. You know all the
superlatives. Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging that.
I would ask you, Secretary Murphy, if you concur with the
judgments that have been expressed by General Milley.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I plan, as I mentioned to you earlier,
on going up to Alaska myself. I have been partnering with Chief
Milley on this. I come from an airborne unit. I know it is
strategically an incredible asset.
My understanding is from the chief's report that the
facilities up there, the training facilities, are second to
none. We have invested a lot of money up there.
We are looking at that. It is my understanding I have the
authority to act on that, and I look forward to working with
you as we review this shortly and giving you an answer.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Again, to both of you, I
appreciate what you have provided here today, and I look
forward to working with you to ensure that the capabilities
that we have with the 425th are continued to allow for that
robust security that we need specifically at this time, and
with the components that they have, I think we recognize it is
exceptional and needs to be protected. I thank you for that,
and I look forward to working with you in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Schatz.
ARMY'S ROLE IN PACIFIC
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Milley, as
you know, the Asia Pacific region has been in the news over the
last several months with the North Korean nuclear tests and
with the Chinese aggression in the Spratly's.
I think a casual observer might get the mistaken impression
that this is a problem that is primarily a Navy and Marine
Corps' issue, and I would like you to articulate the Army's
role, not just with the FAD, but more generally the Army's role
in deterring aggression in the region, and also reassuring our
allies.
General Milley. Thanks, Senator. I think the Army plays a
very, very important role in the Pacific. We have 75,000,
almost 80,000, actually, Army soldiers committed to Admiral
Harris and the Pacific Command.
About a third of the operational force, of the deployable
operational Army, is actually committed in the Pacific. It does
a lot of things that I know are worthwhile for deterring any
potential outbreak of hostilities and then shaping the
environment, reassuring our allies. The Pacific Pathways is a
good example where Army forces routinely three times a year are
exercising their strategic deployment capabilities to do that.
Most of the countries in Asia, their militaries, I think
all but three or four of them, are actually led by Army
officers. There is an important engagement function to be done
there as well.
If you look at what the likely contingencies are in Asia
without going into any kind of classification, it is clear that
the Navy and the Air Force are fundamental, but the truth of
the matter is the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the Marines,
Special Forces, no one service wins a war for the United States
of America. It takes a nation to win it, and as far as the
military goes, it is a synergistic effect of all the services
working together in time and space to achieve the effects you
want.
In the Pacific, the Army plays an absolutely vital role. I
think you would hear the same out of Admiral Harris for sure,
and on the Korean Peninsula with General Scaparrotti. I am
absolutely committed to the Pacific, and the Army has a very
important role to play.
PACIFIC PATHWAYS
Senator Schatz. Well, I want to appreciate General Brooks
as well for his leadership, and ``More faces and more places
with less bases'' I know is his saying.
If you would not mind spending a little bit of time talking
about how Pacific Pathways actually works and how it fits into
how the Army has historically worked in the region, and also
how it is consistent with the Army's mission, consistent with
its mandate, but also a bit of an innovation.
General Milley. Pacific Pathways is a series of exercises,
it is not a singular exercise, it is an umbrella term, a series
of exercises where they are directed at reassuring allies and
exercising strategic deployment and then tactical employment
once the forces arrive.
It is done three times a year. It is underneath the command
and control of the first headquarters out of JBLM (Joint Base
Lewis-McChord), and the 25th Division headquarters out of
Hawaii.
They go to what we call ``phase zero objectives'' of the
combatant commander. Admiral Harris has a series of objectives
out there to reassure allies, deter enemies, and to engage on a
routine day to day basis. It is a series of exercises that
achieve Admiral Harris' objectives.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Turning to force structure,
Secretary Murphy, I understand we have a couple of major
variables. Obviously, what we do in terms of sequester in the
out years and whatever may be happening on the globe, but given
those variables, what can you say about the Army's inclination
in terms of force structure in the Asian Pacific region, and
Hawaii, in particular?
Mr. Murphy. Well, I think the key, Senator, is really the
partner capability. Again, we are focused on it, as you know,
but I would say to you that it is not just American boots on
the ground and exercises, it is our partner capability.
What that does, Senator, is it creates a synergy with our
allies, and when we work together as a team and we have those
relationships, it shows a show of strength.
Comparable to what is going on right now in Europe with the
European reassurance initiative, when you look at the Pacific
Pathways and those exercises, at a cost from my read of about
$15 million, it is definitely worth it when you look at not
just the readiness that it builds with our own soldiers, but
with our allies in that region.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The Senator from
Kansas, distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Excuse me
for intruding in case you were going to do more words like
``distinguished.'' I appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, nice to see you again, thank you for the
opportunity to have a conversation with you. General Milley,
thank you very much for being here and for your service to our
Nation. Thank you for the conversation that we had in our
office earlier this week. I found it extremely valuable, and I
appreciate the amount of time that you were willing to spend,
and the expertise you were willing to share.
ARMY END STRENGTH
Let me start with something that the Secretary said in his
comments. Readiness wins wars. I am particularly interested in
this issue of readiness and particularly how readiness is
related to troop strength.
Legislatively, we are working to increase the authorized
levels for both, the Army, the Marines, the Active Duty, as
well as the Guard.
General, let me visit with you about this topic and ask you
if returning the Army to its end strength of 480,000 soldiers
on Active Duty, 350,000 in the National Guard, and 205,000 in
the Reserve, does that support your number one priority of
readiness?
General Milley. The short answer would be sure. I think
having increased numbers would help out in readiness, if and
only if though we had the money to support that. That is really
fundamental.
The reason that this budget has us on a glide path towards
450,000 in the Regular Army and 335,000 in the Guard and
195,000 in the Army Reserve is because that is the size force
balanced with modernization and readiness that we can afford,
given that top line. Given the budget agreement, et cetera, if
more money were available and we could increase the size of
force, I think that would be great.
I do want to caution though that numbers are not the only
thing. Quality matters. When I talk readiness, I am talking
about units that are full up on strength, are highly trained in
combined arms operations. They are capable of sustaining and
executing counterinsurgency operations.
The size of a given force is important. Quantity has a
quality all its own. That is important, but that is one of many
factors to determine capability in the outcomes in ground
combat.
I certainly would welcome additional end strength but only
if it came with the money attached to it.
Senator Moran. Let me ask the question about training and
equipment, which you indicate are so important. Numbers alone
are insufficient. How those individual soldiers are trained and
equipped is important, but with the number of deployments, the
ability to spend time in training and equipping forces is in
part dependent upon the troop strength.
General Milley. Absolutely. The op tempo today, 190,000,
140 countries, the combatant command demand out there, time is
a critical resource when building readiness. You have to have
time to train, you have to have time to hit the sled multiple
occasions to build up your skill sets to do the type of tasks
we are required to do. Time is a critical resource.
If you have a larger end strength, then you can have a
larger amount of force dedicated in terms of time towards the
training tasks that are required. For sure, it does factor in
on that.
IRWIN ARMY HOSPITAL
Senator Moran. Thank you very much. One of the aspects of
readiness that you and your staff have been helpful to me on,
helpful actually to soldiers in Kansas, is the completion of
Irwin Army Hospital at Fort Riley. True to your motto of
readiness, because in helping us get the hospital out of the
morass of lawsuits and construction issues, you did so
recognizing that in order to have a fully trained, equipped,
and healthy force, that health care administered through that
hospital is important.
What we now know about that issue, the hospital at Fort
Riley, is that the construction issues are to be completed by
March, next month, but we are still being told that the
hospital will not be move-in ready until July.
My request of you is would you continue to work with us to
see if we can get the dates shortened from a matter of months
to a matter of weeks?
General Milley. I absolutely will. Let me make a comment. I
will check the actual time lines, et cetera. My experience--I
was a senior commander at Fort Hood, a base of 50,000, and a
senior commander at Fort Drum with the 10th Mountain Division,
so I have some experience at some hospitals.
At Fort Hood, we happened to be building a hospital as well
at the time. Going through the engineering, the time lines, the
construction, et cetera of that particular hospital, and I
suspect similar things are happening at Riley, but I will check
to be sure.
Once the construction is done, that is not the automatic
move-in date because it takes time to move in all the
equipment, the medical equipment, conduct the inspections,
certify everything, and make sure all the things are running in
accordance with the medical standards and the engineering
standards that are required to effectively run a hospital safe
for patients.
I will get back to you on the specific time line. I will
work to accelerate it if we can. I suspect those post-
construction activities are what is contributing to it.
[The information follows:]
Normally, 180 days are required from the beneficial occupancy date
to the fully operational date (FOD) for initial outfitting and
transition (IO&T). We have worked with all stakeholders to reduce this
timeline to 120 days. This is the minimum time necessary for IO&T and
cannot be compressed further. IO&T consists of activities to prepare
the new building for occupancy, and to prepare the people who will look
in the new building.
Initial outfitting activities include medical and non-medical
equipment installation, relocation, testing and certification to make
sure equipment is safe for patient care; data migration; property
accountability; provisioning of medical, laboratory, and administrative
supplies; computer imaging; phone line transfer and installation; and
many other activities to prepare the building for operations.
Activities to get the building ready for the people are
synchronized with transition activities. Getting people ready for the
building includes individual and departmental training. The most
critical events are two sequential ``day in the life'' exercises, or
full-scale simulation of hospital operations designed to test all
medical and facility systems, and operational processes. The first 110
days are dedicated to transition activities to prepare staff for
delivery healthcare in the new facility. Department moves and patient
care begins in the new facility ten days prior to FOD. Patient
relocation is a one day activity on FOD.
The current 120-day timeline enables continuity of safe, quality
healthcare for the Fort Riley community and minimizes operational risk.
Senator Moran. My understanding is that the equipment, the
furniture, et cetera, has already been moved in. Mr. Secretary,
I just raise this issue for your awareness as well. My time has
expired. If I could just ask a very quick and passing question.
GUANTANAMO BAY
Yesterday, the administration announced a plan in regard to
the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the detention facility that
is there. General, let me ask, my understanding is that the
military, the Army, has provided perhaps information necessary
for that plan, number of soldiers, costs, et cetera. Was there
analysis completed by the Army in regard to that plan?
I ask in particular because potentially the housing of
those detainees may be at an Army installation, perhaps in
Kansas or in Colorado, and I wondered the extent, did the
Department of Defense or did the Army specifically provide
analysis in the preparation of that report?
General Milley. What we provided were facts in terms of
what is available at Army installations, how much space there
is, what the security arrangements are, costs, the amount of
soldiers that are currently committed to GTMO, how much that
cost, the Army budget, so facts.
As far as the analysis of the plan, Senator, I have not
seen a plan, other than what I saw announced the other day. I
personally have not. I will check with my staff. I do not think
they have analyzed a plan, per se, something I would consider a
plan.
We did provide input, data input, to the Department of
Defense and those folks who are working on some sort of plan.
Senator Moran. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you, Chairman Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and thank you both for
your service, and it is good to see my former colleague from
the House, Secretary Murphy, here today.
There are tremendous changes occurring in the Army after
over a decade of war. One of the things I would like to
concentrate on is how we are preparing for future conflict.
My biggest concern is that too often today's priorities
reflect yesterday's way of doing things, and do not adequately
reflect the world as it may become.
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE
White Sands Missile Range has the best airspace in the
country, yet this testing range is just empty high mountain
desert without sophisticated sensors and roads and
infrastructure, people that support the Nation's testing
mission.
How does this budget support maintenance and revitalization
at the base, and will the Army commit to providing funds and a
plan of action to revitalize White Sands Missile Range so it
can continue to support the modernization and the third offset
strategy?
General Milley. Senator, White Sands is a critical national
strategic asset, actually, and a tremendous amount of testing
goes on out there. Of course, as you know, it is adjacent to
Fort Bliss. An absolutely huge piece of ground there, not only
to conduct testing, but also training. White Sands is
important, and we are committed to continuing to fund that.
With respect to the third offset, the so-called ``third
offset,'' the idea there is to invest--it is a DOD initiative
to invest a significant amount of capabilities in advanced
technologies and systems that would prevent any peer or near
peer competitor from matching the capabilities of the United
States.
White Sands will play a critical role, there is no doubt in
my mind, in the development of those systems.
Senator Udall. Thank you. It is very good to hear that.
Thank you also, General Milley, for mentioning Fort Bliss.
Although Fort Bliss is not in New Mexico, it is very close, and
many of the people that work at Fort Bliss live in New Mexico.
Fort Bliss and its activities have a major impact on southern
New Mexico. I can just tell you people in southern New Mexico
are very welcoming of that activity from Fort Bliss.
White Sands Missile Range, the Army's high energy laser
systems test facility, otherwise known as HELSTF, remains under
funded and lacks the necessary personnel to conduct its
mission. With DOD's own third offset strategy promising
significant investments in high energy lasers, where does
HELSTF fit into the strategy and how does its fiscal year 2017
funding properly reflect this role?
General Milley. I am going to have to get back to you
specifically on that program's funding. I do not have the
specifics on that program.
[The information follows:]
In 2011, as a response to the Test Resource Management Center and
the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office Study, the Army
transferred the HELSTF from the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/
Armed Forces Strategic Command to the Army Test and Evaluation Command
to gain efficiencies and allowed divestiture of capabilities no longer
needed. This transfer enabled the Army to maximize the use of the
facility by reducing duplication of effort, instrumentation, and
facilities while providing high quality support/products for our
customers. The 2009 study did recommend $6.4 million as the annual
required funding versus the $2.8 million that the Army has funded since
2010. However, the efficiencies gained by the command realignment
described above as well as additional funding from the DOD Central Test
and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) and Science & Technology
(S&T) of approximately $12 million over the last 10 years have
continued to keep the instrumentation level appropriate. HELSTF remains
the DOD designated site for High Energy Laser testing and is a key
asset for all services in the development of these weapons systems. As
new requirements arise, they are addressed by both Army and DOD CTIEP
resourcing solutions.
FUTURE BATTLEFIELD ENVIRONMENT
Senator Udall. Okay. That would be great. We really
appreciate that. The Air Force is beginning to take notice
about the need to combine kinetic and cyber training. I
included language last year to promote this effort, which would
enable our troops to train for an environment under both
kinetic and cyber-attack.
How is the Army working to prepare for this type of future
battlefield environment, and are there adequate funds in this
year's budget to begin this type of training?
General Milley. We have put things in the budget for this.
The future environment, it depends on what you go against. If
it is ISIS, Taliban, that is one set of conditions. If we are
going against these hybrid higher end threats, we are going to
face, no doubt, a very, very significant cyber threat, and it
will be a very, very lethal environment with the proliferation
of precision guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles,
intense densities of artillery, so on and so forth.
What we have been fighting for 15 years, IEDs, small arms,
machine guns, terrorists, if we were to get engaged with one of
these hybrid near peer competitors, that battlefield
calculation will be significantly and fundamentally different.
We are preparing for that, and that is what we are talking
about, this whole budget is all about that. This whole budget
for the Army is all about increasing readiness to be able to
fight in that environment. That is the one we are concerned
about. We have to be able to do that in a combined arms way.
This will not just be light infantry and doing
counterinsurgency patrols. This will require high end combined
arms and require joint force. We have to be fully integrated
with air from the Naval capabilities, stand-off weapon systems.
Importantly, we also have to have and we have to train to
it, increasingly disperse our force and re-aggregate our force
rapidly. Any kind of concentration of force in that type of
environment is not going to be long for this world.
We have to think not only about the weapon systems and the
sizes of force, we have to think of the ways in which we are
going to operate in that environment. That will be a
fundamentally different operating environment than we have seen
in the last 15 years.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, General, for that
response. I will submit additional questions for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. The distinguished Senator from Missouri.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question, if
you think we have time.
Senator Cochran. Go ahead.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CIVILIANS
Senator Blunt. Whenever the input hearings, the assessments
were held last year around the country at various bases,
obviously one of the things discussed there was civilian
employees as well. I want to take a slightly different approach
to this than Senator Durbin did, although I share his concern
that we just do not replace civilian employees with contract
employees.
My question to both of you is when are we going to get a
sense of the civilian employee component, and I would also like
to make the point that at a fort like Fort Leonard Wood that is
largely a school house, it has lots of functions, but it has a
lot of the various schools there, and because of that, probably
a little more of a civilian component than you would have in an
average installation. A percentage cut would not be appropriate
there, I do not think, and I hope you do not either.
Anything you would like to help us with to understand where
we are on civilian? We know the end strength military number
you are heading for. I am not sure I have the right sense yet
of how the civilian component relates to that.
It might be to some extent the same question you answered
already to Senator Durbin, and he and I, I think, would share
the same concern, that we just do not transition people who
have been employees of the Federal Government into employees of
a contractor that does not recognize the service those
individuals have provided as Federal employees.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, again, when I talked about a total
force in the Army, that includes our civilian counterparts. As
I mentioned, there is about 246,000 of them. When you look at a
place like Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, that is part of our
generating force.
Over these almost 15 years of war, continuous war, we have
put our green suiters, our soldiers out there fighting the
fight, and we have had to increase the civilian capacity to
make sure we can build a proper generating force.
Specifically, Senator, and to your point, we are not just
throwing them away. We value their service. They are definitely
part of the team. I would say 37,000 have left, but it is
through attrition. They have gone on to do other things or they
have retired.
We have done all these things, and we are hoping to
continue to do them, only through attrition, but there is no
doubt that for the Army itself, it is critically important to
have the best and the brightest within our ranks, and that
includes soldiers and civilians. We have to have the proper
mix, and I think we are almost all the way there, and we will
continue to make sure we monitor that.
Senator Blunt. You believe you are close to the civilian
number that would be the target number?
Mr. Murphy. I think we are hitting our targets where we are
going to be able to accomplish it through only attrition. Yes,
Senator.
Senator Blunt. General Milley.
General Milley. The numbers I have seen concur with that,
that we are going to be able to meet our targets through
attribution and voluntary retirement.
Senator Blunt. I would just make my point again, that there
are some installations where the civilian component may be a
higher component because of school obligations and other
obligations and training. I would be interested to see how the
retiree's, the people that leave Federal service, how that
works to fit the target number, although it may not be an exact
match with the employee number you still need to make a
specific installation work.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, if I could just make one last point
because I think it is analogous to what you are saying, do not
underestimate the fact that our Army and our generating
forces--we are a joint force, and what we do to train the other
branches is second to none.
When we talk about the soldier side, as the chief
mentioned, if you look at an U.S. Army soldier in the green
suit, in a val dress uniform, 53 percent of them are going to
be in the National Guard or Reserves. The majority of our
soldiers are in our Reserves component, but we are a total
force.
Along with that are our critically important civilians. We
could not do this unless we did it together. This generating
force that we are doing at that base and elsewhere trains
Marines, sailors, and airmen to be the best of the best as
well.
Senator Blunt. Right. Like the military police school at
Fort Leonard Wood, or the chem-bio school at Fort Leonard Wood,
or the other schools there, beyond the confines of the Army,
and I am sure the other services appreciate and are grateful
for that.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. The distinguished
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
ISLAMIC STATE
Senator Durbin. I want to thank Senator Blunt, and I agree
with his comments. The one element to remember is we have been
told repeatedly these contractor employees cost three times as
much as civilians. If you are eliminating civilians by
attrition and replacing them with contractor employees, you are
not saving money, if that is the goal. I hope we can keep that
in mind.
Mr. Murphy. That is not the goal, and that is not what we
have been doing. I will make sure I am on top of it, and I will
get back with you, but that is not the intent and that is not
what we are doing.
Senator Durbin. General Milley, let me ask you one last
question, a little different. Based on your personal experience
and your current responsibility, what would you say is the most
encouraging news you can give us on our fight against ISIS, and
what is the most sobering thing that you see as you consider
this enemy?
General Milley. Senator, I had an opportunity right after
confirmation to go visit CENTCOM AOR and spend some time in
Iraq, talked to U.S. commanders but also Iraqi commanders. I
went back in December for a second visit, and I will be heading
back there shortly for yet another one.
In my capacity as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I
want to get an operational update. I have served many times
over there, but I want to get that update.
When I went over in the September timeframe, I came out of
there not particularly optimistic. I thought at that time the
enemy had the strategic momentum and things were not going so
well. I think that played out many ways in the news. When I
went back in December, I came away with a different picture. I
saw a different at least tactical and operational situation and
a somewhat different strategic situation.
So, what changed? We put in place in the fall some new
aspects, modified aspects, we modified the strategy. We
assessed the situation. We collectively JCS'ed the national
security styles from the administration, and we put in place
some different aspects of the strategy, some of which are
classified, some of which are not.
The long and the short of it is ISIS has come under
significantly increased pressure at multiple locations
simultaneously. You have seen that play out in the news. You
are seeing things like increased numbers of ISIS killed in
action.
The ISIS leadership is under intense pressure. Their
finances are under intense pressure. They have lost a
significant amount, relatively significant amount, at least
tactically, of battle space or territory. They lost Ramadi,
which is important, and there has been a lot of interdiction
along their lines of communication. They are under a lot of
pressure.
However, that is all in the good. We are not there yet, and
no one should think we are. This is a long term effort against
this enemy. The President has charged us to destroy that
organization, and we intend to do so.
The most alarming thing, I think, beyond just their
brutality and viciousness, which is unbelievable in my view,
they are now displacing--it appears to me anyway that they are
displacing capabilities to other areas, out stations, the most
disturbing of which now appears to be Libya.
There seems to be, at least in my view, without going into
classifications, an increase in ISIS capabilities in Libya.
That should be cause for concern. I know it is cause for
concern, which really is emblematic of one of the phenomena's
that we are seeing here as a transregional organization. They
are not solely in Syria and Iraq, although that is their center
of gravity.
They have spread out, and they are transregional. This
involves for the United States in terms of combatant commanders
not just Central Command but it involves AFRICOM and UCOM as
well, and really in many ways it involves PAYCOM.
It is a transregional approach. We have to deploy all the
elements of national power to this organization to achieve the
President's end stage of destroying them, and in order to help
out our partner nations and stabilize the region.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Durbin. There are no
further questions, and we appreciate very much and are grateful
for your assistance to the committee and your appearance before
us today.
The Senators are permitted to submit written questions. Any
questions that are submitted, we would appreciate you respond
to them in a reasonable time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
deactivation of national guard brigade combat teams
Question. Secretary Murphy, over the past few years, there has been
discussion about the total acceptable number of Active and Reserve
Brigade Combat Teams. For example, under sequestration level funding,
the 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team--a combat hardened unit in
Mississippi that ranks as one of the most capable and technologically
modernized brigades within the National Guard--could have been
divested. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015 seems to have delayed
some of this discussion. Given the numerous crises occurring throughout
the world, do you envision or would you recommend further reductions in
Brigade Combat Teams at this time?
Answer. No, we do not plan to cut brigade combat teams (BCTs)
beyond the two inactivations announced in July, 2015 provided that the
budget limitations of the Budget Control Act (BCA) does not go into
effect. Inactivating BCTs is always our last option. It is our intent
to preserve BCT capability and capacity. We will continue to look at
every other option before cutting combat power. If the BCA funding caps
return, however, the Army may have to consider reducing more BCTs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
european reassurance initiative
Question. General Milley, The U.S. has increasingly demonstrated
its commitment to our European allies in view of Russia's continued
provocations and invasion of Ukraine has prompted the United States to
demonstrate its commitment to our European allies and, in particular,
the NATO alliance. What is the Army's contribution to the European
Reassurance Initiative and why it is important to increase the
frequency and number of military exercises with our European allies?
Answer. The Army is using European Reassurance Initiative funding
to increase Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS). In fiscal year 2017, the
APS in Europe will expand to include equipment for a Division
Headquarters, one ABCT, and a Fires Brigade. These prepositioned
equipment sets will enable rapid force projection and will help deter
Russian aggression against NATO Allies. The Army will also assure U.S.
allies in Europe by increasing its presence to a full-time ABCT through
rotational units and other enablers. Finally, we will increase the
frequency and number of military exercises with our European allies
because these exercises reassure our allies and contribute to the
deterrence of Russia by demonstrating U.S. commitment to NATO. They
also increase our capability to respond to emerging threats by
enhancing NATO interoperability. Through these demonstrations of
capability and forward permanent and rotational posture we will send a
strong signal of deterrence to those who would question our resolve.
patriot modernization
Question. The Army's budget request includes funding to move ahead
with Patriot radar upgrades without fully considering the results of
the required Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which will have a direct
impact on cost estimates for the Army's overall Patriot modernization
strategy. In your response, please provide the Army's rationale for
this decision, an update on the status of the AoA, and an assessment of
the capability improvements that a new radar will provide.
Answer. The fiscal year 2017 President's Budget request supports
two critical lines of effort for the Phased Array Tracking to Intercept
of Target (PATRIOT) program: near-term modification of existing
components and long-term competitive modernization. The ongoing
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) outcome is irrelevant to the near-term
need for these upgrades. The upgrades to the current PATRIOT radar are
urgent near-term improvements needed to address known threats and
bridge the gap to the next Lower-Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor.
The Army plans to field all of the planned system improvements
(Electronic Protection, Tactical Ballistic Missile stressing threats,
Combat Identification) during fiscal year 2018-2021. The next Lower-
Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor is not expected to start fielding
until fiscal year 2026 at the earliest and complete fielding in fiscal
year 2034. The long duration of the fielding schedule is driven by the
operational demand for PATRIOT Battalions and affordability.
The AoA supporting the radar acquisition will be completed in April
2016 and will inform a material decision later this year. The Army will
deliver the final AoA report to the Congressional Defense Committees in
accordance with the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization
Act.
Since the Department has not yet determined a material solution on
the PATRIOT radar, it is premature to assess capability improvements.
Whatever decision is made; however, the Department expects that there
will be substantial sensor-based performance improvement that mitigates
current capability gaps and provides threat-paced enhancements that
counter emerging threat trends.
It must be noted that PATRIOT product improvement funding was
marked down $205.8 million between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year
2016 that delayed fielding critical software capabilities from fiscal
year 2018 to fiscal year 2021. Stable funding is critical to enable the
Army to modify the system to counter evolving threats.
improved turbine engine program
Question. I understand that the Improved Turbine Engine Program
(ITEP) is Army Aviation's number one modernization priority, and that
developing and integrating a new engine for the U.S. Army Black Hawk
and Apache helicopters is a significant endeavor with combat benefits.
With Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) not planned until 2023, is the
Army considering options to speed up the program so that our soldiers
can obtain the capability benefits sooner? In your response, please
provide an explanation of the benefits that the ITEP will bring to both
the current and next generation fleet of helicopters.
Answer. Based on acquisition lessons learned over the history of
Army Aviation engine programs, developing a brand-new engine is a
complex effort, the complexity of which is multiplied when the engine
is integrated into multiple already complex platforms. The Army is
conducting integration trade studies now with the aircraft
manufacturers, Boeing and Sikorsky, to accelerate the effort and reduce
integration risk. The Army will also learn more about opportunities to
accelerate the engineering and manufacturing effort when the source
selection board for the Improved Turbine Engine (ITE) preliminary
design phase is complete.
With the continued weight growth of the airframes due to changes in
the mission equipment packages, not only is the performance decreasing,
the cost of flying and sustainment is growing due to poor fuel
efficiency and increased wear and tear on the engines. The ITE will
provide the power and maneuverability required for the Blackhawk and
Apache helicopters to carry full mission payloads during high hot
conditions (6,000 feet altitude and 95 degrees Fahrenheit).
Compared to the current engine, the Blackhawk operating with an ITE
will have increased range and payload, allowing for fewer turns and
fewer aircraft to perform the mission. The Apache also benefits by
being able to carry more munitions, increased range and or increased
station time.
Additionally, the ITE saves operations and sustainment costs by
being more fuel efficient, reliable, and maintainable. Requirements for
the next fleet of helicopters has not been established, however the ITE
can be used in the future fleet or will provide for technology transfer
derived from this development effort that will provide the same
benefits.
high energy laser
Question. Secretary Murphy, Army Space and Missile Defense Command
(SMDC) has demonstrated the ability of a laser to shoot down Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and mortars through tests conducted with the
High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator. Directed energy weapons have
also been able to detonate IEDs at distance and conduct other direct-
fire missions. What plans does the Army have for developing a program
of record that will advance, and eventually deploy, these capabilities
to protect troops and assets from any these threats?
Answer. Army Science and Technology is currently conducting a
follow-on to the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator effort, called
the High Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle Demonstration. This effort will
demonstrate a 100 kilowatt class laser system for defense against
Rockets, Artillery and Mortars and Unmanned Aerial Systems, with a
planned transition to the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Program
of Record in fiscal year 2023.
contractor growth
Question. The Army's budget request cuts more than 700 civilians
while it increases the full-time equivalent number of contractors by
more than 2,300. Given the cost of contractors, isn't this the wrong
direction?
Answer. Based on the Army data, both civilians and contractors'
full-time equivalent numbers are declining. Overall the Army
inventories of contracts for services show a significant reduction of
20,000 in contractor full-time equivalents from 147,000 in 2010 to
127,000 in 2014.
contractor inventory system
Question. In light of the GAO report (November 2014), how is the
Army improving its compliance with the contractor inventory system, and
using it to reduce dependence on contractors when appropriate?
Answer. The Army contract services inventory and review process
meets the statutory requirements of 10 USC 2330a to identify contract
services performing critical functions and functions closely associated
with inherently governmental functions that should be considered for
government performance. Further, the Inventory of Contracts for
Services data has been integrated into the budget/program data
warehouse to inform the Program Objective Memorandum for fiscal years
2018-2022.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
north korea
Question. It is my understanding the Army is considering the
deployment of a Thermal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to
the Korean peninsula. South Korea is responsible for paying half of the
U.S. Forces Korea budget, would their cost increase with the deployment
of a THAAD system?
Answer. If U.S. air and missile defense capabilities are increased
in South Korea, the Army will work with OSD and the Department of State
to explore cost sharing through the Special Measures Agreements, which
cover military construction, logistics support, and labor. These
agreements are negotiated periodically with the current agreement going
through calendar year 2018.
socom deployments
Question. A 2015 GAO Report recommended that DOD ``determine
whether opportunities exist to balance deployments across the joint
force'' in a study on the overuse of Special Operations Forces. What
efforts has the Army taken to spread deployments across more
conventional infantry units?
Answer. A request for an Army capability from a Combatant Commander
begins with robust dialogue between the Army Staff and the Combatant
Commander's staff. This dialogue ensures an optimal sourcing option
that meets the Combatant Commander's requirement while also adhering to
the Secretary of Defense's Global Force Management Allocation Process.
The Army provides trained and ready forces while striving to source
with the requested capability. Conventional Infantry units are filling
global requirements. Most of these units are not performing their core
mission (Decisive Action-Unified Land Operation). Instead they are
training, advising, and assisting partner and Allied ground forces in
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Americas
Since fiscal year 2014, emergent demand for Army forces has
increased by 23 percent. The Army currently sources 64 percent of total
DOD emergent demand. Increased emergent demand has overridden any
potential relief from the decline in base demands (OEF, and Operation
United Assistance [OUA--Ebola support in West Africa]).
european deployment cycle
Question. The Army is requesting $2.8 billion this year to deter
Russian aggression in Europe. With only nine Armored BCT's, who already
have rotational commitments to Korea and Kuwait, how is the Army
planning to balance the rotation cycle for these soldiers?
Answer. A 980,000 total Army force is at the limit of its ability
to meet the current defense strategy. In fiscal year 2017, the Army
will have 56 total Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), 14 of which will be
Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) (9 from the Active Component (AC)
and 5 from the Army National Guard (ARNG)). Current ABCT operational
demand includes rotational requirements to Korea, Europe, and the
Middle East and these requirements, coupled with contingency demand,
exceeds the Army's supply. The current ABCT Deployment : Dwell ratio,
the Army's operational tempo measure, is 1:1.8, above the Secretary of
Defense's 1:1 minimum but below the 1:2 Deployment : Dwell goal for AC
forces.
Recognizing the problem, the Army is taking steps to better balance
supply against both operational and contingency demand. In particular,
we are transitioning 2d Brigade, 1st Armored Division out of the
Network Integration Evaluation program to support rotational
requirements. We are also exploring the National Commission on the
Future of the Army's (NCFA) recommendation to integrate Army National
Guard units for select missions. Finally, we are taking a hard look at
the NCFA's recommendation to increase the AC ABCT inventory to 10 and
are reviewing courses of action to implement this recommendation. It is
important to note that we will continue to rely on Overseas Contingency
Operation/European Reassurance Initiative funding to support our
rotational requirements, but, given adequate resources, we remain
confident that we will be able support current requirements with
trained and ready forces.
Question. What other units, besides its ABCT's, can the Army rely
on to counter Russian aggression?
Answer. Countering Russian aggression requires a total Joint Force
approach. For the Army, that means incorporating units from the active
Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG), and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).
One quarter of the total American force for Europe will be from the
Reserve Component. In upcoming exercises, we will employ about 25,000
soldiers in Poland from across Europe and North America to gain useful
skills from across the Alliance, making our military forces more
integrated and interoperable.
Aside from the Active forces stationed in Europe, the USAR has
dedicated nine units to our European deterrence posture and the ARNG
has dedicated 11 units from nine States. In addition to ABCTs, in-
theater and rotational combat, combat support, and combat service
support units will continue to provide U.S. presence and deterrence
through allied partnerships including participation in multi-national,
multi-service exercises and constant heel-to-toe rotational presence.
The Army is using European Reassurance Initiative funding to
increase Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS). In fiscal year 2017, the APS
in Europe will expand to include equipment for a Division Headquarters,
one ABCT, and a Fires Brigade. These prepositioned equipment sets will
enable rapid force projection and will help deter Russian aggression
against NATO Allies. The Army will also assure U.S. allies in Europe by
increasing its presence to a full-time ABCT through rotational units
and other enablers. Finally, we will increase the frequency and number
of military exercises with our European allies because these exercises
reassure our allies and contribute to the deterrence of Russia by
demonstrating U.S. commitment to NATO. They also increase our
capability to respond to emerging threats by enhancing NATO
interoperability. Through these demonstrations of capability and
forward permanent and rotational posture we will send a strong signal
of deterrence to those who would question our resolve.
research and development
Question. What steps does the Army take to ensure there are not
duplicative efforts in its research development?
Answer. The Army, along with the other Services and Defense
Agencies, participates in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD)'s Communities of Interest (COI). The COIs were established in
2009 as a mechanism to encourage multi-agency coordination and
collaboration in cross-cutting technology focus areas, and provide the
forum for coordinating Science and Technology strategies across the
department. There are 17 COIs, of which the Army leads six. Each COI is
led by a steering group comprising senior technical leadership from
across the department, and serves to coordinate research and ensure
unnecessary duplication is avoided.
Question. What separates the difference between Army Research Lab
and Army personnel in Defense Innovation Unit Experimental as the Army
seeks to connect with the private sector technology industry?
Answer. The Army Research Lab's scientists and engineers conduct
basic and applied research in support of Army Science and Technology
priorities, often collaborating with industry and academia. The Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) is an Office of the Secretary of
Defense initiative that seeks to connect innovative technology
companies with DOD researchers and programs. It is not intended to
conduct collaborative research, but to be a ``matchmaker'' between
Silicon Valley and the Department of Defense. By having a presence in
Silicon Valley, DIUx hopes to foster greater ties between the Defense
research community and companies that have not traditionally been a
part of Defense research and development.
Question. What criteria is the Army using to evaluate the level of
effectiveness of its presence at the Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental?
Answer. The main criteria for effectiveness is whether Army
researchers are being connected to companies outside of the traditional
defense industry who may have innovative solutions to Army technology
challenges.
Question. What support would the Army request from Congress to
facilitate substantial acquisition reform?
Answer. In my recent fiscal year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act Section 801 report to Congress, I highlighted several
opportunities to improve the process through additional reform. First
the system needs to clearly fix accountability for decisionmaking. This
can only be done by aligning authority and responsibility. With
accountability clearly established much of the currently prescribed
oversight becomes unnecessary. Reducing this oversight would
significantly improve the processes agility. Finally, the process
requires the underpinnings of a talented, skilled, and qualified
leadership and workforce.
Question. Why did the Army add language to the design objectives of
the Distributed Common Ground System--Army Increment 2 Request for
Proposal that requires software to be ``designed in such a manner as to
minimize or eliminate the usage of proprietary or commercial
technologies''?
Answer. The Army cannot respond to this question at this time
because it involves a matter that is currently in litigation.
Question. What steps is the Army taking to reduce barriers to open
commercial competition on Army acquisition requests for proposals?
Answer. Army is taking the following steps to reduce barriers to
open commercial competition on Army acquisition requests for proposals:
developing training, guidance, and additional scrutiny to improve
commerciality determinations and ensuring non-commercial actions are
fully supportable by market research; improving and scrutinizing market
research and market intelligence reports to ensure they support the
acquisitions; encouraging and improving use of Requests for
Information, utilizing sources sought notices versus notice of intent
announcements, and draft solicitations to encourage vendor
participation; using workshops, training, and other venues to ensure
the workforce maximizes Department of Defense Better Buying Power
initiatives; when appropriate, including pre-priced options to procure
technical data packages necessary for follow-on contract competition;
conducting advanced acquisition planning to develop improved
requirements; and using procurement reviews to aid in
institutionalizing best commercial practices to include, commerciality
determinations and market research techniques.
women in combat
Question. What does the Army estimate it will cost for full
integration of women into its Special Forces Qualifications Course?
Answer. To date, the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) has yet to allocate funding specific to
ongoing gender integration efforts. All current USAJFKSWCS facilities
will support the initial integration of female Special Forces Soldiers
into the Special Forces Assessment and Selection course and Special
Forces
Qualification Course. However, USAJFKSWCS engineers have begun
planning for an expanded female latrine and shower facility at Camp
Mackall, NC (primary training area for Special Forces candidate field
training). The cost for design and construction of this facility is
currently estimated at $1.05 million. All individual equipment
requirements for female Soldiers are currently available and stocked
through the Army supply system. U.S. Army Special Operations Command
remains postured to procure special operations peculiar equipment for
female Special Forces operators as females complete and graduate from
the requisite training pipelines.
Question. What is the Army spending in research and development to
identify new equipment and gear for women on the battlefield?
Answer. The Army is continuously spending research and development
dollars to identify new equipment and gear based on changes to Army
Mission Scenarios and Operational Concepts. Major research efforts
focus on changes to equipment based on changes in operational
environmental and emerging threats. We maintain a series of smaller,
more rapid research efforts which focus on unique areas such as
Military Occupation Specialty-specific equipment (e.g., Aviators,
Snipers, Fuel Handlers) and in the past this research area has improved
Body Armor fit for female Soldiers. Science and Technology will
continue to work with U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command to
understand the unique needs of the female population entering these
occupational specialties, and adjust our investments if necessary.
Question. What shortfalls is the Army seeing in equipment for women
on the battlefield?
Answer. The Army has not identified any shortfalls related to
equipment for women on the battlefield.
Additional sizes of uniforms and equipment have been established
for women. Women deployed since 2013 have been issued properly sized
gear.
The Army will continue to improve functionality, fit, and comfort
for all Soldiers and has undertaken many initiatives to address the
issue of providing properly fitting uniforms and Organizational
Clothing and Individual Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment to
female Soldiers.
The Army Combat Uniform--Female (ACU-F) has been in stock and
available for order at all Army Military Clothing Sales Stores since
2013. In the same year, the Army also began issuing the ACU-F to newly
recruited Soldiers. Flame Resistant Army Combat Uniforms with ACU-F
sizing will be available in the Operational Camouflage Pattern via the
Rapid Fielding Initiative in late fiscal year 2016.
The female size Generation III Improved Outer Tactical Vest (F-
IOTV) continues to provide the same unsurpassed ballistic protection of
existing Army body armor, while providing eight additional sizes and
with other modifications to provide a better fit.
The new Soldier Protection System Torso Extremity Protection (TEP)
subsystem is the newest IOTV configuration and will be sized for a wide
population including small statured Soldiers, male and female. The TEP
ballistic combat shirt will include female specific sizing and will
mitigate compatibility issues with hair buns in comparison to the
legacy yoke and collar.
pacific pathways
Question. The Army is requesting $45 million dollars for its new
Pacific Pathways initiative. What steps has the Army taken to ensure it
is not infringing on the missions of the Marine Corps and Navy?
Answer. Based on the requests of the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM), we believe Army mission meet valid requirements and do
not conflict with or infringe upon Marine Corps and Navy missions.
Question. How does China putting Surface to Air Missiles in the
Parcel Island chain, and the creation of man-made islands in the South
China Sea, impact the three planned pacific pathways the Army has this
year?
Answer. This does not impact to the Army's three planned Pathways
rotations this year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
tobacco use policy
Question. Reducing tobacco use in the Army would seem to be a win-
win . . . Not only would it save lives, but it would also improve
short-term readiness and save Army significant amounts in tobacco-
related healthcare costs. Isn't it time to revisit the Army's tobacco
policy at Advanced Individual Training?
Answer. The Army wholeheartedly supports reduction or cessation of
tobacco use for all the reasons you cite, including the readiness of
our force, which is our number one priority. As our end strength draws
down, it is imperative that every Soldier be as physically fit and as
healthy as possible to meet the challenges ahead to preserve the
freedoms as citizens we enjoy.
The Army's policy regarding the use of tobacco by Soldiers in
Initial Entry Training (IET) has always been a balance between total
control over the Soldier during the various phases of training and
restoration of earned privileges as Soldiers successfully progress
through training. In the end, the intent is to treat new Soldiers like
adults, especially as they move to Advanced Individual Training (AIT),
as we arm them with training, instruction, and education designed to
support mature decisionmaking regarding their health and physical
fitness. Currently, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC) prohibits the use of tobacco products by IET Soldiers in the
first three phases of IET, which includes all 10 weeks of Basic Combat
Training or the first 9 weeks of One Station Unit Training.
Importantly, during these phases, all cadre and supporting Soldiers are
also prohibited from using tobacco products in areas where IET Soldiers
are likely to observe the use.
Depending on the military occupational specialty, AIT ranges in
time from 4 weeks to over 20 weeks with AIT Soldiers. During AIT the
total prohibition on tobacco use is lifted, but restrictions on
locations and times for use are imposed. Instruction on the adverse
impact tobacco use has on health and readiness is presented to both IET
Soldiers during early phases of training and then again in AIT as part
of focused fitness and substance abuse training. Similar to TRADOC,
Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) reduces the risk of tobacco related
illnesses by limiting primary, secondary and tertiary tobacco exposure
by making its medical campus boundaries tobacco-free areas. In
addition, MEDCOM restricts the use of tobacco products by all MEDCOM
AIT Soldiers during the duty day.
The Army and TRADOC will continue to strive to strike the right
balance of zero tolerance for those things that are illegal and
providing training and instruction on those things that are legal, but
harmful if used, even in moderation.
ampv
Question. The Congressional Research Service has a report dated
October 15, 2015, that highlights a recent $2.6 billion cost growth to
the ``AMP-Vee'' program. This is the largest weapons development
program in the Army today, which is building a new armored vehicle. CRS
also says that the Army has not explained this increase. What was the
cause of this $2.6 billion cost growth in the AMPV program? What does
this say about the Army's management of large acquisition programs?
(SMS)
Answer. The Army did not have a $2.6 billion cost growth as
identified in the Congressional Research Service Report, dated October
15, 2015. The CRS misidentification of a $2.6 billion cost growth
discrepancy is primarily the result of using figures from both an early
program estimate (pre-Program of Record), as well as the Program of
Record Independent Cost Estimate for the calculation. In addition to
using both non-Program of Record and Program of Record estimates, the
discrepancy is exacerbated because the early program estimate figures
used in the report were not adjusted for inflation over 26 year program
life giving the impression of a significant program cost growth. The
AMPV program is fully funded to the Independent Cost Estimate, and the
Army continues to manage large acquisition programs closely to ensure
that there is no impact to budget that could deter the development of
the Army's largest weapons development program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
major range and test facility base
Question. I understand the services use different resourcing models
for? their Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB) and
capabilities. In your opinion, and the opinion of White Sands Missile
Range, is the current resourcing model sustainable and will the Army
commit to a study regarding which model would be best to sustain White
Sands Missile Range's capabilities in the future?
Answer. The model the Army uses to resource Army Major Range and
Test Facility Base (MRTFB) capabilities is sustainable. This model is
based on past historical work performed and a projection of future work
to be performed based on Army RDA funding. The accuracy of the workload
projection model has been validated by the Army Cost and Economic
Analysis Center (CEAC) and provides out-year projections at the
command-level within plus or minus 10 percent of actual workload. While
I believe this model provides a reasonable resource requirement for the
Army MRTFB test centers, I am willing to commit to a study to improve
upon this method.
high energy laser systems test facility
Question. At White Sands Missile Range the Army's High Energy Laser
Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) remains underfunded and lacks the
necessary personnel to conduct its mission. An April 2009 report to
Congress from the Test Resource Management Center and the High Energy
Laser Joint Technology Office recommended funding for HELSTF at $6.4
million, but it has been reported current funding for HELSTF sits at
$2.8 million. With DOD's own Third Offset Strategy promising
significant investments in high-energy lasers, where does HELSTF fit
into this strategy and does its fiscal year 2017 funding properly
reflect this role?
Answer. In 2011, as a response to the Test Resource Management
Center and the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office Study, the
Army transferred the HELSTF from the Army Space and Missile Defense
Command/Armed Forces Strategic Command to the Army Test and Evaluation
Command to gain efficiencies and allowed divestiture of capabilities no
longer needed. This transfer enabled the Army to maximize the use of
the facility by reducing duplication of effort, instrumentation, and
facilities while providing high quality support/products for our
customers. The 2009 study did recommend $6.4 million as the annual
required funding versus the $2.8 million that the Army has funded since
2010. However, the efficiencies gained by the command realignment
described above as well as additional funding from the DOD Central Test
and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) and Science & Technology
(S&T) of approximately $12 million over the last 10 years have
continued to keep the instrumentation level appropriate. HELSTF remains
the DOD designated site for High Energy Laser. As new requirements
arise, they are addressed by both Army and DOD CTEIP resourcing
solutions.
the armed reconnaissance mission
Question. The Commandant of the Marines, in a recent Military Times
article he was quoted advocating for the use of commercially available
quadcopters with cameras to support recon for every rifle squad. I see
the Marine's looking towards future technology and the Army commission
recommending a new armed aerial scout . . . which was a failed program
in the past. With that in mind, does the Army have a sufficient
strategy to fulfill the armed reconnaissance mission using the Apache
and UAS? Do modernization and procurement budget reductions affect this
mission, and what can the Army do to pursue more successful programs
like the PD-150 miniature unmanned aerial vehicle to fulfil this
capability?
Answer. As part of a layered reconnaissance strategy, the Army has
adopted the solution of AH-64s teamed with UAS to meet the armed aerial
scout requirement. This is commonly referred to as Manned/Unmanned-
Teaming (MUM-T). Two comprehensive studies determined that a mix of
manned and unmanned aircraft, in the same formation, increase
operational effectiveness over purely manned or purely unmanned
formations. Pairing the long endurance, covert presence and higher
viewing angle of the RQ-7 Shadow UAS with the Apache increases Army
Aviation's lethality while improving aircrew survivability. This
strategy was validated daily in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army will continue to utilize the AH-64 teamed with UAS until
development of a future Armed Reconnaissance platform. Budget
reductions will effect the speed for the Army's development of these
programs. Buyout of the Apache and Blackhawk fleets provides the
funding required for Future Vertical Lift. Increases to the number of
Apaches that the Army must purchase or delays to Blackhawk
modernization exacerbate this challenge.
Specific to the Commandant of the Marine Corps comments, the Army
agrees that services must leverage small UAS (<20lbs aircraft)
capabilities. In 2013, the Army converted the existing RQ-11B Raven UAS
Program of Record into a Family of Systems. The Family of Systems uses
three sizes of aircraft tailored to the user's mission. Of the three,
two were existing Army aircraft: the 4 lbs. RQ-11 Raven and the 13 lbs.
RQ-20 Puma. The third system, the Short Range Micro is envisioned to be
a smaller UAS (1-5 lbs.), and the intent is to compete that system in
the next fiscal year. This strategy provides greater flexibility of
employment of our small UAS, while still taking advantage of the more
than 7,000 Raven and Puma aircraft already in use. Although Short Range
Micro will enhance the reconnaissance capacity in our smaller
formations, its size, endurance, range, and survivability will preclude
it from becoming a partial solution to the Army's armed aerial scout
requirement.
The Army continues to encourage innovation and drive our
reconnaissance capabilities to the smallest maneuver formations. While
the aforementioned UAS Family of Systems support platoon and larger
units, the Army has identified a capability gap at the squad level. The
solution being evaluated is a small, short range Soldier Borne Sensor.
This device is not considered a traditional UAS that transmits its data
to a wide group of consumers but would instead be linked directly to
individual soldiers and used for missions in buildings, over walls and
around corners. Systems like the 65 gram PD-150 Black Hornet ($54,000)
are being used in research and development to inform the process as the
Army works to codify requirements.
white sands missile range infrastructure
Question. Is the Army looking to utilize the vacant 2nd Engineer
Battalion buildings on WSMR? How can we work with the Army to bring a
new mission for what is arguably one of the most unique Army facilities
in the world?
Answer. The facilities for the 2nd Engineer Battalion are a good
example of underutilization, resulting from our reduced end-strength.
The Army recognizes that White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) is home to
some of the Department's premier test range facilities, providing
tremendous capabilities to the Army and entire Department of Defense.
The Army will fully consider the opportunities that WSMR offers to test
systems, train Soldiers and contribute to the defense of the Nation.
Across all Army installations, we estimate approximately 21 percent
excess capacity at a Total Army end-strength of 980,000.
energy diversification
Question. How does this budget support energy diversification at
our bases and how can the Congress further support efforts to ensure
our bases have reliable and secure sources of energy and can operate in
the event of a failure or cyber-attack on the electrical grid?
Answer. Army energy diversification investments are focused on
enhancing mission effectiveness, building resiliency of our energy
infrastructure, and containing or reducing costs. The fiscal year 2017
budget has limited funding directed toward energy diversification. We
are using authorities from Congress that allow for private sector
investment instead of appropriated funds.
Army renewable energy projects are designed to provide power to the
grids on our installations, now or after a future upgrade, at prices
that are equal to or below projected conventional utility rates. In
total, the Army anticipates savings of over $250 million in avoided
utility costs over the life of the projects.
When market and regulatory conditions allow, more advanced energy
security features are incorporated into these projects. For example,
Fort Drum, NY has demonstrated the ability to operate independently
from the grid, relying completely on power generated by an on-site
biomass power plant. In Hawaii, the Army is working with Hawaiian
Electric on a multi-fuel power plant using fuel oil, natural gas, and
biofuel. The project will provide complete energy security for
Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia.
This plant will also improve the reliability of the local grid, and
provide the island with its first baseload power-generating asset above
the tsunami strike zone.
In May 2015, the Army published its new ``Energy Security and
Sustainability Strategy,'' with resiliency as the integrating theme for
both operation and installation energy efforts. Key components of
energy resiliency on our installations include broader diversification
of power generation assets. This includes renewable energy and the
deployment of cyber-secure micro-grids to manage power on the base,
should the surrounding electrical grid fail. The Army currently has 159
mega-watts (MW) of renewable energy generation capacity installed on
our installations, with 40.5 MW of this amount installed in the past
twelve months. Taken together, these projects produce power equivalent
to 12 percent of the Army's total consumption. The Army is developing a
further 400 MW of projects, representing over $800 million in private
sector investment.
Continued predictable and accurate funding for the Army's
operations and renewable energy initiatives will allow the Army to
continue developing a robust and resilient energy infrastructure.
cultural experts
Question. One of the most noted failures of the Iraq occupation was
the lack of subject matter and cultural experts. While I hope that
there is no need for them in any future war, in your opinion does the
Army have a strong pipeline of these type of foreign area experts that
could be utilized in a contingency, and if not, what does the Army need
to strengthen this pipeline?
Answer. In my opinion, the Army Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program
continues to be the Department of Defense (DOD) ``gold-standard'' for
the development and permanent utilization of officers who provide
cultural, regional, and language expertise. Since 2003, the Army has
deliberately increased training (language-academic) and added manpower
(1206 total officers for a 20 percent increase) with a forward presence
in 139 countries and within all DOD functional and geographic Combatant
Commands. To sustain our investment, we have funded programs to enhance
FAO skills and realign officers to meet contingencies. Finally, our FAO
proponent continuously reviews policy and utilization to ensure the
Army can support current and emerging national security requirements.
The Army has identified cultural and joint, interagency,
intergovernmental, and multinational competence as one of its 21st
Century Soldier Competencies. While specialists such as FAOs have
extensive formal programs for regional expertise, much of the force
develops this competency through pre-deployment training. Once aligned
to a certain area of operations, units can leverage a number of tools
and resources to build regional expertise. These include the U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command Culture Center, the Naval Postgraduate
School Leader Development and Education for Sustained Peace program,
the Army's Combat Training Centers, various online and virtual
training, as well as prior unit and Solider experience.
The Army includes CREL-related education and training and all
levels, beginning with pre-commissioning. Opportunities expose U.S.
Army Cadets, through U.S. Army Cadet Command's Cultural Understanding
and Language Proficiency program, to everyday life in different
cultures and intensify their language study, which helps produce
commissioned officers who possess the right blend of language and
cultural skills required to support the Army's operations. The United
States Military Academy's Center for Languages, Cultures, and Regional
Studies provides similar training and opportunities for West Point
cadets. Army ROTC cadets also participate in the Project Global Officer
(GO) program. In 2015, 286 (54 percent) of the 530 Project GO
participants were Army ROTC students. Cultural awareness training
continues throughout the career development model and is included in
Basic Officer Leader Courses (BOLC), Captains Career Courses, Command
and General Staff Officers Course (CGSOC), and at the U.S. Army War
College (USAWC). The USAWC addresses culture as an integral part of its
core curriculum through its Regional Studies Program and Regional
Issues and Interests for its resident and distance education programs
respectively. This career-long institutional training model for leaders
and commanders complements the collective, leader, and individual
training conducted by units preparing to deploy. The Army's recently
published handbook for Regionally Aligned Forces identifies use of
interpreters and conduct of negotiations as critical tasks for leader
and commander training prior to deployment.
personal dosimeter
Question. It remains a critical capability that members of the
Armed Services have situational awareness of potential exposure to
radiation. For over 30 years, the Army has used dosimeters on Soldiers
and other platforms to detect radiological threats.
Given that many of the personal dosimeters and readers are over 30
years old, it is concerning that many contain outdated technology, are
not interoperable with more modern systems, and do not measure and
record the range of dose presented by radiological threats on today's
battlefields.
What is the Army's plan to accelerate the fielding of modern
dosimeter systems which will both accurately sense the radiological
threats faced by our soldiers on today's battlefields and maintain a
critical industrial capacity? Does the acquisition and fielding plan
include the Army National Guard who is charged with confronting
potential radiological threats on America's homeland?
Answer. There are no plans to accelerate the fielding of modern
dosimeter systems. The Army currently has sufficient stocks of legacy
AN/PDR-75 and AN/PDR-75A systems to provide tactical radiological
dosimeter capability to the Active, Guard and Reserve components.
The Army, working jointly with the other Services, selected the
Joint Personnel Dosimeter--Individual (JPD-I) as its future personal
dosimeter. The JPD-I will have enhanced capabilities over legacy
dosimetry systems and accurately sense all radiological threats faced
by our Soldiers on the modern battlefield. These include a real-time
display of dosage, interoperability with Nett Warrior to periodically
transmit the Soldiers' exposure data up the operational chain of
command, ability to electronically transmit post exposure data to the
Army's Dosimetry Center, and interoperability with the Department of
the Navy.
Multiple vendors submitted proposals, indicating adequate
industrial capacity for the development of dosimeters for not only the
U.S. Government but the civilian market as well.
The acquisition and fielding plan includes the Regular Army,
National Guard, and Reserve. The Army will begin fielding the JPD-I in
fiscal year 2020.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
combat training center
Question. I recognize the Army is fully committed to regenerating
readiness in the near term. The 19 Combat Training Center (CTC)
rotations that you have budgeted for in fiscal year 2017 puts us on a
path to get there. I understand that our throughput for training units
at the CTCs is at capacity. However, is there anything more we could be
doing to support home station training so that units get more out of
the CTC rotations once they are there?
Answer. Our throughput capacity at our CONUS CTC is 20 rotations,
each with fourteen training days (10 at JRTC and 10 at NTC), with a
surge capacity of 22 (11 rotations at each center respectively)
rotations if required to meet operational demands. We are executing and
programming 19 rotations based on demand.
Increasing training readiness levels at Home Station before
deploying to the CTC, allows units to get more out of their CTC
rotation. At home station, units begin with individual/small team
training and progressively build readiness through brigade-level
training events. Currently, the Army is not able to support the full
training progression at home station by all units before their CTC
rotation. To get the most out of CTC rotations, the Army would need to
be able to fully fund the training progression at home station by
participating units.
milcon sustainment
Question. General Milley, I recognize that in this fiscal
environment, the Army has had to make hard choices, including putting
money in the short term toward efforts to rebuild readiness while
assuming risks in MILCON and facilities sustainment.
I worry, though, that the longer we take risks in MILCON and
facilities sustainment--deferring repair work in company operations
facilities and forgoing modernizations at our CTCs that build our
soldiers' readiness--we undermine our long-term readiness.
What concerns do you have about Army readiness as we continue to
take risks over the long term in MILCON and facilities sustainment?
While I recognize a higher topline could mitigate those long-term
risks, what other steps can we take to help address those concerns?
Answer. My concern is excess facility infrastructure that is a
burden on our limited sustainment and base operations accounts. We are
meeting today's missions at our installations but this is not
sustainable. Insufficient investments and deferred maintenance over the
long term degrade our facilities and will reduce the Army's capability
to prepare and train full spectrum forces.
Congress can help by authorizing a new Base Realignment and Closure
round. It will allow us to close lower military value installations and
realign enduring missions into the excess capacity of our higher
military value installations. The resultant cost savings allows the
Army to afford more readiness and modernization within the existing
top-line, and permanently reduces its MILCON, base operations support,
and facility sustainment requirements.
army brigade combat teams
Question. The Army has taken steps to preserve important combat
capabilities by forming multicomponent units that draw on the strengths
of the National Guard and Army Reserve. However, more can be done to
unify the Army's components by integrating the Reserve Component into
Army Brigade Combat Teams.
How, if at all, is Army leadership considering forming
multicomponent units in its Brigade Combat Teams?
How would forming multicomponent units in Army Brigade Combat Teams
(BCT) affect training and readiness and the cost of a BCT compared to
the current full-time Active Duty BCT?
What would be the level of overall combat effectiveness for a
multicomponent BCT compared to that of an active duty BCT?
Answer. The Army plans to expand the concept of multicomponent
units to BCTs beginning in fiscal year 2017. Planning for the ``Total
Force Unit'' pilot program began in 2015 before the release of the
National Commission's recommendations. The Army will associate active
component (AC) and reserve component (RC) units together in cohesive
formations. For example, a RC infantry battalion would serve as the
third maneuver battalion for an AC infantry brigade.
Select RC units will have more training days than the traditional
39 per year. RC brigade combat teams in the pilot program will also
execute combat training center (CTC) rotations more frequently by going
once every 2 or 3 years, depending on rotational capacity of CTC. Costs
for the AC units stay generally the same. There may be increased costs
for RC units. Ongoing planning for the pilot program will determine
this.
All BCTs are held to the same readiness standards. This pilot
program will help determine achievable readiness for the Total Force
Unit BCTs.
energy
Question. The Army has been an important leader when it comes to
energy. The Net Zero Energy initiative has reduced installation energy
demand and helped the Army secure power to support critical missions.
At the same time, the Army is pioneering advanced soldier battery
technology that can help cut down on the number of heavy batteries that
soldiers have to carry with them on deployments. These are important
research and development efforts.
How is the Army's investments in energy improving its warfighting
capabilities and reducing the risks our soldiers face?
Answer. Energy is critical to the Army's ability to conduct and
support operations. The Army's Operational Energy program improves
combat capability and reduces tactical and operational risks by
extending range, endurance, flexibility, and resilience to improve
freedom of action. Most importantly, we are focused on giving every
Soldier and leader the information they need to use energy for the
greatest operational good.
Working with the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), we have reduced the
battery weight carried by infantry squads by 23 percent, and deployed
these solutions in combat with 13 Army Brigade Combat Teams. The Army
and USMC are working to reduce Soldier load with the Joint Infantry
Company Prototype (JIC-P) effort. JIC-P limits the number/type/weight
of batteries carried by dismounted troops, minimizes resupply
requirements, and extends operational reach.
Similarly, the modernization programs for our combat vehicles
improve the power generation and distribution within the vehicles,
enabling the installation of 21st century mission command and
protection capabilities. The improvements in contingency base
capabilities reduce the logistical footprint required to support
Soldiers in austere conditions, at the end of often contested supply
lines. These capabilities also improve the quality of life of our
Soldiers, and free them from maintenance activities to concentrate on
their primary mission.
integration of women
Question. As I understand it, the Army has submitted its
implementation plan for opening infantry, artillery, and special
operations occupational specialties to women for DOD approval.
Per Secretary Carter's direction, the services are required to be
ready to execute their implementation plans by April 1, 2016.
How does this budget request reflect the funding requirements
necessary to continue executing the Army's implementation plan for
fiscal year 2017?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense's implementation decision was made
after the DOD had built its fiscal year 2017 budget request. As a
result, the fiscal year 2017 request does not specifically address
requirements to integrate women in to the recently opened career
fields. Army senior leaders are committed to ensuring a successful
integration of women into all positions. To date, the Army has
identified barracks modifications required to integrate women into
combat arms career fields and estimates a one-time incremental cost of
about $7 million for training barracks modifications in the Army
training base. This estimate is preliminary and excludes mother's room
costs of about $3.5 million across DOD. Three Training and Doctrine
Command schools require modification: the Infantry School and the Armor
School at the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, GA and
Ranger Training Brigade facilities. The Army will work these
modifications into our facility renovation plans to support the
integration plan. There are no additional known budget impacts in
fiscal year 2016 or the fiscal year 2017 budget for integrating women
into all occupational fields.
pacific
Question. Given the current fiscal restraints and the global threat
environment, there are many variables to be considered when making
force structure decisions. However, the Army has demonstrated an
investment in the Pacific with initiatives such as Pacific Pathways and
stationing a third of the Army's deployable force within the region.
Can the Army commit to maintaining the status quo in force
structure within the Pacific?
Answer. The Army remains committed to the Asia-Pacific Region,
which is consistent with the National Strategy and the Rebalance to
Asia and the Pacific. Under fiscal constraints, however, the Army must
remain flexible. Since we cannot forecast precisely when and where the
next contingency will arise, the Army will need to be dynamic and fluid
to meet emerging threats. The Army is committed to using the best
available resources to support U.S. Pacific Command requirements, and
will balance enduring commitments with contingency requirements.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. The committee will reconvene on Wednesday,
March 2, at 10:30 a.m. to receive testimony from the Department
of the Navy. Until then, this subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]