    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-33]

            CONSEQUENCES TO THE MILITARY OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 APRIL 5, 2017

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    25-149 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                         One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                 WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman

    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      ADAM SMITH, Washington
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ROB BISHOP, Utah                     JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              RICK LARSEN, Washington
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          JACKIE SPEIER, California
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    PAUL COOK, California                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
    BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              RO KHANNA, California
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             (Vacancy)
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    MATT GAETZ, Florida
    DON BACON, Nebraska
    JIM BANKS, Indiana
    LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming

                      Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
                     Kari Bingen, Professional Staff Member
                          William S. Johnson, Counsel
                             Britton Burkett, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Armed Services............................     2
    Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
      Chairman, Committee on Armed Services..........................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Goldfein, Gen David L., USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force....     7
    Milley, GEN Mark A., USA, Chief of Staff of the Army.............     4
    Neller, Gen Robert B., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps......    10
    Richardson, ADM John M., USN, Chief of Naval Operations..........     5

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Goldfein, Gen David L........................................    69
        Milley, GEN Mark A...........................................    60
        Neller, Gen Robert B.........................................    76
        Richardson, ADM John M.......................................    65
        Smith, Hon. Adam.............................................    58
        Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac''..........................    57

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Brooks...................................................    87

            CONSEQUENCES TO THE MILITARY OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                              Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 5, 2017.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ``Mac''
    Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
        REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
                                SERVICES

        The Chairman. Committee will come to order.
        After having explored the next steps of defense reform in
    yesterday's hearing, we now turn to what is needed to repair
    and rebuild our military. And I am grateful to each of the
    distinguished service chiefs for being with us today.
        There is widespread agreement that funding cuts under the
    Budget Control Act, plus a series of continuing resolutions,
    coupled with the pace of required deployments have damaged the
    U.S. military. I believe that damage has gone far deeper than
    most of us realize, requiring more time and more money to
    repair than is generally expected. There is plenty of
    responsibility to go around for the current state of affairs,
    with both Congress and the Obama administration, with both
    Republicans and Democrats, with both military and civilian
    leadership.
        Among other problems, defense funding has gotten caught up
    in partisan back-and-forth on other issues and has even been
    held hostage to other priorities. We need to get back to
    evaluating defense needs on their own without regard to any
    agreement or disagreement we may have on other issues. The men
    and women who serve deserve at least that.
        The most important thing now is to repair the damage. We
    have the chance to begin doing so by passing a full
    appropriation bill for this year, acting favorably upon the
    supplemental request, and then enacting adequate authorization
    and appropriations for fiscal year 2018.
        The immediate issue before us is the expiration of the
    current continuing resolution on April 28th. We in the House
    passed a full appropriation bill for fiscal year 2017 on March
    8th by a vote of 371 to 48. The Senate has not yet acted on it.
    As I have said before, I will not vote for a defense continuing
    resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2017. It would simply do
    too much harm.
        Fundamental to fixing a problem is to expose it and
    understand it. I understand that we have to be cautious about
    exposing our vulnerabilities, but in order to do better for the
    military and for the country, we must have the best
    professional military judgment our witnesses today can offer on
    the current state of our military forces, and on what a CR
    [continuing resolution] or inadequate funding would mean for
    them. To get on a better track, we all have to be clear and
    candid with the American people. And that is exactly the
    purpose of today's hearing.
        Mr. Smith.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thornberry can be found in
    the Appendix on page 57.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
              RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree with much
    of what the chairman had to say.
        I mean, certainly over the course of the last 6-plus years,
    you know, the uncertainty that has accompanied the defense
    budget has made it very, very difficult to operate. We have had
    one government shutdown, countless threatened government
    shutdowns, and numerous CRs. And I think most people don't
    appreciate what a CR means; they just say, well, you are just
    continuing the budget.
        A CR basically means you can't start new programs, you
    can't end programs that need to be ended, and as importantly, a
    lot of times you are not really sure what qualifies as which.
    All of you have to go through a very difficult task when we
    don't have a regular appropriations bill of figuring out
    exactly what you can and cannot spend money on, and that is a
    colossal waste of your time and also very expensive. We should
    give you a clear budget, every year, clear appropriations to
    give you the freedom to implement that as is necessary. We have
    not done that.
        And I agree with the chairman, there is plenty of blame to
    go around on that front. But the lack of budget clarity has
    caused no end of problems. I also agree that the force has been
    unquestionably been stressed over the course of the last 15
    years, certainly with two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
    and then the ongoing struggle against extremism all across the
    world.
        Our military has been given a large number of assignments,
    and couple that with the inadequate, well, with the
    unpredictable number of resources and you--you have a problem.
    I think there is a larger thing that we need to get at, and I
    agree with the chairman again that we need an appropriations
    bill, and we need to fund the military to meet the mission.
        I don't agree that we can somehow pull defense out of the
    entire rest of the Federal Government, look at it totally
    separately as if all the other money that we spend in the
    government doesn't matter. Because unfortunately, we do have
    other priorities than just national security, some of which are
    really rather important. In fact, some of them have to do with
    security--the intelligence budget, the Department of Homeland
    Security; but also our infrastructure, which is crumbling at an
    alarming rate and it regrettably is a tradeoff.
        And I think the budget that President Trump sent up this
    year makes that absolutely clear. He plussed up defense by $54
    billion and he took the $54 billion out of everything else,
    including a 31 percent cut in the State Department. And as the
    Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, said, if you are going to
    cut the State Department, and if you are going to cut
    development aid, then you better give me five more divisions
    because I am going to have a lot of wars to fight. It is all of
    a piece.
        As much as I would love on this committee to be able to
    pull defense out and say we can ignore everything else, we
    aren't just members of the defense committee--we are Members of
    Congress, and we are responsible for all of that. Towards that
    end I will make one final point.
        As we look at how we put together a defense budget, I agree
    with the chairman: we should not give the men and women who
    serve in the military tasks and assignments that we do not
    equip and train them to do. That is where we are at right now;
    that is completely and totally unacceptable.
        I do not, however, agree that the answer is to simply
    continue to expand what those tasks and responsibilities should
    be and kind of hope that we somehow come up with more money to
    meet it because the tasks and responsibilities that have been
    described by the President and what he says he wants the
    military to do. He sent up a $603 billion dollar budget that
    doesn't even come close to meeting those tasks and
    responsibilities that are outlined. Even the $640 billion that
    the chairman here and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
    Committee have talked about doesn't come close to meeting that,
    either.
        So what we also need to do, in addition to rightly pointing
    out the lack of resources and the unpredictability, is come up
    with a set of tasks and missions for the Department of Defense,
    for the men and women who serve in the armed services, that we
    can actually fund.
        We cannot continue to say, well, you got to do this, got to
    do this. We don't have money, we don't have the money, we
    should have the money, we don't have the money, we should have
    the money. We know where our budget is at. We know that we are
    $20 trillion in debt, that we are running a deficit in excess
    of $600 billion, and that there are other needs in our budget.
        So I think we also have to be really smart about how we
    spend the money in defense and about what missions we decide
    our men and women should be ready, trained, and equipped to
    serve.
        So I hope that is part of the discussion as well this
    morning. I look forward to your testimony, and I thank you all
    for your service.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
    Appendix on page 58.]
        The Chairman. We are pleased to welcome this morning
    General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army; Admiral John
    Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations; General David Goldfein,
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and General Robert Neller,
    Commandant of the Marine Corps.
        Without objection, your full written statements will be
    made part of the record.
        And let me just say, again, how much I appreciate each of
    you being here. I know you have a lot of responsibilities on
    your shoulders. I know, for example, the Commandant came back a
    day early from an overseas trip. But I believe the opportunity
    to get funding for the military on a better track deserves all
    of our careful attention and discussion. Again, that is the
    purpose of today's hearing. Thank you all for being here.
        General Milley, we would be pleased to turn to you for any
    oral statement you would like to make.

      STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
                                  ARMY

        General Milley. Thanks, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
    Member Smith and all the distinguished members of the
    committee, for the opportunity before you today. I appreciate
    that, and I know we all do.
        The world is becoming a more dangerous place, with
    simultaneous challenges to the United States interests from
    Russia, China, Iran, a rapidly growing threat from North Korea,
    and an ongoing series of wars against terrorists. This is no
    time, in my professional view, to increase risk to our national
    security. A yearlong CR or return to the BCA [Budget Control
    Act] funding will do just that. It will increase risk to the
    Nation and will ultimately result in dead Americans on a future
    battlefield.
        To execute current operations, sustain readiness while
    making progress toward a more capable and lethal future, the
    United States Army requires, most importantly, predictable and
    consistent funding. The lack of fiscal year 2017 appropriations
    and no supplemental increase in funding will significantly and
    negatively impact readiness and increase risk to our force.
        Additionally, a return to budget caps due to BCA
    sequestration in fiscal year 2018 forces the Army to reverse
    our efforts to improve readiness and will lead to a hollow
    Army. In the last 2 years, we have made steady progress in our
    core warfighting skills across multiple types of units. But we
    have much work to do to achieve full-spectrum readiness
    necessary to meet the demands of our National Military Strategy
    and the Defense Planning Guidance.
        Advances by our adversaries are real, and the cumulative
    effect of persistent and destructive budget instability for 8
    consecutive years is increasing risk, not only to the Army, but
    to the Nation, and will result in unnecessary U.S. casualties.
    Readiness to prevent or, if necessary, fight and win wars is a
    very, very expensive proposition. But the cost of preparation
    is always far less than the cost, the pain, the blood, and the
    sacrifice of regret.
        Readiness is the Army's number one priority. Our current
    readiness funding requirement is submitted in the amendment to
    the fiscal year 2017 President's budget is $3 billion above
    fiscal year 2016's operations and maintenance levels. Our
    planning efforts for fiscal year 2017 request for additional
    appropriations centered on filling critical gaps in readiness,
    specifically in armor, air defense, field artillery, and
    aviation.
        If forced to operate under a yearlong CR, this will not
    happen and Army current readiness and efforts to close critical
    gaps will be severely impacted. Funding under a CR for a year
    will result in a dramatic decrease in training starting next
    month in May and by 15 July all Army training will cease,
    except those units deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq.
        Our CTC [Combat Training Center], collective training
    exercises, at NTC [National Training Center] and JRTC [Joint
    Readiness Training Center] will be significantly degraded and
    all efforts to increase Army end strength, as mandated in the
    fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act by you for
    the Regular Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserve will
    also cease. The cumulative effect of training shortfalls,
    combined with personnel constraints, will result in an Army
    that is less ready to meet not only current requirements of
    combatant commanders, but limit our ability to assure our
    allies, deter our adversaries, now and in the future.
        Also, procurement efforts currently on hold will remain on
    hold, preventing the Army from immediately addressing known
    shortfalls and gaps in combat systems, and importantly in
    munitions, electronic warfare, cyber programs, air and missile
    defense, long-range fires, protection and mobility programs,
    along with several other modernization initiatives. We will
    lose our current overmatch.
        The current battlefield is already very lethal, and a
    future battlefield will likely prove far more lethal than
    anything we have recently experienced. Our adversaries have
    studied us and are rapidly leveraging available technology
    while the Army has yet to fully recover from the effects of the
    shutdown in 2013. Time is not our ally. A return to the BCA
    caps will damage the Army's ability to build and maintain
    readiness at appropriate levels and result in multiple years of
    negative impacts on the future of our Army.
        While we cannot forecast precisely when and where the next
    contingency will arise, it is very likely to require a
    significant commitment of U.S. Army ground forces. Sustaining
    high levels of performance that your Army has demonstrated in
    the face of increasing challenges requires consistent, long-
    term, balanced, and predictable funding. A yearlong continuing
    resolution or return to BCA funding caps absolutely will result
    in a U.S. Army that is outranged, outgunned, and outdated
    against potential adversaries.
        With your support, however, in passing the fiscal year 2017
    budget and the supplemental, the Army will fund readiness at
    sufficient levels to meet current demand, build readiness for
    contingencies, and invest in the future force.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Milley can be found in
    the Appendix on page 60.]
        The Chairman. Admiral Richardson.

       STATEMENT OF ADM JOHN M. RICHARDSON, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
                               OPERATIONS

        Admiral Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Smith, and distinguished members of the committee for the
    opportunity to discuss the impacts that another continuing
    resolution--in fact, just to leverage General Milley's
    statement--continuing uncertain and inadequate funding levels
    would do to the Navy.
        And two points I just want to clarify and clearly convey
    right off the top is that, Mr. Chairman, we need that fiscal
    year 2017 bill and the supplemental in order to keep Navy
    programs and key investments moving forward, to recover
    readiness this year, prevent digging the readiness hole deeper,
    and to sustain it into the near future.
        There is a growing gap between the missions that we are
    asking our Navy to do and the unreliability and shortage of the
    resources provided to do those missions, as Ranking Member
    Smith highlighted. We got to where we are today because of 15
    years of operating at wartime pace. The Eisenhower Strike Group
    has deployed five times in the last 7 years.
        Contrast that level of effort with 8 years of continuing
    resolutions and 5 years of budget restrictions imposed by the
    Budget Control Act and the Balanced Budget Acts. This gap
    creates years of stress over and above the inherent stress of
    deployed operations. And the Navy team, in fact, the joint
    service team, the joint force team, sailors, civilians, and
    their families, have been absorbing that stress.
        And so in the simplest possible terms as I speak to you
    today, if we don't get the funding just described, lots of our
    aviators will not fly and they can't train. We won't have the
    spares to fix their planes; we won't have the gas to fly them.
    We may not have the pay to keep our pilots in the services. And
    we won't have ready aircraft for tomorrow's pilots.
        Lots of sailors will not go to sea. We can't afford the
    maintenance to fix their ships, can't afford the gas to steam
    them. And ships will remain tied up to the pier. In many ways
    this is irreversible. You can't get lost training time back; we
    will be less proficient when we do go to sea, when we do fly.
    Our pilots will be less experienced, which is a daunting fact
    when you consider what we are asking them in wartime. Our
    sailors will have less time at sea to practice together, to
    train together, and to achieve the intricate teamwork needed to
    win in modern warfare.
        And the stress doesn't stop when they return to homeport.
    Current funding without the fiscal year 2017 bill and the
    supplemental will only allow for 1-month's notice before they
    move their families, placing a huge burden on their families
    and especially those with children. And we will continue to ask
    our people to work in substandard conditions in over 6,000
    buildings in dismal condition awaiting repair, replacement, or
    demolition.
        At the unit level, we will have to shut down air wings in
    the short term. And in the long term, the shortage of airplanes
    will get worse. We will delay important upgrades that help us
    keep pace with the threat. These delays or cancellations will
    put sailors at greater risk from cyberattacks, with the growing
    threat of anti-ship missiles in the areas that they routinely
    operate. Submarines will lose their certification to dive.
    Ships will be at the pier instead of underway.
        Failing to maintain our equipment has the same net effect
    as cutting force structure; whether we leave a ship tied up to
    the pier because it is not repaired or we decide not to build a
    new ship, both mean one less ship at sea. Not being able to fly
    an existing aircraft or not buying a new aircraft both mean one
    less plane in the air. As the general said, this is not a
    theoretical debate. While we talk about whether or not to keep
    ships in port and aircraft on the ground, our competitors are
    making steady progress and gaining on us.
        America's risks are getting worse as other nations grow
    their fleet and operate them in the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian,
    and Arctic Oceans. As they extend their influence over trade
    routes that are the lifeblood of the international economy,
    including ours.
        I just got back from Rota, Spain, where I saw our sailors
    in action. We visited the USS Ross who is now in the
    increasingly contested waters of the Eastern Mediterranean.
    Those sailors know clearly that they are sailing into harm's
    way, but they took an oath to support and defend the
    Constitution and they live up to that commitment every day,
    undaunted by the competition I just described. And their
    teammates do this every day all around the world. They are
    tough, dedicated, and proud of what they do.
        Back here at home, there is less evidence that we get it.
    There is tangible lack of urgency; we are not doing what we
    should to help them win. In fact, we are here today to discuss
    plans, potential plans, that would make their lives harder,
    that will further shrink their advantage.
        So, Chairman, I urge Congress to pass the fiscal year 2017
    bill and give favorable consideration to the supplemental. It
    will make us more ready, more competitive, and relieve a lot of
    stress that is on our people. Together, we can find ways to
    maintain our edge. There is so much at stake.
        Thank you for the chance to testify, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Richardson can be found
    in the Appendix on page 65.]
        The Chairman. General Goldfein.

    STATEMENT OF GEN DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
                               AIR FORCE

        General Goldfein. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking
    Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee for
    hosting this critically important and timely hearing. It is a
    privilege to be here with my fellow Joint Chiefs.
        Your Air Force is globally engaged both here in the
    homeland and deployed to capture and control the high ground as
    we provide global vigilance, global reach, and global power for
    America and our allies. As the service with the most diverse
    portfolio of missions, operating from the outer reaches of
    space, to 100 feet below the surface and everywhere in between,
    we are involved in some way in every mission the joint force
    performs. Put simply, your Air Force is always there.
        Our responsibility begins in the nuclear enterprise as we
    ensure the bomber and missile legs of the triad remains safe,
    secure, and reliable, and on our worst day as a nation we
    ensure the Commander in Chief is where he needs to be when he
    needs to be there and that he remains connected to our Air
    Force and naval nuclear forces who stand watch for America and
    our allies.
        In space, your airmen fly and maintain 12 constellations
    that provide critical intelligence, protected communications,
    nuclear command and control, and GPS [Global Positioning
    Satellite] for the joint team and for the globe. When China
    launched its anti-satellite missile in 2007, creating a debris
    field over 300,000 particles, space became both a contested and
    a congested place, and it is the responsibility of your Air
    Force to organize, train, equip, and present the preponderance
    of ready space forces to combatant commanders to fight should a
    war either start or extend into space.
        In the cyber domain, airmen join their fellow soldiers,
    sailors, and Marines to defend the Nation and develop tactics,
    techniques, and procedures to produce strategic effects in this
    new and critical warfighting domain. Just 16 years ago, we had
    a single remotely powered aircraft in test. Today your Air
    Force delivers 60 lines of armed reconnaissance along with
    high-altitude capabilities that provide an unblinking eye on
    our adversaries.
        If you heard jet noise this morning driving to the Capitol,
    it was likely the F-16s from the 113th Air National Guard Wing
    at Andrews who sit on alert to defend this city, just as we do
    across the Nation to defend our homeland from attack. And I
    learned just walking in this morning that we lost an F-16 from
    that wing this morning. And I am proud to say that at least the
    news reports are telling us the pilot got out and he is okay.
    These are just some of the missions we perform here.
        Simultaneously, airmen are operating forward in over 175
    locations to assure allies and partners, deter adversaries,
    shape the environment, and respond to crises. Job one for our
    deployed force is to gain and maintain air superiority, which
    we define as freedom from attack and freedom to maneuver.
        When a soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or coastguardsman
    hears jet noise, I don't ever want them to look up. I want them
    to know it is me. This is sacred duty for an airman. Once we
    establish air superiority, your Air Force provides unmatched
    global reach with an aircraft taking off or landing every 3
    minutes delivering critical personnel or supplies where and
    when they are needed. And we sometimes operate out of locations
    that are in insecure areas. And it is our special forces, air
    commandos, who are trained to secure airfields when and where
    we need them in places like Qayyarah West in Iraq.
        And when it comes to global precision strike, I call your
    attention to the January raid where a pair of B-2 bombers
    departed their home base in Missouri for a 32-hour round trip
    sortie to Libya. These stealth bomber crews, refueled by 13
    different tankers, delivered 85 bombs over 2 terrorist camps,
    delivering precise legal effects within 10 seconds. And I
    repeat, 32-hour mission, within 10 seconds of their designated
    time over target.
        And in the counter-ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]
    fight, Lieutenant General Jeff Herigian, the air component
    commander, leads a coalition of 16 nations in the fight to
    defeat violent extremism in the Middle East. In the current
    fight against ISIS, coalition partners have dropped over 40,000
    munitions on our enemy with the vast majority coming from
    United States Air Force.
        For our enemy, ``always there'' has a different meaning.
    General Hap Arnold, who led the air effort during World War II,
    stated during the worst days of the daylight bombing campaign,
    ``The problem with air power is we make it look too easy.'' The
    truth is anything but. Today's Air Force is the smallest,
    oldest, and least ready in its history. We have and will
    continue to fly, fight, and win, but at a cost to our airmen
    and their families who remain globally engaged.
        Chairman, it is fitting that we are having this hearing on
    Gold Star Spouse Day as a reminder of how vital our families
    are to our mission. For 26 years of continuous conflict,
    starting with Operation Desert Storm through Operations
    Northern and Southern Watch, Deliberate and Allied Force in the
    Balkans, Odyssey Dawn in Libya, and the current fights in
    Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, they have remained faithful to
    our cause. So it is unfortunate that we are now discussing the
    potential of yet another extended continuing resolution, which,
    as has already been said, is the equivalent of a mini
    sequestration round which we have already been through before.
    You see, in the Air Force we still haven't recovered from round
    one.
        Failing to pass an appropriations bill will cost the Air
    Force $2.8 billion in the remaining 5 months of 2017. Here are
    just two of the direct impacts to our most important resource,
    our airmen and their families, of failing to pass a budget. We
    will stop flying in late June when the money runs out; so only
    squadrons in the fight or preparing to go to the fight will
    train. By the end of this year, we will be short 1,000 fighter
    pilots.
        Chairman, it takes approximately 10 years and $10 million
    to train a fighter pilot. One thousand short equates to $10
    billion of capital investment that walked out the door, and it
    will take us 10 years to replace that experience. Of all the
    things that we can do to retain pilots, the most important is
    to get them airborne. Pilots who don't fly, maintainers who
    don't maintain, air traffic controllers that don't control,
    leave. And while we will never buy our way out of this
    shortage, an extended CR will also negate the pilot bonuses
    Congress authorized, which will break faith with the force.
        In addition, over 2,000 young men and women have signed up
    to serve in the long blue line who will not be allowed to enter
    the service until we get an appropriation. They represent the
    greatest treasure in our Nation's arsenal. They come from each
    of your districts. They have given up jobs, left home, made
    plans, all to be told they will have to wait now for months to
    pursue their dream. How many of these talented young men and
    women won't wait and will choose an alternative path when we
    desperately need to grow our force in fiscal year 2017?
        As a service chief I have many obligations, but one remains
    paramount. Every airman we send into harm's way must be
    properly organized, trained and equipped, and led to succeed in
    their mission. And we must take care of their families while
    they are gone. This is our moral obligation. A yearlong CR
    makes meeting this obligation extremely difficult.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of this
    committee, the demand for air and space superiority has never
    been higher. With it, we win; without it, we lose. We look
    forward to working with you in the weeks ahead to pass a budget
    and thank you again for holding this critically important
    hearing. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Goldfein can be found in
    the Appendix on page 69.]
        The Chairman. General Neller.

      STATEMENT OF GEN ROBERT B. NELLER, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE
                              MARINE CORPS

        General Neller. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith,
    members of the committee, I will be brief so we can get to your
    questions.
        First, let me fully endorse the comments of my fellow
    chiefs. And second, I think it is important to remember that
    the readiness of our respective services are inextricably
    linked. The fleet doesn't sail, Marines don't get to sea; the
    Army can't train, we can't train with them; the Air Force can't
    fly, we can't move around the world. So none of us can do
    anything by ourselves. So our readiness of our respective
    forces are part of that of the joint force.
        Marines have a unique perspective on readiness based on the
    direction of the Congress as the Nation's force in readiness.
    Being ready is central to our identity. So the bottom line is
    this: operating under a full-year continuing resolution through
    the remainder of this fiscal year will seriously degrade
    readiness across the force and have adverse effects on future
    readiness.
        Specifically, we will cease CONUS [continental United
    States]-based flight operations in late July or early August
    with the exception of those squadrons getting ready to deploy.
    Lack of funding will slow, halt, or potentially reverse hard-
    earned material readiness recovery efforts across the force. It
    will slow the acquisition of critical systems and delay the
    construction of much needed amphibious warships.
        The scope and scale of our training will be significantly
    reduced, impacting service level pre-deployment training such
    as the integrated training exercise at Twentynine Palms, which
    is our key event for certification before deployment.
        Other events, large multilateral and multinational
    exercises such as Bold Alligator at Camp Lejeune or our cold-
    weather training in Norway, Cold Response, will also be
    degraded. And we will be challenged to recover from these
    training gaps, because once you lose a training you can't get
    it back. You can't get it back because there is another unit in
    the queue ready to go. And if you miss it, you are not going to
    get another turn.
        As Representative Smith mentioned, the global security
    environment drives the requirements which determine our
    operational commitments. Your Marines are as busy now as they
    were during the height of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Just this morning, I returned from visiting Marines and our
    joint and coalition partners forward deployed in the Republic
    of Korea and Japan. I assure you that the forward-deployed
    force is engaged around the globe in support of not only PACOM
    [U.S. Pacific Command], but all combatant commanders and is
    ready to go.
        Our current operational tempo, combined against fiscal
    reductions, the instability of these CRs, and the lasting
    impacts of sequestration, continue to make us make hard choices
    that prioritize support to the operational forces above many
    other resource requirements.
        The priority has and will continue to go to deployed and
    the next-to-deploy units. But that results in readiness
    shortfalls in aviation facilities, sustainment, modernization,
    retention of critical skills, and the depth and readiness of
    our ready bench. Working with our Congress and our chiefs and
    the Department of Defense, and the chairman and the Secretary,
    I assure you, the Marine Corps make the most of those resources
    we are provided, and that Marines will meet the high standards
    of the Congress and the American people, regardless.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Neller can be found in
    the Appendix on page 76.]
        The Chairman. Let me ask each of you to address a
    relatively simple question. Why is it different now? As Admiral
    Richardson and Mr. Smith mentioned, we have had 8 years of CRs,
    5 years of the Budget Control Act. You know, to most people,
    they look and say, well, we are still bombing ISIS. You know,
    we are getting by. We are doing what needs to be done. And yet,
    each of you has painted a pretty dire picture of where we are
    and especially where we would be under a CR or without a
    supplemental.
        So, again, I guess my basic question is, why is it
    different now?
        General Milley.
        General Milley. In my view, it is the cumulative effect. We
    have been doing CRs now for 8 years, shutdown in 2013. It is a
    cumulative effect on the personnel. We have reduced the Army by
    80,000 or 90,000 soldiers in the last 8 years. We have taken
    out 17 brigade combat teams. We still have 180,000 soldiers
    today deployed in under 40 countries around the world. We are
    still actively engaged in terms of OPTEMPO [operational tempo]
    and combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen,
    Libya, Central Africa, West Africa, and several other places.
        Roughly speaking, I just got back from the Middle East last
    week, 80 percent of those forces that you see on the ground in
    those countries are Army forces. It is the cumulative effect of
    all of these years.
        And, by the way, it is not just fighting in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. There are other potential contingencies on the
    horizon. We saw that yesterday morning with the launching of a
    nuclear missile, or not a nuclear missile, but a missile from
    North Korea that landed in the Sea of Japan. I have no idea and
    neither does anybody in this room where all that leads. We must
    be ready. It is the cumulative effect.
        Chairman, if I were to draw an analogy, it would be like
    smoking cigarettes. One cigarette is not going to kill you. But
    you do that for 8, 10, 20 years, 30 years, you are eventually
    going to die of lung cancer. It is the cumulative effect over
    time that is really devastating and the seesaw effect of money
    in and money out.
        And also, we can't invest in modernization because industry
    has to have predictable funding and we can't do that. It is a
    very--not only is it negative on immediate readiness it is
    devastating on future modernization because we can't get out in
    front of it and it is much more expensive when you can't do
    multiyear contracts--it is very expensive. It is an
    inefficient, ineffective way of doing the budget.
        The Chairman. Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I would pile on top of
    everything that General Milley said. It is the cumulative
    effect of this triple whammy of the operational pace against
    fighting violent extremism; contrast that against the
    uncertainty of the budget and the budgetary levels.
        We always, all of us, strive to send our forces forward,
    fully ready into those fights so that they are fully prepared
    for any contingency that comes their way, but that has come at
    the cost of readiness back home and those reinforcement forces,
    those surge forces that would flow into the fight if we had a
    major contingency, as the general highlighted.
        I would also say that one thing, in my mind, that has
    characterized the discussion is it is very internally focused
    and it is not just us that have been operating in the world in
    the last 10 years. So if we had this conversation 8 years ago,
    in the intervening 8 years, China has completely modernized
    their fleet and they are operating, not just around their
    shores, but around the world now. Russia was actually
    considered an ally at that time. We were exercising with
    Russia, and now it is a much different picture.
        The general mentioned North Korea and Iran. These
    competitors have also grown in these last intervening 8 years,
    and so the relative balance has shifted. So it is a combination
    of our internal effects, the stress of 10 years of combat
    operations, 15 years, contrasted against the funding
    instability and levels. But it is also our competitors that
    have been making significant gains during those 8 years.
        The Chairman. General Goldfein.
        General Goldfein. Sir, that is really, you know, let me
    build on Admiral Richardson's comments because the reality is
    the world changed in 2014. If you go back to prior to 2014 and
    look at our posture and the collective assumptions we were
    making, both within Congress and the executive branch, we were
    out of Iraq, we were coming down in Afghanistan and in a single
    year the world changed for us. Russia went into Crimea and got
    active in Ukraine. China started militarizing islands in the
    South China Sea. We had ISIS and we went back into Iraq. And
    you may remember we had this thing called Ebola that happened
    during 2014.
        And while we may now all look back on that as not that big
    a deal, as we were going through it, you might recall that we
    weren't sure whether we were facing the plague of the 21st
    century. All that happened in a single year.
        So the world changed. And so the assumptions that we had
    made in terms of strategic trades that we make because for, as
    service chiefs, you know, what we do is we look at trying to
    balancing capability, capacity, and readiness. And we make
    strategic trades based on our assumptions of the global
    security environment. And so to your question of, what is
    different now? The world is different now.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Commandant.
        General Neller. Chairman, on 9/11 there were 172,500
    Marines and we deployed at a rate of 3:1. We were home for 18
    months and we were gone for 6 and the gear we had was the gear
    we had from the 1980s buildup; it was only 16, 15, 12 years
    old.
        You go to Camp Lejeune or Camp Pendleton today, you drive
    around, that is the same stuff we are driving today. It has
    been modified, been re-engineered. It has been through the
    depot. Still flying the same F-18s; we got one squadron F-35s.
    We replaced CH-46s with MV-22s. We are flying the same 53s [CH-
    53s]. We are starting to get at replacing the Hueys and Cobras.
    The force now deploys at a rate of 2:1. I mean, we have to
    recapitalize this force.
        We fought a fight against an insurgent and
    counterinsurgency stability op. And as my fellow chief said,
    the game has changed. We weren't talking about ``four plus
    one''  even 5, 6 years ago. And all their stuff is new.
    And we need to have our stuff modernized. And we have to change
    our training. And we can do all that. We can do all that. And
    we are in the process of doing that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Reference to the primary security challenges for the
    United States being Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, plus terrorism.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But we need to have the stability of a known funding stream
    so that we can get the best price for modern gear, that we can
    plan our training, that we know we are going to go, and we know
    we are going to get a ride either on an airplane or a ship. And
    our allies know they are going to be able to show up and we are
    going to be there to train with them. And this potentially puts
    all that at risk.
        The Chairman. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have no
    questions. I have had the opportunity to speak with these
    gentlemen on a number of occasions, so I will let Mrs. Davis
    take the first questions for our side.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all very much for your service and for being
    here today.
        You know, you make a very good case, and I think we are all
    with you in understanding the difficulties, the challenges that
    you face. But I am also wondering, you know, here we are. It is
    April; we haven't passed last year's budget yet. In many ways,
    as you say, we are dealing with a continuing CR, which, in many
    ways, is almost the norm. And so, what is it that we should be
    looking at doing? Are there different metrics when it comes to
    readiness and setting priorities that suggest that we actually
    have to adapt to this kind of situation and still accomplish
    the mission?
        What do you think needs to be done differently at all if
    this is the new normal?
        General Milley. I don't accept that----
        Mrs. Davis. I am not suggesting that I like the new norm.
        General Milley. I don't accept it as a new normal,
    Congresswoman. I think, candidly, failure to pass a budget, in
    my view, as both an American citizen and the Chief of Staff of
    United States Army, constitutes professional malpractice. I
    don't think we should accept it as the new normal.
        I think we should pass it and pass the supplemental with it
    and get on with it. The world is a dangerous place and is
    becoming more dangerous by the day. Pass the budget.
        Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, here is what this new normal
    would mean. It would mean trying to run a mile race and giving
    the competition a lap head start. You have got to run very fast
    if you are going to win that race and we are just not fast. So,
    I mean, that is what you buy into if you accept this as a new
    normal. I couldn't agree with the chief more.
        General Goldfein. Ma'am, I will just use this as an
    opportunity just to remind us in terms of what I think you
    expect from us as Joint Chiefs. And that is, I think you need
    from us our best military advice on what we think we need to be
    able to perform the missions that we are being given. And until
    those missions change, what we will continue to tell you is
    what the force requires.
        So the resistance you are getting from us relative to
    setting some kind of a new normal is that the missions haven't
    changed. And so what you won't hear from us is anything but
    here is what is required to do those missions which we have
    been given to defend this Nation and to do those missions as
    required both here in the homeland and abroad.
        General Neller. I think we have adapted, otherwise we
    wouldn't be able to do the things that we do every day. That
    doesn't mean we like it. I mean, we are not perfect, we make
    mistakes, but I think we are adaptable because of the men and
    women that serve in our services are really smart and they are
    mission oriented and they figure out a way to get it done and
    everybody is, you know, hedging or whatever they are doing, but
    the bill is in the back end.
        And the people we are contesting right now, they don't have
    armored forces, they don't have electronic warfare, they don't
    have an Air Force, they don't have long-range artillery, they
    don't have the ability to jam space and deny our networks. That
    is who is out there potentially in the wings and that is what
    we are trying to get at.
        And, you know, the force, we are a volunteer force. Or
    maybe more accurately, we are an all-recruited force, and it is
    expensive. And in order to continue to recruit, you have to
    have the capability that they think they can have the
    opportunity to be successful against these other threats. And
    we can assume that it may or may not happen; that is not my
    job. My job is to manage risk and provide best military advice.
        So we need stability, we need to be able to plan, we need
    to know, whatever the number is, whatever the number is, and
    then we will go forward. But the force has to have confidence
    that they are going to have a continued resource stream for the
    capabilities they need to train and to be operational and for
    their families and for all those things you have to have with
    an All-Volunteer Force.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Right now we actually have a hiring freeze, a Federal
    hiring freeze. And is that contributing to degraded readiness?
    And in what way?
        General Neller. I would say, I will just go up and go back
    the other way, but we have had pretty good luck because of the
    parameters and the guidance that was given as far as we could
    get a waiver for those jobs on the civilian side that were
    directly affected, affecting readiness, maintainers, people
    that are involved in certain things. It is not perfect and it
    has caused some problems, particularly in the non-appropriated
    side. And sadly, the people that were mostly hurt by that were
    a lot of family members who worked in those organizations where
    we couldn't get a waiver.
        But we have worked through it, and we have got good
    reaction from Secretary Stackley and Secretary Mattis and the
    Department to fill those jobs. But it was just another thing
    because, as you know, ma'am, it takes time to fill those jobs,
    particularly if they involve a security clearance.
        The Chairman. If the others of you have comments, if you
    would submit them in writing, too, we will try to keep as close
    as we can to the 5-minute rule because of the number of
    members.
        Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, for your
    coordinating this important hearing today on urgent issues to
    American families.
        I appreciate each of you for your extraordinary dedicated
    service to our Nation.
        I would prefer that we were under better circumstances, but
    unfortunately budget uncertainty is an issue that needs to be
    understood by the American people. Your clarity today is very
    much appreciated.
        In South Carolina, I represent over 48,000 enlisted
    soldiers who annually graduate and are stationed at Fort
    Jackson along with the nearby base at Fort Gordon, and the
    nearby airmen at Shaw Air Force Base, the Marines of Parris
    Island, Beaufort Naval Hospital, Beaufort Marine Corps Air
    Station, and the Guard members at McEntire Joint Airbase. South
    Carolina knows and loves our military.
        Your leadership provides young people opportunities for
    meaningful and fulfilling lives while protecting American
    families. Additionally, as a veteran, son of a veteran, I am
    grateful I have four sons that have served overseas in the
    military, along with a nephew in the Air Force who has served
    in Iraq.
        It is for this reason that I am particularly concerned
    about the negative impacts a continuing resolution would have
    on military families, such as deferred reenlistment bonuses,
    delayed family moves from summer to the school year,
    reprogrammed military equipment upgrades with limited training.
        How would each of you describe the real-life consequences
    to military families that a continuing resolution poses on our
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines? How would this affect
    service member morale, recruitment, and retention? And
    additionally, could each of you provide one specific impact
    that stands apart from the rest?
        General Milley.
        General Milley. Thanks, Congressman, appreciate the
    comment. And in South Carolina, as you mentioned, you got Fort
    Jackson. At Fort Jackson alone on an annual basis we train, we
    recruit, and bring into basic combat training the equivalent of
    the British Army, every year.
        Mr. Wilson. Wow.
        General Milley. At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, or Fort
    Hood, Texas, if you combine both those bases, that is the
    equivalent of the Australian and Canadian armies put together.
    What will happen in your State, in South Carolina, and many
    other States that have basic training, Missouri and Georgia and
    elsewhere? That basic training is going to stop in July. We are
    going to run out of money next month. And then over the
    following 60 days we are going to not have the gasoline, the
    fuel, the ammunition, et cetera. And basic training is going to
    stop.
        And what that will mean is we can't take those basic
    trainees that are already there and then onward deploy them or
    PCS [permanent change of station] them to operational units.
    And we will have to keep them right there at the fort. They
    won't be doing anything, they won't be training, they won't be
    doing anything of substantive value. And then we won't be able
    to recruit and bring in more trainees.
        So if we don't get this budget passed, we don't get the
    supplemental passed, Fort Jackson, and many other forts, for
    all intents and purposes, will be coming to a screeching halt
    for all of the activities and training that goes on there. The
    impact on families will be significant.
        We already cut back on several services throughout the
    Army. And we will continue to have to cut back on more services
    for families, family members. You are going to have to stop PCS
    moves; you are going to have to cancel bonuses. And bottom line
    is you are going to significantly and radically increase stress
    on the force that Admiral Richardson talked about. That is
    going to be throughout all the services. It will be very
    dramatic. It will be very significant, and it is something that
    should and must be avoided, in my view.
        Mr. Wilson. Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, before I begin I also have to
    thank you for hosting our nuclear power school down there in
    South Carolina as well.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, that is a bit out of the region so I was
    just trying to include ones nearby.
        Admiral Richardson. Okay, all right. It is not too far.
        Mr. Wilson. No. And see, I would have included Charleston
    Air Force Base too, but I was trying just to stay with the
    immediate region.
        Admiral Richardson. Roger, sir. Well, I only highlight that
    because that is some of these areas----
        Mr. Wilson. We are proud, yes.
        Admiral Richardson [continuing]. Are where some of our most
    skilled operators, our nuclear trainers, our combat aviators,
    you know, those are the folks that will be, you know, they will
    be the first to leave. This is where we talk about competition.
    Competition is everywhere I look. Competition is certainly in
    the security environment around the world.
        But I will tell you, I am competing every day for people. I
    am competing with the public sector, and the pool of qualified
    people to do those skills is small to start with and gets
    smaller every time somebody gets hired by another place.
        And when we talk about 1-month notice to move your family
    and children from Norfolk to Guam in the middle of the school
    year, that is a huge detractor. And that talent will leave, and
    I will lose that fight for people. And it will be the highest
    skilled, smartest, those folks will leave first.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And the rest, if you could
    respond in writing, thank you very much.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Langevin.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And gentlemen, I want to thank you all for your testimony,
    but most especially for your service to the Nation. So like all
    of you, I am very concerned about the impact of a CR across the
    board, especially when it comes to something like cyber. So can
    you discuss the potential impacts upon cyber programs,
    particularly those that might be a new start this year, such as
    the persistent training environment [PTE]?
        General Milley, I am going to start with you, as PTE is an
    Army program. But then I would ask the other services to add
    their thoughts.
        Next, for all of our witnesses, also, I remain also
    concerned about recruiting and retaining highly trained cyber
    warriors, especially as U.S. Cyber Command [CYBERCOM] is
    provided personnel from each of the services rather than
    raising their own forces. So the critical role the CYBERCOM
    plays in defending national interests against cyberattacks and
    providing support to military operations is an imperative that
    we obviously cannot afford to lose.
        And how will a CR and other budget gimmickry hamper your
    ability to recruit and retain the best of the best?
        General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. As you rightly point
    out, cyber is a relatively new domain of war, as we refer to
    it, and it is critically important, and significant damage can
    be done to adversaries through the use of cyber. So it is
    really important that we as a military, and the Army is playing
    its role, develop both offensive and defensive cyber
    capabilities.
        For the most part, for the Army operational units, they
    focus on protection of the networks and protection of the
    forces, the defensive cyber capabilities. The impact of the
    continuing resolution means that we are not going to be able to
    finish the facilities at Fort Gordon, which is the Cyber School
    Center of Excellence. It means that the National Guard is not
    going to be able to field their cyber protection teams, their
    defense teams for the National Guard. And we will not be able
    to continue the level of training that we need to do for the
    teams that are already formed in the Regular Army.
        In addition to that, the CR will likely have a negative
    effect on the recruitment of the best talent that we can get
    out there to become cyber warriors. It is a new branch in the
    Army. Thus far we have had great success. We need to continue
    that momentum. A continuing resolution or return to BCA funding
    is going to stop that momentum right in its tracks.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General.
        Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just again pile on. We have
    been organizing for cyber for some time now. And that
    organization includes people, the talented people that General
    Milley referred to. And so we have a requirement for 40 cyber
    mission teams that constitute a cyber mission force throughout
    the joint force. And then there is the engineering. We need to
    do the work to engineer our systems to make them more resilient
    against a cyberattack.
        Our latest development in that is to stand up the Digital
    Warfare Office this year on my staff that will work with the
    fleets to enhance our agility in the information domain across
    the board. And it is a very comprehensive program; I would love
    to come and talk to you about it in more detail. But that will
    stop without this funding.
        And also, many of those upgrades, those modernizations that
    I talked about are to enhance our resilience against
    cyberattack, which, you know, as the chief said, the critical
    vulnerabilities. The first shots in the next war, in fact the
    war that is going on right now, is in the cyber domain. The war
    is on there. We need to keep that funding in place.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Admiral.
        General.
        General Goldfein. Sir, I will just offer you some thoughts
    on what this is doing to Admiral Rogers as the combatant
    commander who has been entrusted with the mission of defending
    the Nation in cyber, defending the defense networks, and
    ensuring that we have the talent to be able to do his mission.
        All of us contribute to those cyber mission teams. And
    while we can't go into operational details, this extended CR
    will have an impact on all of our ability to be able to put
    those teams in place and allow him to accomplish the mission
    that he has been given at the very national level.
        General Neller. Sir, I was up at Fort Meade talking to
    Marines at MARFORCYBER [Marine Forces Cyberspace Command]. And
    a sergeant stuck his hand up and goes, ``Hey, Commandant, how
    are you going to afford to keep me?'' I said I don't know if I
    can afford to keep you. What is it going to cost me?
        I don't know if there is enough money out there. We got
    people up there getting offered six figures-plus to leave and
    go work in the civilian side. So we have already made the--we
    close down, we are going to have to treat cyber like special
    operations; once you are in, you are in, because the investment
    is too high to get them trained, they got to stay. But then I
    got to figure out how to pay them or get a contract out of them
    long enough to get a return.
        Obviously, if we are at a CR level, any money for bonuses
    or anything like that, there is a tradeoff for something else.
    I mean, you will find the money, but what are you going to take
    it away from? There are no good choices.
        Mr. Langevin. Thank you all.
        The Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here, and thank you for your very
    candid and sobering explanation of what we are facing. Been on
    this committee for a while, and I can remember in years past
    when witnesses came in and just danced around the edges about
    what the consequences would be if we didn't do our
    responsibility the right way. And unfortunately we are seeing
    the results of it now. But understanding in clear and uncertain
    [sic] terms of what it means to each of the branches and to the
    country overall I think is the sobering information we need.
        With that in mind, I want to talk about the potential
    strains on the military and tie in with what you have been
    saying to highlight what I think our most important resource,
    our men and women. So we need the weapon systems. We need the
    modernization. But without the men and women, as you have been
    saying, we have got a real problem.
        Specifically the 177th Fighter Wing in my district
    experienced a CONUS COLA [cost of living allowance] drop of 7
    percent in 2017, compared to 2016. It was cutting paychecks
    this year. While the fiscal year 2017 supplemental funds a 2.1
    percent pay raise for troops, as authorized in the 2017 NDAA
    [National Defense Authorization Act], and by law DOD
    [Department of Defense] must provide this pay raise, unless the
    supplemental is passed, DOD will likely have to realign funds
    from military personnel accounts.
        So, first for General Goldfein, what is the effect on
    service members' pay if a fiscal year 2017 supplemental is not
    passed? Exacerbating the strains they have already experienced
    with such CONUS COLA cuts, how could this affect service
    members' morale, recruitment, and retention? I know it is not
    good, but I would like to hear it in your words. And what other
    personnel issues concern you if we are stuck in a yearlong CR?
        General Goldfein. No, thanks, sir. You know, I will
    piggyback on what General Neller said. You know, when it comes
    to meeting our obligations to our airmen when it comes to pay,
    we are going to meet those obligations. The issue is we are
    going to have to go somewhere in that military personnel
    account to find that money. So it is the tradeoffs that will be
    the issue.
        For example, under a continuing resolution, we have talked
    about PCS moves, right? Moves, change of station. For the Air
    Force, for 5 months of a CR, there will be 13,000 families that
    now will have to be delayed in their moves. Of those families
    that now have children in school, think of all of the issues
    that will go on now to have to delay all of those moves into
    the fall cycle after they have started school. That puts a
    stress on our families that actually can't be quantified.
        When it comes to the last part of your question, which is
    one of my biggest concerns relative to a long CR, quite
    frankly, it is breaking faith with our airmen and their
    families. They have been at this for 26 years now. They will
    stay with us if they believe they can count on us to ensure
    that we take care of them and their families as they deploy.
    They will stay with us if they believe they are given the
    resources to be the very best they can be.
        And so I go back to my point. Pilots who don't fly,
    maintainers who don't maintain, air traffic controllers who
    don't control will not stay with us. So that is why you are
    hearing all of us talk about readiness as our top priority. And
    being able to fund them to be able to get them in the air is a
    key priority for the United States Air Force.
        Mr. LoBiondo. We only have little more than a minute, but
    General Milley, you want to comment on that as well?
        General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. Just very briefly, I
    concur and endorse everything that General Goldfein said. By
    law, we are supposed to do a 2.4 percent pay raise, you know,
    ECI [employment cost index] is how they calculate it, to keep
    pace with inflation, 2.1 percent is built into it. If we go to
    a CR or go to BCA funding, that is going to kill any pay raise.
        Right now, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, we
    are reasonably well-paid by global standards. But I want you to
    consider something, that in World War II only 10 percent of the
    United States military was married; today 60 percent of us are
    married and on average there are two children. So you are
    talking about families of four here. If you are a specialist or
    corporal with a family of four earns just slightly above the
    poverty level. There are thousands of soldiers, sailors,
    airmen, and Marines today that still use food stamps. That
    should really get people's attention. And if we don't pass the
    budget with the supplemental, it is going to hurt their pay, it
    is going to hurt other forms of benefits, it is going to hurt
    services, and it is going to crush morale, it will be very
    devastating to morale.
        So, again, I can't highlight enough yellow ink here to get
    the budget and the supplemental passed, because to do otherwise
    is going to have significant negative impact.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
    witnesses for your testimony.
        We have 5 legislative days, not counting today, to get this
    done, so obviously the urgency of your message is, you know,
    very important and, again, we appreciate it.
        Admiral Richardson, I wanted to just drill down a little
    bit on the maintenance availabilities impact of a CR. But
    before I do, I would just like to clarify a point that was
    raised yesterday when General Hyten of Strategic Command
    testified over in the Senate regarding the knife-edge timeline
    the Navy faces to sustain the SSBN [ballistic missile
    submarine] fleet. As he correctly stated, Ohio SSBNs will be
    coming offline starting in 2027 at a rate of one per year,
    which you have testified about many times.
        In order to avoid dipping below 10 SSBNs while the new
    Columbia class comes into service, last December CR we included
    a yearlong $773 million anomaly to keep Columbia moving forward
    with detail design and production this year. Just again, for
    clarification's sake, is that $773 million plus-up that we,
    again, made as a yearlong anomaly adequate to keep Columbia on
    track this year?
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I appreciate you highlighting the
    forced march that we are on to get that submarine on patrol in
    2031. And this is a program [that has] zero margin and so we
    need every dollar of that for the year to keep that on track.
    There is good news there. The team up at Electric Boat has
    regained track, so our designs are on pace, and I will tell you
    there is no margin in that. And even the fact you highlighted
    going down to 10, that requires pretty much error-free
    operation to maintain the requirements at that.
        Mr. Courtney. Right. So that will be adequate for this
    year, but stable, continuous funding to keep that on track.
    Great, thank you, appreciate that.
        Admiral Malloy, when he was over here earlier this year,
    stated that a yearlong CR would drive the Navy to cancel some
    14 or more ship availabilities. You know, you are dealing with
    a phenomenon over the last couple years of carrier gaps.
    Obviously that would kind of spread into other areas of the
    fleet in terms of performance gaps. And I was wondering if you
    could just kind of highlight that little critical point.
        Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir. I mean, certainly we don't
    just fix the ships just to fix them. We maintain and upgrade
    those ships so they can go forward and do the Nation's
    business, but we need to send them forward fully ready,
    maintained, ready to go, just like your car would be. You just
    wouldn't drive your car without doing the maintenance on it,
    without giving it the gas. And so this will translate
    downstream, the maintenance thing writ large.
        You know, when you can't fly an air wing because the
    aircraft aren't maintained, that just will result in, you know,
    we are not going to send them forward untrained. We are not
    going to send them forward unable to defend themselves because
    of poor maintenance. And so this will result in a smaller Navy
    around the world, longer tethers, less presence, gaps, if you
    will.
        And so, you know, it is a domino effect as well when those
    maintenance availabilities get canceled. Well, all of our,
    particularly the private shipyards, have to adapt to that as
    well. So their workforce is going to have to be cut and those
    people necessarily do not come back. They will find new jobs.
    And so you can see this downward spiral that results.
        Mr. Courtney. And just to follow up the chairman's question
    about what is different this time, again Admiral Malloy seemed
    to suggest that, you know, this is going to happen pretty much
    immediately if the CR is the final outcome.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, our fleet commanders and
    maintainers are hanging out with their fingernails right now.
    They wanted to take action before because they are at risk.
    Right? There are laws in place here in terms of spending more
    money than you have. And if we don't pass this, it will be
    abrupt. They have extended this as long as they can.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Milley, thank you for your incredible answer to
    Susan Davis concerning the prospects of continuing CRs. Your
    statement that it is malpractice and unprofessional is
    incredibly important, and everyone in Congress needs to hear
    it. We know certainly that members of this committee not only
    understand it, but are the advocates to the rest of Congress to
    try to ensure that it doesn't happen.
        When the last CR came forward, many of you are aware that
    members of this committee refused to vote for the CR unless we
    received a promise from the Speaker that DOD approps
    [appropriations] would move from the House. It did. There is no
    reason, as we look forward to the prospects of a CR, that DOD
    funding should be an exception. There is no reason it should
    not be an exception because we have already passed the DOD
    approps, we have already passed the NDAA. They should
    absolutely just be stapled to whatever is moving forward for
    funding and we certainly are to be advocating that it does.
        But I want to drill down for a minute on what the effects
    of sequestration and a possible CR, General Milley, would be,
    specifically on the Army. Last year, Chris Gibson and I
    introduced the POSTURE [Protecting Our Security Through
    Utilizing Right-Sized End-Strength] Act. The bill recognized
    the importance of ground forces in current and future conflicts
    and, most importantly, implemented a strategic pause in the
    Obama administration's proposed reductions to land force end
    strength level, given future and current threats. It began the
    process of reversing the harmful effects of downsizing our land
    forces as a result of the Budget Control Act.
        Under Chairman Thornberry's leadership, we successfully
    incorporated these end strength increases as part of the NDAA
    for fiscal year 2017. The NDAA provided full funding for
    manning, training, and equipping for these increases. These end
    strength authorizations associated with the fiscal year 2017
    NDAA will allow the Army to begin the process of mitigating
    some of the strategic risks imposed by the Budget Control Act.
        However, we recently heard testimony from the Vice Chief of
    Staff of the Army, and he stated that at today's end strength,
    the Army risks consuming readiness as fast as we build it. This
    leads me to believe that we need to continue to look at ways to
    reasonably continue to grow the Army to minimize the risks
    associated with the current and future operational demands. So,
    a few questions in that regard.
        First, we now know that the President has proposed a
    spending level of $603 [billion] for fiscal year 2018. As you
    know, our chairman has proposed $640 [billion]. Could you
    please tell me what the effects of a $603 [billion] funding
    level in the aggregate would be on rebuilding our military? And
    what is the impact on Army end strength under a yearlong CR? As
    we have continued to try to rebuild, what would the effect of
    the CR be? So those two questions.
        General Milley. There will be lots of impacts. Probably the
    most significant, we have been authorized to move out for the
    Regular Army to reverse the downward trend in end strength and
    to move out to 476 [thousand] by 1 October of this year. For
    the National Guard, we want to stabilize that force and bring
    them to 343,000 by 1 October. And for the U.S. Army Reserve, we
    would like to bring them back to about 197,000 by 1 October.
        A yearlong CR will stop all of that, it will stop the
    recruiting. As I mentioned earlier, it will stop the basic
    training and we will essentially resume a downward trend. What
    does that mean? Operationally, it means that units are going to
    go to the field at less than optimal strength for training. We
    already have units in the field for training in the 60 to 70
    percentile versus what is required of 90 to 95 percent present
    for training. That is a significant degradation in capability
    over time.
        We are going to end up having to, if it is a yearlong CR,
    we will end up having to cancel the National Training Center
    rotations out in California and we will end up canceling JRTC
    rotations. We will also end up canceling significant collective
    training for home-station training for all of the Active units.
        And for the Guard, they are going to have to cancel four of
    their, what we call, XCTC [eXportable Combat Training
    Capability], or significant training events. So training across
    the board, beginning shortly after we run out of money in May,
    looking at June or July, training will be reduced to individual
    squad training.
        Individuals and squads an Army does not make. You have to
    train at the company, the battalion, the brigade, and higher
    levels in order to have an effective force for full-spectrum
    warfare against the type of enemies that are possible out
    there. So it will be very significant across the board,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Gentlemen, thank you for your impassioned
    plea for money. We know where it is coming from, it is coming
    from all the other things the American public would like us to
    do and, frankly, we need to do.
        Our ranking member spoke to the 30 percent decrease in the
    State Department and what that means. The $5 billion decrease
    in the National Institute of Health research programs for
    everything from cancer to Alzheimer's and the like. So we are
    going to make some choices here.
        You have been told to develop a war plan for ISIS, where is
    that plan?
        General Milley, where is the war plan for ISIS? You were
    supposed to have it done in 30 days.
        General Milley. Yeah, Congressman, appreciate that. I am
    not going to discuss classified operational matters, but I will
    be happy to do that----
        Mr. Garamendi. But just tell me generally, where is the
    plan? Not what it is, where it is?
        General Milley. It has been submitted, and it has been
    looked at and reviewed, and it has been submitted.
        Mr. Garamendi. By this committee?
        General Milley. I don't know that we submit it to this
    committee.
        Mr. Garamendi. No, I don't believe you have.
        General Milley. We submit it to the chain of command
    through the Chairman, through the Secretary of Defense.
        Mr. Garamendi. You got $5 billion dollars, in your
    supplemental you have $5 billion for a war plan that has never
    been submitted to us. You expect us to approve something that
    you have not submitted to us?
        General Milley. Congressman, I am not going to get into a
    discussion of classified operational plan.
        Mr. Garamendi. No, my question was very direct, sir.
        General Milley. I am sorry?
        Mr. Garamendi. Do you expect us to give you $5 billion on a
    war plan that you have not submitted to us?
        General Milley. I would ask that you refer that to the
    Secretary of Defense or the President. We work through the
    chain of command on war plans.
        Mr. Garamendi. That is not an answer to my question, but I
    guess the answer is that you would expect us to approve a plan
    that has not been submitted. Where the money would be spent,
    how it would be spent, where it would be spent. Okay, fair
    enough. That is $5 billion of the $30 billion supplemental.
        You said in this testimony that pay will be reduced unless
    you have the supplemental. But yet in the base bill there is a
    2.1 percent pay increase. How does that work?
        General Goldfein, apparently you would like to answer.
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir. And what we said was that we
    will find the money within our budget to pay that 2 percent pay
    raise. The issue is we will have to make choices and trades
    within the military personnel account to do that. So we will--
    --
        Mr. Garamendi. And I think the budget, if I might, sir, the
    budget that we put out, the 2017 appropriation had 2.1 percent
    built into it for the forces that presumably you have, all of
    you have. Are you suggesting that that is not the way we----
        General Neller. No, sir. We are not suggesting that at all.
    The appropriations that came from this body had a growth, for
    example, of 3,000 Marines in a 2.1 percent pay. What we were
    brought here today to talk about would be the impact if we had
    the continuing resolution went through the whole year.
        Mr. Garamendi. And you have spent a good deal of your time
    talking about the supplemental. All four of you did.
        General Neller. No, I believe we have spent most of our
    time talking about the effect of the CR, but I take your point,
    sir.
        Mr. Garamendi. Then we are debating the word ``good deal of
    your time.'' Let us not get into too much detail about how much
    time you spent on the supplemental, but each one of you
    advocated for the supplemental. And we, at least I, have never
    seen how you would want that supplemental to be spent in
    certain key areas. That is not to say it may not be necessary,
    but we are going to have to make some tough choices. And we are
    going to need some detail in order to make those choices.
        General Goldfein, you and I have spent a lot of time
    talking about, do we really need to replace all of our ground-
    based strategic missiles in the near term? You know, that is
    about $50 billion. Do we need to do it right now? Or we are
    saying can that be delayed and we can do some of these other
    things that you would like to have us do?
        General Goldfein. Sir, I would submit to you that all three
    legs of the triad, the missile leg, the bomber leg, and the
    submarine leg, the three legs of the triad, were all built to
    build into a specific attribute we were looking for. The
    missile leg gives us the most responsive leg of the triad. The
    bomber leg gives us the most flexible leg. And the submarine is
    the most survivable leg of the triad. And my best military
    advice to you, sir, is that we need all three of those legs to
    be able to do the mission that we have been asked to.
        Mr. Garamendi. I have got 10 seconds. I am not debating
    whether we need it or not, my question is, when do we need it?
    We have to make some tough choices.
        General Goldfein. Absolutely.
        Mr. Garamendi. And in making those tough choices, some
    things may get delayed. We have got to figure out what needs to
    be delayed.
        With that, I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just try to clarify one thing here. I don't think
    there is anything in any legislation where a plan has to be
    devised and given to this committee. I think your
    responsibility is to the Secretary of Defense, his
    responsibility is to the President. And at some point we are
    interested in what that plan is, but I don't think that is
    written in stone that we have to be given that plan at point X.
        General Milley. That is correct. We normally do not submit
    an operation plan for full review to the United States
    Congress.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay, well, thank you for that clarification.
        General Milley I do want to ask you about a readiness and
    modernization issue. Currently, Fort Carson, which is in my
    district, has a brigade combat team [BCT] deployed to Europe in
    support of our allies to deter Russian aggression. To get the
    BCT ready to deploy, they obviously require reliable, modern
    equipment and training.
        So my two-part question is, if we had a CR, will the next
    brigade combat team out of Fort Carson be able to deploy with
    reliable equipment and necessary training? And secondly, would
    the next Stryker brigade out of Fort Carson be able to go to
    the National Training Center to get critical training before
    deploying?
        General Milley. Congressman, the Stryker brigade you are
    referring to, that is one of the rotations that would be
    canceled, so if there is a yearlong CR that unit rotation would
    likely be canceled. For the deployment to Europe, we plan on
    fully funding and resourcing units that are deploying into
    Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of combat.
        However, the unit that goes to Europe, for example, on a
    rotational basis that you are referring to, they would not get
    their full suite of home-station training prior to deploying
    because of the personnel strength issue that was previously
    discussed, the end strength issue. They would likely not deploy
    at full operational readiness standards that we would like them
    to deploy at. So there would be a negative impact on that
    particular brigade deploying.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. That is very sobering and, to me,
    has national implications and certainly has community
    implications back in Colorado Springs.
        General Goldfein, I would like to ask you a question about
    space. In your written statement, you say that the JICSpOC
    [Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center], recently
    renamed the National Space Defense Center, will face critical
    acquisition delays. You also mentioned delays in the new GPS
    ground infrastructure and GPS III. So my question is this: With
    so many military and civilian systems relying on assured access
    to space, and even just GPS is critical for navigation, for
    financial transactions, 2 billion out of our 7 billion people
    use GPS every day one way or another on the surface of the
    earth; what does this mean for security in space and access to
    our space-based resources?
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir. You know, we have been the
    stewards of space since 1954 and we continue to take that
    priority seriously. As we look at the GPS constellation, moving
    forward with GPS III, with the ground-based stations and with
    all of the integration that needs to occur is a priority. And
    so we are managing that very closely.
        The part that we actually haven't discussed here, I think
    General Milley may have referred to it earlier, and that is the
    impact on the industrial base if we don't have a resolution.
    This is an incredibly sophisticated workforce that you keep on
    the books if you are industry to be able to do the business of
    space.
        And so as we jockey the throttle between a CR, a budget, no
    budget, an annual appropriation or not, these industries that
    we rely on to be able to bring that kind of sophisticated
    workforce have got to figure out what they do with them when we
    tell them, well, we are not going to be able to use the
    workforce for next year, but we are hoping we can do the year
    after that. So it has incredible impact on the industrial base
    for CEOs [chief executive officers] out there who are trying to
    manage their businesses. And I will tell you, as the service
    that is working the preponderance of space, that is a
    significant impact.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. I want to thank you all for your
    service. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Thank you for
    your service. A special shout out, of course, to Admiral
    Richardson for the time you spent in Pearl and on the USS
    Honolulu. Thank you very much.
        I represent the congressional district that is home to
    PACOM [U.S. Pacific Command]. And we all know PACOM is the
    largest AOR [area of responsibility] among all of you, you all
    know that. And, of course, the concerns, like this morning with
    North Korea, in protest maybe of what is going on in Mar-a-
    Lago, they shot off missiles. And we also saw this morning's
    news as to what is going on in Syria.
        Having said all of that, we understand and I, in
    particular, are very empathetic to the fact that you are on a
    CR, but the fact remains. I think, Admiral Richardson, you in
    particular pointed out in your written statement that we are 6
    months into the CR, and irrespective of what happens between
    now and 5 days from now, chances are it may not be anything
    that you want to see.
        The House, I think, has done, as the chairman says, its
    job. It has sent over basically the defense budget or defense
    approps. But having done that, we are in a situation where you
    will be potentially faced with it and historically you have
    been faced with it.
        And, General, I agree with you, it may border on
    malpractice if it were in a civilian situation. But the fact
    remains that is what happens.
        Yesterday where Admiral Richardson sits, we had Under
    Secretary Flournoy. And former Under Secretary made a statement
    that one of the things that she thought was necessary was a
    flexibility in your individual abilities or defense's abilities
    to move funds.
        So my question to each and every one of you is, we can all
    agree we don't like it, we don't like the situation you are in,
    but the fact is you are in that situation. I would like to
    understand what you all do to make things work. I mean, I am
    envisioning someone in the back room with a little pencil
    saying it is another month, Admiral, or another month, General,
    so we are going to have to move money here and there if we are
    going to do X. I assume you have the ability to do that. And if
    you don't have the ability to do that, I would like to know
    what will make it better so that you compensate for that.
        And like I said, we all can see CR is not good, but we are
    6 months into it. And even if you were to get what you want,
    you still have 6 months that you had to have done something and
    made it work. So with that, whoever wants to take a stab.
        Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, I will lead off. The first part
    of the deal was that everything that we have requested,
    particularly in the supplemental, would be executable in the
    remaining time. So, you know, the 6-month period of time is
    that.
        And, as I mentioned earlier, we--we have been doing all of
    that adjustments that revisit and re-revisit to a tremendous
    waste of time and energy by our leadership as we navigate
    through the shoal waters of just continuing budget
    unpredictability, instability, and insufficient levels. But for
    this year, we are out of creative space.
        Our fleet commanders, Admiral Swift out there in Pearl
    Harbor as well who runs the fleet for Admiral Harris at PACOM,
    he and his colleague, Admiral Davidson in Norfolk, they are out
    of options. They have stretched it to the breaking point on the
    faith that we will be able to do something to be able to fund
    the rest of the year.
        And so I share that faith that they have. This is not a
    fait accompli, we can do the right thing, get your military out
    so we can defend the Nation, can provide the flexibility and
    protection for all the other things to happen. I am just not
    ready to concede that this is the new normal.
        General Goldfein. Ma'am, if I could add that so here is the
    sandbox for a service chief: capability, capacity, readiness
    and we make strategic trades. And so I mentioned earlier that
    part of 2014, the world was different. And so as we were making
    trades, I can tell you in the Air Force we actually traded
    capacity and readiness to get capability, to modernize for the
    future. Then the world changed. And so we have to relook at
    that balance and make different kinds of trades.
        When we are then limited or restricted congressionally or
    legislatively to be able to work within that box to be able to
    make those trades, it makes our job even harder because what we
    owe you is the best Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps that we
    can give you for the money that we are given. And so that is
    what happens.
        I will give you one quick example. So we got additional
    acquisition authorities, we have used those acquisition
    authorities to be able to look at a weapon system that we can
    procure at a faster rate. We get in a CR, anything that falls
    in the new start category we are going to be stopped. So
    modernization is future readiness, and so that is one example
    of when we get legislative restrictions of our ability to move
    within that sandbox, it is hurtful.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Chair, I am out of time. Could we ask
    that it be submitted for the record? Thank you.
        The Chairman. If the other witnesses have other comments,
    absolutely.
        Mr. Wittman.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us, thanks for your
    leadership.
        I think it is unfortunate we find ourselves in a situation
    where we hear this familiar refrain and that is the uncertainty
    of resources coming forward. And what you all have done to
    accommodate that leaves you at a place where you have no
    flexibility to do the job that we ask you to do. Whether it is
    the OPLANS [operation plans], whether it is the national
    defense strategy, we are now stretched to the limit. We are
    there at this point, I think, that begs the question, what is
    the collective impact of this line of CRs or the sequester? I
    talked earlier about time is now one of our adversaries because
    we lose time with these things. When we have a CR and the
    things that we can't do and we redirect dollars, as you should,
    to training, to developing readiness, but that takes away money
    from programs where we are trying to modernize, we are trying
    to keep up with our adversaries. And then there are additional
    costs. So when you try to catch up later, you never catch up
    timewise and it is more expensive to do that later.
        Admiral Richardson, give me your perspective on the impacts
    of this roller-coaster ride of uncertainty and where it leaves
    you, whether it is postponed ship availabilities, whether it is
    lack of training for pilots, where does that leave you? And
    what is the overall long-term impact both of time that we lose
    and of additional costs to regenerate that in the future?
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, if I could, how about if I phrase
    my answer in the positive and talk about what could be done if
    we pass this budget with its supplemental. I will run down as
    quickly as I can a fairly extensive list.
        First, we will keep the USS Ponce forward deployed, on
    station in the Middle East. We will retain five cruisers
    deployable, we will buy repair parts, ship spares, consumables,
    we will fill those coffers. We will fund the 14 availabilities
    for submarines and surface ships that were talked about
    earlier. We will fund 14,000 flying hours for tactical
    squadrons and we will fund 27,000 flying hours for student
    pilots. Our aviation spares, which have been a big contributor
    to the reduced readiness of aviation, will be funded.
        We will upgrade our afloat and ashore networks to improve
    their cybersecurity. We will add 15,000 moves and increase the
    lead time for those moves to 2 months or more, from 2 months to
    4 months. We will do material improvements to six airfields,
    five piers, three hangars, a communications center, and other
    facilities. We will do security improvements, physical security
    improvements to our bases. We will buy more Tomahawk missiles,
    more rolling airframe missiles, more ship-to-shore connectors.
        We will complete the--the fiscal year 2016 DDG [guided-
    missile destroyer]. We will keep on track the aircraft carriers
    CVN-80. We will keep on track two aircraft carrier overhauls.
    We will keep on track LHA-8 [amphibious assault ship], the
    TAO(X) [new replenishment oiler] program. We will complete a
    destroyer, four LCSs [littoral combat ships], LPD [amphibious
    transport dock] and other expeditionary ships. The list goes on
    and on. This is what we can do if we pass that budget with its
    supplemental.
        What a list that is. And this is just the Navy. The joint
    force, each of my comrades here, my colleagues, has a list just
    like that. And so you flip the coin on its other side and all
    of those things will not get done. And that divot will be felt
    for decades in the United States Navy.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good.
        General Milley. Let me make a brief comment.
        Mr. Wittman. General Milley, yes.
        General Milley. You know, for two-and-a-half centuries, our
    country has got a long, cyclic history of unreadiness for the
    next conflict. When they fired the first shot at Lexington,
    they had no idea they were entering into an 8- or 9-year war
    with the greatest power of the day. We weren't ready for the
    Civil War. Lincoln thought he was going into a 90-day conflict
    to put down a local rebellion.
        And we sent guys off with wool uniforms to Cuba or into the
    tropics. World War I, which we are in the 100th anniversary of
    World War I right now, that army was fighting a Pancho Villa on
    the Mexican border 2 years after the war started. And we
    entered into it in 1917, Pershing takes those soldiers over
    there, they are in a state of unreadiness when they get there.
    And he has to train them for 6 or 8 months in France before he
    commits them to the ground combat. World War II, it is well
    known, right after Pearl Harbor, 1942. Go look at the history
    of 1942.
        Mr. Wittman. Yes.
        General Milley. Look at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, look at the
    naval battles in the South Pacific. My father fought in the
    central Pacific, 1942 was a disaster for the United States
    military in the Pacific. And it was a disaster in North Africa
    at Kasserine Pass. Look at June 1950, Korea, yet again where we
    were completely in a state of unreadiness, where Task Force
    Smith deploys with two squads out of a platoon, two platoons
    out of a company. Maintenance and equipment that didn't work,
    soldiers that weren't adequately trained.
        The ultimate impact of all of this stuff is cumulative and
    it results in failed battles, lost battles, and dead soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, and Marines on the battlefield. That is what
    this ultimately results in.
        Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
        I want to thank General Goldfein for bringing attention to
    the downed F-16 at Joint Base Andrews; it is in my district.
    Glad to hear that no life-threatening injuries to the pilot, no
    reported injuries on the ground. Obviously it is early.
    Investigation will reveal the cause. But I am confident that
    with greater resources we do reduce the number of aircraft
    incidents that are related to either human error, training, or
    maintenance.
        So this is yet just another example of the need to continue
    to invest in readiness, modernization, and in the men and women
    to do the difficult work that we ask them to do.
        Look, I was on the USS Nimitz last weekend and I looked at
    those sailors, average age is 23, we ask them to do things that
    few Americans want to do today. It is dangerous, it is
    important, they are excited about it. A big majority of those
    sailors, first deployment and the first time that they were
    working with one another, but they are confident that they are
    going to be able to do the job that we ask them to do.
        And I said to them and I wanted to reassure them that
    Congress recognizes that we are a great nation because of the
    work that they do. We are the most prosperous nation in the
    world, not just economically, culturally, our democracy, our
    religious tolerance, because of the work that men and women in
    uniform do. So we owe it to them to invest in the work that
    they do, but we also owe it to the country to ensure that we
    continue to be prosperous by investing in good schools, safe
    neighborhoods, a clean environment, and health care and there
    was no debate on that. And Admiral Byrne, who is doing a great
    job on the USS Nimitz and that strike group, he gets that as
    well.
        So you are doing a great job, I appreciate what you are
    doing. Here is my question and it has to do with BRAC [base
    realignment and closure]. Because as we are looking, you know,
    for all different ways to resource what we need to do, to find
    the resources, the assets, the equity, the funding, here is my
    question. The acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
    Installations, and Environment testified about a few years ago
    that a future base realignment and closure round will cost
    about $6 billion to implement and result in $6 billion in
    initial savings and then $2 billion per year.
        The Army and the Air Force in particular have been arguing
    that maintaining excess basing capacity diverts scarce
    resources from maintaining readiness and mission capability to
    maintain an unneeded infrastructure. If a new round were to be
    authorized, how would you reduce excess infrastructure and
    balance of force? And given the potentially significant upfront
    cost to implement a BRAC round, what other ways, if any, exists
    that would permit you to dispose of excess capacity at a
    potentially lower cost?
        General Milley. For the Army, we do have excess capacity to
    the tune of about half a billion to a billion dollars that we
    would gladly try to shed if we could. And at the same time, we
    have failed and failing infrastructure out there, about 22
    percent, 33,000 facilities across the entire Army throughout
    the world that are in really bad shape that need work.
        A continuing resolution or a return to BCA funding is going
    to stop the progress we are trying to make against that 22
    percent of our facilities that are in bad shape. And obviously,
    it is going to prevent any sort of BRAC, which we would
    encourage, so we can get rid of the half a billion to about a
    billion dollars worth of unneeded infrastructure that we have.
        General Goldfein. Sir, I will just add that, you know, when
    we talk BRAC we tend to focus on the C and we don't spend
    enough on the R, the C being closure, the R being realignment.
    And quite frankly, for the Air Force, it is as important for us
    to have the flexibility to realign as it is to talk about
    closure. And quite frankly, to General Milley's point, you
    know, when I look through this lens, I look more at the
    infrastructure I have right now and ensuring that we have a
    budget that allows us the MILCON [military construction]
    dollars to be able to improve what we need, not only to bring
    on new mission, but to fix dorms, you know, that are World War
    II era, to get the facilities that we need, to be able to
    demolish those things that we don't need and bring our
    footprint in, so we are not having to spend these precious
    dollars on keeping large installations not only open, but
    keeping all of those buildings continually be run, right, when
    I don't actually need them given the size of the force.
        So for us, you know, this starts with why we are here,
    which is to talk about, first and foremost, getting a budget so
    we can get into our military construction projects and our
    modernization that we need and our restoration that we need.
    That, to me, is far more important than a discussion about a
    future BRAC.
        The Chairman. Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Goldfein, good to see you again.
        Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the average
    age of an aircraft in the Air Force today is 27 years old and
    that some fleets like the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target
    Attack Radar System] are nearly 50 years old. How would a
    yearlong continuing resolution affect the Air Force's ability
    to recapitalize these 50-year-old JSTARS aircraft?
        General Goldfein. Hey, sir, thank you. And, you know, you
    are right. About 48 years average that these JSTARS aircraft
    are being used. And as the air component commander deployed
    forward, working in CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command], you know,
    we often talk about what we do with these aircraft relative to
    the ground fight. But I will tell you, they are as equally
    important to the maritime domain and what we do for Admiral
    Richardson and his forces as well. So these are critical
    aircraft.
        Right now, a 5-month continuing resolution would delay the
    contract vehicle that we are working on, the risk reduction on
    the radar to be able to move that forward. And it is not a
    linear. We don't just pick it up again because, again, back to
    industry, if we go back to industry, they are going to have to
    manage that workforce and that workforce may walk. And so when
    we pick it up again, there is no telling what the long-term
    impact of delaying our ability to recapitalize that critical
    weapons system.
        Mr. Scott. General, I am also concerned about the loss of
    the weapons system when they go in for, I mean, they are going
    to be overdue for major depot overhauls and then they are not
    going to be in the air flying. And it certainly seems to me
    better to put that money into new aircraft with new technology
    than to rebuild 50-year-old planes.
        General Goldfein. Sir, that is what we are trying to do.
    And you made a point about the maintenance. The civilian
    workforce----
        Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
        General Goldfein [continuing]. Who are the ones that are at
    our depots who keep these much older aircraft flying are the
    ones that are impacted the most personnel-wise from a CR. And
    so you lose literally hundreds of man-hours of being about to
    get the depot maintenance on these older aircraft to keep them
    airborne.
        Mr. Scott. Yes, sir. And I hope that you all maintain that
    position that you do not want a CR.
        General Milley, congratulations on the pistol, long
    overdue. That is the first time I have seen you laugh.
        You state in your testimony that over 80 percent of the
    U.S. military forces in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan are U.S.
    Army soldiers. Building on what General Goldfein has stated
    today about the impact of the continuing resolution on the Air
    Force, how would the constraint on heavy lift and combat
    support aircraft impact your piece of the fight against ISIS?
        General Milley. Well, frankly, the Army is dependent and we
    are all dependent on each other, as General Neller said
    earlier. With respect to heavy lift, I mean, the Army can't get
    to the fight without the Navy or the Air Force. Just can't get
    there. Our people and equipment doesn't arrive at the point of
    decision without the transport capabilities of the Navy and the
    Air Force. So it will be significant if the Air Force doesn't
    have that kind of capability. So we are a big advocate. We in
    the Army are a huge advocate for the Navy, the Air Force, and
    the Marines who are on the ground with us. It is a joint fight.
        And I as a soldier, I want the most unbelievable Air Force
    the world has ever known because a soldier's best friend is
    when a fixed-wing Air Force pilot is showing up in his aircraft
    when we are in contact. And that is the first call we all make
    is to the United States Air Force or Navy or Marines, whatever
    aircraft is flying around there, or an Army attack helicopter,
    to come to us to make sure it is an uneven fight on the ground.
    So I want the best Navy, the best Air Force, the best Marine
    Corps as the Chief of Staff of the Army. It is a single joint
    fight.
        Mr. Scott. Could you reiterate the impact, if we don't get
    the $5 billion for the urgent operational requirements for
    Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan to counter ISIS and the additional
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, could you
    reiterate your points on the consequences to our deployed
    forces in those areas and our operational mission if the
    supplemental is not passed?
        General Milley. Candidly, Congressman, I would like to do
    that, but I would like to do that in a classified session to
    talk about specific operational impacts. What I would say just
    here is it would be negative.
        Mr. Scott. Yes, sir.
        General Milley. And it would be unhelpful to the ongoing
    efforts.
        Mr. Scott. Gentlemen, I want to thank you all for your
    service, and I hope that you will continue to maintain the
    position of no CR. This has gone on way too long. Thank you,
    and God bless you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Rosen.
        Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith.
        And I thank all of you for your testimony today and being
    here and we know how detrimental the continuing resolution is
    to everyone's ability to plan, prepare, and do long-range
    strategic planning, not just in our military, but in every area
    of our Nation. That affects all of us in the country,
    worldwide.
        But I want to ask General Goldfein a question. Of course, I
    represent Nevada's Third District. Nellis Air Force Base is
    just a few miles outside my district, and, of course, it is one
    of our main combat training exercises, the Red Flag, right
    there, very important to us, very important to you. And so we
    are designed to provide our pilots with their first 10 combat
    missions prior to actually flying in combat there. So is Red
    Flag going to be included in the stand-down under a continuing
    resolution this time?
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am. I think what you have already
    heard from us is that one of the first things that will go, as
    we look at where we have to go for the money, like for the Air
    Force. Where do I find $2.8 billion? One of the first places I
    have to go is to cancel exercises. So I have got airmen right
    now that are actually scheduled to deploy, that are scheduled
    to come to Nellis to do their first 10 combat missions in that
    unmatched training environment, that will not go do that
    training.
        They are still going to deploy, we don't stop the
    deployment because that is what the Nation calls on us to do,
    we just go less ready. So we are all going to end up canceling
    rotations at National Training Center, at Fallon, at Camp
    Lejeune, and clearly at Nellis.
        Ms. Rosen. So you would say the impact of a continuing
    resolution impacts human lives, obviously, the lives of our
    soldiers and it will impact the lives of their families because
    we are not able to pass a budget?
        General Goldfein. Ma'am, I will share a very personal
    story. So, you know, Captain Goldfein, day one, Desert Storm,
    never been into combat, we had one guy in the whole formation
    that had been into combat in Vietnam, and we all went across
    the line. And I remember the first time I heard triple-A, you
    know, anti-aircraft [artillery], right, 2:00.
        Ms. Rosen. Right.
        General Goldfein. And we all looked and then I remember
    hearing, you know, SA-2, left, 10:00, and we all saw our first
    surface-to-air missile. And then I remember hearing splash,
    MiG-29, and I was in the formation, and I saw a MiG-29 hit the
    ground. And I remember that moment in my cockpit. And I
    remember the confidence that came over my cockpit because I
    realized I have seen this before, I have heard these radio
    calls. I have actually seen Smokey Sam simulators simulating
    triple-A and surface-to-air missiles.
        Never seen an airplane hit the ground before, but I have
    heard this, I have been in this environment before. And you
    can't imagine the confidence that came over my cockpit and all
    of those that were flying that day that said we have been here,
    we can do this mission, and we went in and we crushed it.
        So what Nellis provides is confidence in the air and
    confidence under fire, and so it concerns me that we are not
    going to give that training to our young men and women.
        Ms. Rosen. Well, I think we know that from everything we
    do, the more training you have, the more muscle memory you
    have, the better able you are to execute your job, no matter
    what it is.
        Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, if I could also just pile on.
    There is a great responsibility we have to do things different
    and better as well. We can't just do--keep doing the same
    things for the same cost and expect to be effective.
        Ms. Rosen. Right.
        Admiral Richardson. And Nellis and Fallon and our training
    ranges, that is where that development is done, that is where
    we experiment, that is where we learn the new ways to fight,
    more effective ways to fight, more efficient ways to fight. And
    so it is not just, you know, going out and doing sets and reps,
    this is learning how to fight in the future. It is extremely
    important.
        Ms. Rosen. Well, I thank you for your service and I, for
    one, don't want to send one more service member into battle
    unprepared. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Dr. Wenstrup.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    gentlemen, for being with us today.
        You know, in budgeting decisions, we don't get to decide
    ourselves here in this committee, it is beyond us. And I just
    don't know how many of our members sometimes really dwell on or
    understand the details and the difficulty that goes into
    running an efficient and effective military. And when we are in
    this discussion today, it is probably the most grave I have
    heard since I have been here and rightfully so.
        And I know that each of you look at your troops as part of
    your family and that is what makes this even tougher to think
    the environment that you are being asked to be put in and your
    family members being asked to be put in. We have touched a
    little bit about what happens to those next to deploy; they may
    deploy, but they are not going to be as ready as they should
    be.
        And I also would like to hear from you, if we could, on the
    consequences of those that are currently deployed in Iraq,
    Syria, Afghanistan, and what is going through your mind if we
    find ourselves in the situation that may happen, which we do
    not want.
        And I will start with you, General Neller.
        General Neller. As we have all said, we will make trades. I
    mean, I think we are pretty flexible, we are all in learning
    organizations and as much as we don't like the fiscal situation
    we have been in, you know, we are mission oriented and we
    figured it out. But I think, at this point, what you are seeing
    is those that are forward deployed have got the best gear, they
    got the best part support, they got the best training we can
    give them. The next ones out the door, then, and it goes down
    from there.
        But because of the security environment that we see, the
    folks that just came back, if you would, the people on deck, or
    actually in the hole in the dugout getting ready to run out on
    the field, those are the ones that are going to end up getting
    the shorter end of the stick.
        I mean, there is normal level and rhythm of a force and how
    you train it. But if we have to make cuts, for example if we
    had a CR as opposed to the budget that you have all passed,
    that is an $800 million delta for the Marine Corps, $500
    million on the ground side, $300 million on the air side. So
    those that are in the dugout, in the hole, if you will, they
    are the ones that are going to take the hit.
        And then when they get on deck, you will be chasing
    yourself, to try to catch up, to get the reps and sets you need
    and the time is not there. We just don't have the time that we
    used to have. So that is the risk, that is the risk. And that
    is just in today's fight.
        If you go to one of the other adversaries that we have all
    talked about and we continue to maintain the current ops, those
    are the ones that are going to have to go there, or you are
    going to have to shift the force. So that is the risk that we
    have all talked about.
        General Goldfein. Sir, I would also add that, you know, we
    have all had a lot of time deployed forward and a lot of time
    deployed together. And when we would do our battlefield
    circulation and talk to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
    Marines, we would always most of us get the same question,
    okay, exactly what are we doing here? And we could all give
    that speech.
        The hardest question to answer was, why isn't anybody
    talking about it back home? Why are we all completely focused
    about it here forward, but nobody is focused on it back home?
    That was the hardest question to answer as a commander in the
    field.
        So my concern, in terms of those who are deployed forward
    right now and for their families, is they are going to ask the
    question, are we serious about this or not? Is their risk going
    forward worth it or not? And I am not sure, if we don't even
    pass a budget, we can look them in the eye and tell them that
    what they are doing forward is on the minds of this Congress.
        Dr. Wenstrup. I appreciate that, General.
        Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just--one word is
    munitions. That is how the forward force will be affected.
    Every one of my strike group commanders that comes back is
    coming back on fumes when it comes to munitions. And this is
    the good stuff, if you will, the precision munitions, the ones
    that we are using for a very good reason. And so I know that
    General Milley feels that same shortage and that is an
    absolutely critical part of this recovery is the restock of our
    magazines with the munitions we need to prevail.
        General Milley. Congressman, for those that are deploying,
    we try to ensure that they get the maximum equipment and
    training. It is really the bench, as General Neller said. And
    then as Admiral Richardson said about munitions, we are
    critically short, and I am not going to go into it publicly and
    happy to do it in classified sessions, but a discussion of
    munitions is important.
        And for the Army, we actually, I didn't realize this before
    becoming the chief, but we actually make the bombs for the
    aircraft that the Navy, Air Force, and Marines fly. They had
    all the precision stuff, but we make the basic bombs at our
    joint munitions facility for which we are responsible for. And
    next month, we are not going to be able to ship those bombs to
    our sister services for training.
        Operational things will be taken care of, but at Nellis, at
    the different Red Flags, they are not going to have bombs to
    drop. They are not going to have that practice that ``Fingers''
    just talked about, that General Goldfein just talked about. So
    munitions is critical and the shipping of those training
    munitions is going to cease here in the next month or two.
        And the other thing that we talk about is leader
    development. Missed training, missed opportunities. Say we miss
    6 months of training, that is an entire generation of
    lieutenants and captains that are going to miss training that
    is never going to be made up, sergeants and so on.
        The other piece is, like this summer, we are not going to
    be able to run ROTC [Reserve Officer Training Corps] summer
    camp, or military academy summer camp at West Point. We are
    going to have 74 percent of second lieutenants in the United
    States Army won't get commissioned in fiscal year 2018 because
    they won't be qualified because their summer camp is going to
    be missed this summer.
        So there is enormous amount of consequence in all kinds of
    areas if we go with the continuing resolution or return to BCA
    and we don't get this budget and supplemental passed and
    quickly.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, General.
        The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
    Member Smith.
        And thank you all for coming and addressing us today and
    thank you for your service. Even with a Budget Control Act
    repeal, we would not have a blank check and must prioritize as
    intelligently as possible. While some estimates put costs at an
    additional $1.2 billion per 10,000 uniformed personnel, how do
    you reconcile the need to train and equip the current force
    with a desire to increase end strength?
        General Milley. For the Army, they are interlinked, the
    idea of the readiness of the force, the size, the capacity and
    capability of the force. Obviously, what we want for this
    budget, for 2017, is we want to fill holes. There are already
    holes existing in the forces; not increasing the force
    structure, the increased end strength is not to make the Army
    bigger in terms of number of brigades and divisions and so on.
    It is to make the units that do exist, whole. To make them
    capable of doing adequate levels of training.
        Training a unit at 65 or 70 percent strength is inadequate.
    You take 10 percent casualties in combat, maybe 15 percent, you
    are going to be a combat-ineffective unit. Yet we are training
    on a routine basis units at 65, 70, 75 percent strength at the
    training centers for the high-end collective training.
        So this increase in end strength, I want to be careful that
    it is not mischaracterized as an increase in the Army. It is
    not. It is a filling of the holes in the existing force
    structure, and I think that is an important piece of it, and
    that is how I would reconcile it. We are not increasing the
    brigades and divisions or any of that. We are just filling
    holes in the existing units.
        General Goldfein. And I add, because it is the exact same
    thing in the Air Force. We are filling formations to do the
    mission that we have been given.
        I will also tell you that you need those forces to actually
    achieve the training, to be able to build the time you need and
    the forces you need to support the training we have been
    talking about. And here is how sometimes this gets masked. So
    when I was a younger pilot, and I would show up at the
    aircraft, I would meet my crew chief, the dedicated crew chief
    and the assistant, and we walk around the airplane, and then I
    taxi to the end of the runway and a different crew would be
    there to meet me, and they would pull the pins and arm the
    aircraft and I would take off, and I would go to another
    destination, and a third crew would be there to meet me.
        Here is what often happens when you get to the shortfalls
    that we are seeing right now. Your taxi is slow because the
    same single crew chief has got to get to the end of the runway,
    because it is the same individual that is pulling your pins and
    arming you. And then you have to fly slow because that guy has
    got to get on a C-17 and fly to the next location to be able to
    meet you. That is a vignette of some of the ways that we are
    managing the smaller force.
        So to General Milley's point, this is not about growing the
    Air Force or the Army. This is about filling holes.
        General Neller. I would say for us it is a little bit
    different. This body authorized an increase in 3,000 Marines.
    And those Marines are going to do different missions than the
    183,000, 184,000 are doing today because we have a requirement
    to develop different capabilities that we think we need for the
    future fight. So if that money is not there and we can't grow
    the force, we are going to develop those capabilities, but it
    is going to come out of that 182,000 base. So 3,000 Marines
    that are doing something today are going to do something
    different. And that is going to reduce our capability in those
    particular areas.
        So we have got to grow these new capabilities. Yeah, there
    is going to be some filling of shortfalls in maintenance and
    other places, but ours is different. We have got to build a
    force that is ready to fight what we think we are going to face
    in 2025.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Stefanik.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our witnesses for your leadership and for
    your service.
        In my district, which is New York's 21st District, I
    represent two of our Nation's premier career military
    installations: Fort Drum, which is home of the 10th Mountain
    Division, and Kesselring, which is a naval nuclear training
    facility.
        My first question is for General Milley, and it is
    regarding Army's aviation readiness.
        The 10th Mountain Combat Aviation Brigade is currently
    supporting Operation Atlantic Resolve throughout EUCOM [U.S.
    European Command], and I have serious concerns that the CR
    could limit future aviation capabilities and training
    opportunities, like the ongoing deployment of the 10th
    Mountain. Could you describe how a CR would impact the Army's
    aviation readiness, specifically its training, and, on top of
    that, the pilot shortage that the Army is already experiencing?
        General Milley. Thanks, Congresswoman. I appreciate that
    and ``climb to glory'' for the mighty 10th Mountain Division, a
    shout-out to the north country. A continuing resolution or a
    return to BCA would have a significant, negative effect on Army
    rotary-wing aviation.
        We are already short 741 pilots, which we are trying, if we
    can get the budget passed with the supplemental, we are trying
    to make that up. But if we don't get the budget passed with the
    supplemental, we are not going to make that up and that is
    going to increase several hundred more. And that is across the
    entire total Army with the Active, the National Guard, and the
    U.S. Army Reserve.
        For the National Guard specifically, there are about 1,300
    pilot seats available in a given year that won't be available
    in the following year as a result of a continuing resolution.
    Those would be National Guard and Reserve seats. There are
    about another 1,000 seats that might not be available for the
    Regular Army.
        We are going to try to preserve and fence the flying hour
    program, those already qualified pilots that are in units,
    although I must mention that the standard is about 14 hours, 15
    hours a month of rotary-wing flying. We have reduced that over
    the last 8 years, so the new normal, if you will, is something
    around the 12 or 13 hours, but we are going to preserve the 12
    or 13 hours.
        We don't like the new normal, but the flying hours program
    will try to fence that. For units that are deploying, we will
    make sure that they get the appropriate levels of training to
    deploy into combat.
        And the last piece is upgrading the fleet. The continuing
    resolution or a BCA is going to prevent us from putting active
    protection systems for missile defense on the aircraft. We will
    not be able to upgrade some of the modernization efforts that
    we have inside the cockpits. We are going to be short on the
    munitions and Hellfires, et cetera, for the Apaches. And most
    importantly, we are not going to be able to buy the additional
    Apaches we need to fill the holes in the existing force
    structure, for both the Regular Army and the National Guard. It
    will be a significant negative impact on Army aviation.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, General Milley.
        And my second question is for Admiral Richardson. I
    understand the second moored training ship [MTS] requires a new
    start and full funding this year to provide training for
    nuclear operators, and I am asking this question in context of
    Kesselring.
        What is the current status of the second MTS and how would
    a CR create challenges for the Navy if it is not funded and
    allowed to start in fiscal year 2017?
        Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, great question, and thanks for
    your support of Kesselring and everything that they do up
    there.
        There has been a fair amount of talk about a balanced
    approach and that everything that has to do with national
    health and particularly national security doesn't all reside in
    defense. And Kesselring is a great example of that, where a lot
    of that site is supported by the Department of Energy and the
    NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration]. And so it is
    critical that we understand those relationships.
        And if we are not training operators and developing new
    nuclear technologies up there, we are training them at our
    moored training ships. And the second moored training ship is
    the next generation. Right now, we are using ships that were
    built in the 1960s to do that. They are the oldest operating
    nuclear power plants I think in the country, and it is time to
    recapitalize those.
        This is a new start. There has been a lot of talk about
    funding flexibility. The continuing resolution is the opposite
    of funding flexibility. It is absolute funding rigidity. You
    have to continue to do the things you would like to stop, you
    can't do the things you would like to start. One of the things
    I would like to start is the second moored training ship, and I
    can't do it with a CR.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Suozzi.
        Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me say I am very sobered and humbled by the
    responsibility that we have listening to your testimony. It is
    really incredible the vocation that you have made with your
    lives and how dedicated you are to this mission that you have.
        I am new to this job. I am formerly a mayor and a county
    executive of a large county with a $2.8 billion budget. I am a
    freshman in the minority and don't have as much influence as I
    would like to have, obviously. But I know that there is an
    important mission that the Congress has, and I really want you
    to know that I am going to do the best I can to communicate
    that we are dealing with people's lives here, the people that
    work for you. And what we do has a tremendous impact on their
    lives. And as you pointed out so eloquently, on their morale
    and on their effectiveness.
        I want to just look at some big picture things. The overall
    budget in 2016 was about $580 billion, and personnel made up 24
    percent of that overall budget, and O&M [operations and
    maintenance] made up 42 percent of that budget. So that is a
    big number, 42 percent of the budget for O&M, and 20 percent
    went to procurement and 13 percent went for other. And it is
    going to be different for each of your services.
        You know, the Army, they might not be procuring as much in
    equipment, for example. But you are all spending about this 40
    percent in O&M. I just want to ask you from a big picture
    perspective, does that make sense that we are spending as much
    as we are on O&M, on operation and maintenance, or should that
    be something over time that we are trying to change?
        So, go ahead.
        General Neller. Well, we are a little bit different. I
    mean, our people account is about 65 percent of our budget, at
    least the green Marine Corps budget is about 65 percent. Our
    O&M, probably about 15 percent. Acquisition and then the
    facilities make up the rest.
        Mr. Suozzi. Now, a lot of your equipment is in the Navy
    though, right?
        General Neller. No, our aviation is naval aviation, but all
    our ground equipment, we own our ground equipment. So, you
    know, we are a small percentage of the overall force. But most
    of our cost is people.
        So I take your point, but if we have people costs or we
    have to increase the size of the force, or the force gets more
    senior or the pay raise that is voted upon, then those bills
    where we have to make those trades and the trades are in those
    other areas, in operation and maintenance and procurement
    modernization or in facilities. And so then you start to build
    up a deficit in those areas.
        And you have got a force that is--that's what a hollow
    force is, is a large force. So there are trades. We can reduce
    the size of the force, we can reduce acquisitions. So those are
    the puts and takes that always go on as we manage the budget,
    but we are probably not a good example of what you are looking
    at as far as a large amount of O&M.
        General Goldfein. Actually, no mystery for an Air Force.
    Older aircraft are more expensive to fly, period. And so what
    happens with us is you get an average aircraft age of 27 years.
    And when I go out and talk to airmen, you know, every once in a
    while I will find somebody who has been driving a 27-year-old
    car, not many. But when you find something like that, one of
    the things they know is they know that that company stopped
    building parts for that car 11 years after.
        So when you are 27 years old, right, there was a Fox News
    special that maybe you saw that had B-1 maintainers that were
    actually cruising museums to find parts to keep those B-1s
    flying. That is what it takes to keep older aircraft flying. So
    when you look at our O&M costs going up, it is because that is
    a direct result of aircraft age.
        And so as we try to procure and try to get that aircraft
    age going down, what comes along with that, quite frankly, is a
    bigger bill than the procurement cost is the sustainment costs
    over the life cycle of that weapon system. So we drive that
    down as much as we possibly can.
        Mr. Suozzi. Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just say I think General
    Goldfein and I share that we are a pretty capital-intensive
    force, right? So we operate a lot of stuff and we have to fuel
    it, maintain it, that sort of thing. And so we have got about
    between 25 and 30 percent of our budget in the Navy is
    operations, and I think the general captured it very well.
        Newer things don't require so much maintenance, and so this
    renewal of the force at the end of the day, it helps us do our
    business for less operating and maintenance costs.
        Mr. Suozzi. So for the two of you, as a general rule, you
    know, if you could have the Congress work with you effectively
    and you could get your way over time, would you like to see
    your O&M be a lower percentage of your budget? And where would
    you rather see an increase, in procurement or in personnel?
        Admiral Richardson. I think that both for operations and
    for procurement, stable, adequate funding. That is the way I
    would like to partner with Congress the most.
        Mr. Suozzi. General.
        General Milley. For the Army, we committed about just a
    little bit less than 50 percent for personnel costs, which is,
    you know, no surprise. Cost of labor is Economics 101, and that
    is going to be your expensive factor of production.
        For us, O&M accounts, as you said, just under, in our case,
    just under 40 percent. So what is operation maintenance for the
    Army? It is ammunition, it is fuel or POL [petroleum, oil,
    lubricants] products for the vehicles, flight hours for
    aviation, and, importantly, parts.
        So our O&M costs have gone up in the last couple of years.
    Why? Because we are trying to intensify our levels of readiness
    and training for combined arms operations against a near-peer
    threat. We have been fighting for 16 consecutive years against
    guerrillas and terrorists in tennis shoes with IEDs [improvised
    explosive devices] and AKs [AK-47 rifles] in desert terrain in
    the Middle East. We don't know, no one knows, where the next
    conflict will occur.
        We don't want to be preparing for the last war for the next
    one. So we don't know. We have to keep all the cards on the
    table for the U.S. military to be able to fight a wide range of
    threats. So we have reemphasized combined arms, higher end
    combat, unless you are specifically deploying. That training is
    having a positive effect over the last couple of years, about
    24 to 36 months or so. We are seeing improvements, slightly, in
    our readiness in that regard.
        If we don't pass the budget with the supplemental and we
    continue with the CR or we go to BCA funding, that level of
    training is going to come to a halt and that readiness
    improvement is going to stop. So we need to continue funding
    O&M in order to do that for current day readiness.
        For procurement, in the Army's case, what we have done, we
    have biased current readiness, today's fight and, you know, the
    next couple of years' readiness. And we are really mortgaging
    the future, in terms of our procurement. We only put 20 percent
    of our money into research, development, science, technology.
        Mr. Suozzi. Yes, I saw that.
        General Milley. And we need to improve that.
        Mr. Suozzi. Okay, well, thank you very much, General.
        And again, I know that our mission is to do our jobs to try
    to help you do your jobs. So thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Russell.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
    you for being here today.
        This body historically has wrestled with these issues since
    we have been wearing tri-corner hats. I am mindful of the Joint
    Committee on the Conduct of the War after Bull Run. The
    congressional investigation of the sinking of the USS Maine and
    how did we let that happen? The Joint Committee on the
    Investigation of the Aerial Attack on Pearl Harbor and what
    went wrong, or the one on the communist attack on South Korea
    and how did we get so surprised.
        These are but a few of the examples, but the story is
    familiar. Service chiefs, given shifting, declining budgets
    that makes the dollars that did arrive less flexible and less
    valuable; endless questions by people like me, in previous
    lives, wondering why so much treasure must be spent when there
    are domestic priorities that demand immediate action, and we
    can eke out savings that will realize all of our dreams.
        Whatever saving that has been realized by this American bad
    habit of unpreparedness, it has been more than horrifically
    compensated for by scores more in spending and thousands more
    of American dead. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what the next
    committee will be named, but I already know what its
    recommendations will be.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't want to waste any more of these
    warriors' time. We need to give them what they ask for, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Shea-Porter.
        Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. And I thank you all for being
    here.
        And I have had 6 years on this committee, and I think this
    is about the grimmest it has gotten. And so clearly, we are not
    addressing these really crucial issues.
        I want to put a little bit of a change in the direction of
    the questioning. I understand, you know, that we are falling
    behind in equipment, et cetera. But I am looking out at the
    world now as they look in on us.
        And I think I agree with you, General Goldfein, that when
    you were talking about people wondering, you know, are they
    talking about it at home? I don't think we are talking about it
    enough right here. I think that what happens is these
    committees are like silos. And everybody is incredibly busy. I
    just ran from another committee hearing, but we have to somehow
    or another address this. So I recognize the urgency, and I
    thank you.
        So what I am looking at right now is, what about the rest
    of the world? Is the conversation going around, you know, in
    your profession? Are friends worried that we are not going to
    be able to keep our commitments or we lack the will to keep our
    commitments? And are our enemies hopeful that we are going to
    just, you know, get so bogged down in this, in our budget
    issues, that we are not going to properly fund?
        And I would appreciate hearing from each one of you on
    that.
        General Neller. I will go first. I think the simple answer
    is yes. Our allies--our strategy is based on our ability to
    build partner capacity and that they are going to be there with
    us if we have to face any of the future challenges. In order to
    do that, we have to be able to show up for exercises, work
    interoperability, do things with them, have them procure
    equipment that is interoperable with us, ideally made by the
    same manufacturers, by American manufacturers.
        We need to make it a little bit easier to be our partner
    across all areas, intel sharing, acquisition, foreign military
    sales. But I think they look to us and they have looked to us
    since the end of World War II when this world was created where
    the United States was the guarantor of peace and stability in
    the world. And whether it be NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization] or ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations]
    or any other security apparatus, or the United Nations, they
    look to the United States.
        And so it is important that we as military members go out
    there in the profession of arms, not as Department of State or
    ministry of foreign affairs, we maintain these relationships,
    and that we have to be able to go to our partners and say we
    are going to be there for you. And then they can pass that back
    onto their political leaders, because we occupy a very
    interesting space out there in the international world.
        Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
        General Goldfein. Ma'am, you know, technology changes over
    time, but the fundamentals of deterrence, I would argue, have
    not changed. It is capability times will. And the times is
    important because if either side of those is zero it equals
    zero.
        And so what I will tell you is that we have the luxury, not
    only as Joint Chiefs but throughout our career, of having
    developed relationships of trust and confidence with our
    counterparts around the world. And I can't tell you how
    important those relationships are. We call them mil-to-mil or
    military-to-military. And I think we could all give you
    examples of where sometimes diplomatically we may not have had
    agreements with a country, but our relationships with fellow
    airmen, soldiers, sailors, or Marines are vital.
        And so we keep those long. And very often, to what General
    Neller was talking about, our commitment that brings that
    capability and brings that will is to the relationships that we
    build. You know, this is one of those questions where it would
    be inappropriate to do a big, broad brush over, you know,
    general concerns, because the reality is it is a bit mixed bag
    as you go around the world.
        But I can just tell you that we are committed to making
    sure that we keep those relationships alive and well.
        Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
        Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, thanks for a great question. I
    would say that, and I appreciate you looking around the world
    and directing our attention there as well. You know, in the
    very short term we are in a very unstable environment right
    now. There are a lot of governments coming into place,
    elections, the world is shifting in many ways, including our
    administration as, you know, they settle in, we settle in.
        And in times of great uncertainty, there also is the
    opportunity, I think, for a great miscalculation. And it is
    even more important, in my mind, that during these times of
    uncertainty we minimize that possibility of miscalculation by
    making sure we operate from a position of strength.
        And this strength will assure our allies that we will be
    there and not contribute to that uncertainty, not contribute to
    that instability. And it will also deter our enemies, so that
    even though a period of transition, they will wake up every
    morning and say not today, this is not the day to start
    something.
        And so in the very near term and then I would say in the
    long term, and we can have a different conversation through the
    2020s, we have got to ensure that we operate from a position of
    strength for assurance and deterrence.
        Ms. Shea-Porter. Right. And I will add to that that this
    committee knows our responsibility and we are active in seeking
    the answers and recognizing that we have got to properly fund
    if we want you to do what we need you to do. So thank you.
        General Milley. I would echo my teammates here. Assuring
    allies is critical and we do that through presence, exercises,
    exchanges. Interoperability is important to readiness and
    capability overall with our allies. The United States has a
    great set of allies and partners and friends around the world.
    I believe that is still strong, but we have to continue to make
    it strong.
        And virtual presence is actual absence, so we need to be
    there with them in the air, on the sea, and on the ground. And
    that will help reassure and stabilize various situations around
    the world.
        With respect to adversaries or enemies, you know,
    ``Fingers'' hit it on the head. It is capability plus will. The
    capability has to be real. It has to be seen. It has to be
    demonstrated. It has to be sensed. And your opponent needs to
    know that you have the will to use it. If you do that, then you
    will have peace through strength because you will definitely
    deter any rational actor on the other side.
        Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman, for the extra time. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Dr. Abraham.
        Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
    for being here.
        As vitally critical as our schools, our infrastructure, and
    certainly cures for cancer are--I am a physician and have
    certainly lost my, unfortunately, share of good people to that
    horrific disease--as important as all those are, I think we are
    all smart enough to understand that that makes no difference if
    we don't have a country and national security. So certainly we
    want to, I want to give you what you ask to protect our
    country.
        And, General Milley, when you reminded us that our men and
    women in uniform unfortunately have to still rely on food
    stamps to feed their family, that is both a moral and ethical
    tragedy that I hope makes everyone angry. And we need to fix
    that problem.
        General Goldfein, I want to thank you for--I am a mission
    pilot for the Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force auxiliary, and I
    fly for the Green Flag Program, which you had the foresight to
    actually start, which has been a phenomenal success, giving
    real-time training to our men and women on the ground.
        Last week, we heard from the vice chiefs. We were talking
    about the pilot shortage that you have referenced already, and
    the intellectual property and the institutional knowledge that
    these pilots, you said it takes at least 10 years to train that
    great pilot, and that is certainly true, that with this CR,
    retaining that pilot with what the airlines are now offering on
    the civilian side is almost an impossible task.
        My question is, what other areas of the DOD do any of you
    see where we are losing this intellectual property, this
    institutional knowledge, because of the CR?
        And I will start with you, General Goldfein.
        General Goldfein. Yes, sir. You know, the reality of the
    pilot shortage is it is actually not a military problem, it is
    a national challenge that we have all got to face. And
    Chairman, this is something that I think we need to work
    together, because here are the basics. We in the United States
    Air Force produce about 1,200 pilots per year. The airlines,
    based on their projections, need 4,500 every year for the next
    decade. We are not going to buy our way out of that challenge.
    This is a supply-demand mismatch nationally to be able to
    produce the pilots we need, to service the commercial, the
    business, the private, and the military aviation needs of the
    Nation.
        So first and foremost, we have to have a national approach
    to this that looks at, what are the incentives we can put in
    place to increase the supply going up for the pilots that we
    need to service all of these bins? And then what we need to do
    across the military, I would offer, is to approach it from a
    combination of quality of life and quality of service.
        Quality of life we tend to focus on, which is the financial
    piece and taking that financial burden off of the family. And
    that is important. But I would argue that quality of service is
    equally, if not more important.
        That we have got to ensure that our pilots, our maintainers
    that are getting the resources they need to train, that they
    feel like they can be competitive and the best that they can
    be. That they are part of a unit, that they are part of
    something that is better than themselves. That they know that
    they are in an organization where they are valued, that we take
    care of their families.
        All of the cultural things that go along with wearing these
    uniforms, that is as important as anything we do financially.
    And I would just offer that this is something we have to work
    together, because it is a national crisis.
        Dr. Abraham. Admiral.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will just add on, other areas
    that are under stress just from this competition for people
    that I described earlier, certainly pilots, as we have
    mentioned, our cyber forces are very much under stress. Our
    nuclear-trained sailors are under stress. And our special
    forces have been extremely busy in this war and they are also
    under stress.
        I will tell you, just as we have said, none of these, we
    can't compete in money. And you know what? They didn't join for
    money. I mean, we need to give them adequate resources to live.
    And I think with this bill and supplemental, we will be meeting
    that responsibility.
        But these folks, they joined to sail and fly and operate at
    the high end, become the most lethal force on the earth to
    protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And
    that is all we have to do is keep that covenant with them and
    they will keep coming. If they start to doubt that, they are
    going to go to where the money is.
        Dr. Abraham. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Banks.
        Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
    for being here and for your service.
        I am rather unique on the committee. I don't serve a
    district that has an Active Duty military base. However, in my
    district in northeast Indiana, we are the proud home of
    Indiana's Air National Guard 122nd Fighter Wing. The men and
    women of the 122nd serve our country with distinction and often
    go into harm's way in service to our Nation, just as our Active
    Duty troops do as well. Yet I am concerned that the prospect of
    a CR will have an even greater impact on our National Guard and
    Reserve forces than the Active Component.
        General Goldfein, while I am dismayed at the prospect of
    yet another CR, can we have some sort of commitment from you or
    what kind of commitment can you make on behalf of your branch
    that a continuing resolution will not have a disproportionate
    impact on our National Guard or Reserve forces?
        General Goldfein. Sir, I can tell you this. I can't do the
    mission without the Air National Guard, period. You go into a
    cockpit of a C-17 today and ask the crew that is in the front
    of that cockpit, okay, who is Active, who is Guard, and who is
    Reserve? I can't tell you the number of times that I have flown
    in C-17s and all three hands go up. You actually can't tell us
    apart. So we, first and foremost, we can't do the mission
    without the Air National Guard.
        So my commitment to you is that this is one Air Force and I
    am their chief. And so I am going to make sure that the Air
    National Guard has everything it needs commensurate with the
    force because we are one Air Force to accomplish the mission we
    are given.
        Mr. Banks. I appreciate that strong statement and
    commitment. Another frequent concern that I hear related to the
    supply chain and spares account that are required to keep our
    A-10s flying is related to the suppliers that are no longer in
    the A-10 business. So can you speak a little bit to how the
    continuing resolution would affect or impact the supply chain
    of the A-10 specifically?
        General Goldfein. Sir, it is not so much that it will have
    that much impact on the supply chain. It will have more of an
    impact in terms of our ability to take those A-10s and put them
    in depot maintenance because that depot maintenance line will
    stop. And it will stop because the civilian hiring freeze and a
    combination of other things.
        I am going to have to figure out, you know, we are each
    going to have to figure out how to pay the bill. Okay? So for
    the Air Force, it is $2.8 billion. To find $2.8 billion, one of
    the things I am going to have to do is stop a lot of depot
    maintenance lines. And the A-10 will be directly affected.
        And it is not linear, meaning at the end of that timeframe
    when we get appropriations, it is not like you just start the
    line back up immediately. Because all those workers have left,
    we haven't been able to hire their backfill, and they have lost
    their qualifications. And so there is going to be a spin-up
    time at the end when we get an appropriation to get those lines
    back up and running.
        So what you have in the middle is a number of aircraft.
    And, oh, by the way, the aircraft that have been flying in the
    fight are coming due for their maintenance, and so it continues
    that backlog over time and what you end up doing is grounding
    aircraft.
        And so while I could buy all the parts in the world, if I
    chose to be able to do that within my flexibility, those parts
    will sit on the shelf because I don't have the workforce I need
    to put those parts in the airplane.
        Mr. Banks. I appreciate the insight. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. McSally.
        Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and your service
    and your leadership and your candor about the impact on the men
    and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line to
    protect our freedoms. And I really appreciate it. And I hope
    there are a lot of people out there listening and there will be
    a lot of stories about what you said today.
        Admiral Richardson, I want to start off with a story that
    troubled me about a hundred pilots that are essentially
    refusing to fly. Having been a pilot myself, to get to the
    point where you don't trust your equipment and you think your
    life and your student's life is in danger is pretty severe. And
    now, some of that is because of the aging fleet and the
    resource implications that have been discussed today. But it
    sounds like some of it is also a leadership issue.
        So can you please comment on what the Navy is doing to
    address this issue? That is going to be impacting, obviously,
    our readiness, our pipeline, morale, and the lives of the men
    and women.
        Admiral Richardson. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
    And as has been said before, this is the top safety priority
    for naval aviation. It is a vexing problem. And this is not a
    resource-constrained thing. This is an area where we are
    applying every bit of resources we need. Cost is not an issue
    as we approach this problem.
        It, as you said, is directly related to crew safety. And it
    has got the full attention of all leadership in the naval
    aviation----
        Ms. McSally. You are aware that, some of the quotes by
    instructors, that is not how they felt, right?
        Admiral Richardson. Right. Well, so, let me just continue
    my answer.
        Ms. McSally. Yes.
        Admiral Richardson. To address this, we have established a
    dedicated team. And I am going to take a little bit of time to
    step through it because it is complicated. And that team will
    stay on this from a technical standpoint until it is fixed. But
    as I said, it is a complex problem and it requires a
    multidimensional solution.
        First and foremost is the human dimension. And
    communication is a big part of that. And so when we heard about
    the concerns of our instructor pilots in our training wings, we
    sent, you know, a team down there to make sure that we fully
    understood their concerns and they fully understood what we
    were doing.
        I think what we had there, more than anything else, was a
    breakdown in communication. And those teams are on-site now.
    They are working through each of the training wings. And they
    are resolving their differences in perspective and differences
    in communication.
        And so, in addition, you know, from the human perspective,
    you know, the crew and their awareness is going to be the most
    important thing towards minimizing risk here. And so we have
    improved training to make sure they recognize the symptoms of
    hypoxia and related effects.
        We have improved their training on emergency procedures.
    That includes training in simulators where they actually feel
    those effects and go through those procedures. And as I said,
    we are making sure that we are listening and they all feel like
    they can be talking to leadership so we understand where their
    anxiety and concerns are.
        Ms. McSally. Great.
        Admiral Richardson. It is a constant effort.
        Ms. McSally. I appreciate that. I would like to follow up
    more with you maybe after the hearing. I appreciate it and
    would like to stay in touch on the impacts on that side.
        Admiral Richardson. I will make sure we do that.
        Ms. McSally. Thank you, I appreciate it.
        General Goldfein, you have eloquently expressed the
    challenges of a CR and how it is going to impact flying
    operations, saying squadrons will be grounded in June. I don't
    know if everybody who is listening fully understands what that
    means. So even to just localize it for Davis-Monthan, so the
    Bulldogs that I commanded are over shwacking bad guys right
    now, when they come home in the summer they are going to be
    grounded, like, no flying, no upgrades, no training. They are
    done, right?
        General Goldfein. So, ma'am, what I would tell you is that
    if you don't have a unit on your base that is either preparing
    to go, that is directly preparing to go into conflict, you will
    have the equivalent of a no-fly zone over your base.
        Ms. McSally. Yeah, this is unprecedented. I know it
    happened for a little while a few years ago. But this is
    unprecedented in the impact it is going to have. They need to
    be ready to go anywhere in the world on 24 hours' notice, as
    you know.
        Similarly, the EC-130s, they are only the capability in the
    world, and the cross-decking, the training and everything, same
    thing, right? They are done?
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am. And so, Congress gave us
    acquisition authorities and told us to use those authorities to
    speed up acquisition. There is no better example than Compass
    Call, electronic warfare asset in high demand in this fight and
    it is going to be a central asset in any fight. So we took
    those authorities and we looked at how could we rapidly take
    the exact same equipment that is on the current EC-130 and
    cross-deck it.
        Ms. McSally. Right. But with a CR?
        General Goldfein. It stops.
        Ms. McSally. It stops, okay.
        General Goldfein. That contract going forward stops.
        Ms. McSally. Red Flags, we talked about Air Warriors, Angel
    Thunder, same thing. Those that are going to deploy to rescue
    Americans in harm's way, their training is done as well.
        General Goldfein. No, ma'am, be very clear, there will be
    no degradation to folks that we are preparing to go into the
    fight.
        Ms. McSally. Okay, I hear you.
        General Goldfein. Everyone is trained to go.
        Ms. McSally. But as you know, that is just-in-time
    training.
        General Goldfein. That is right.
        Ms. McSally. But the cumulative effect of missing out
    training throughout the year does have a degradation, is that
    fair?
        General Goldfein. Absolutely.
        Ms. McSally. And we have got a thousand fighter pilots
    short and you are grounding pilots. And we are expecting them
    to stay? That is insane. You agree?
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. McSally. All right, thank you. I yield back. Thanks.
        The Chairman. Mr. Hunter.
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, great to
    see you.
        I guess let me ask my first question is, how do you
    mitigate the risk of not fighting? And let me give an example.
    Haven't had a naval battle in a long time. I mean, ships
    shooting at ships with cannons, right? We haven't had air-to-
    air combat in quite a long time. The places we are at right
    now, we have air superiority. We know how to set up FOBs
    [forward operating bases], we know how to do life support with
    the best expeditionary military since the Romans. I mean, it is
    amazing what all of you do and what our services can do. How do
    you mitigate the risk of atrophy when it comes to facing peer
    competitor countries?
        And I am looking for one word.
        General Milley. Training.
        Mr. Hunter. Training.
        General Milley. That is it.
        Mr. Hunter. All right.
        General Milley. What it is all about.
        Mr. Hunter. That was my question. So it is training.
        General Milley. To follow on Ms. McSally, it is not just
    airplanes that are shutting down training in July. The entire
    Army's training is shutting down except those guys that are
    deploying. Navy, same thing in the Navy and the Marines as
    well. It is across the board. And training is the answer. That
    is how you mitigate it.
        Mr. Hunter. How does training get slammed by the CR?
        General Milley. It stops.
        Mr. Hunter. It stops, right?
        General Milley. Right.
        Mr. Hunter. Yes, what happened with the units?
        General Milley. That is with the OPTEMPO. What happens is
    the OPTEMPO money, the gas, the parts, the ammunition, that
    ceases. And so people still get paid, but there is no training
    going on. So what ends up happening is, is if called upon, this
    is for the bench now, if called upon for some unknown
    contingency that no one can predict right this moment, but if
    it happens, people are going to be going out the door with
    equipment that is less than optimally maintained, units that
    are not properly trained, and we are going to be putting young
    men and women into harm's way that are not ready for that level
    of combat. That is what is going to happen with the lack of
    training.
        Admiral Richardson. Sir, I would just add that also there
    is a lot of that contained in that supplemental.
        General Milley. That is right.
        Admiral Richardson. And so it is the combination of both
    that we need favorable attention to, not only the fiscal year
    2017 budget, but there is a lot of training, operating money in
    that supplemental.
        Mr. Hunter. You both probably have the same answer.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for your leadership
    on this. You came out very publicly and said you are not going
    to vote for a CR that is for defense. I just want to just say
    thanks for your leadership on this. We are behind you.
        Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back the balance my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Cheney.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
    start by thanking all of you very much for your service, for
    being here today.
        Associate myself also with the comments of Mr. Hunter and
    the chairman; I will not support a CR either, in terms of the
    damage that it will do to the Defense Department.
        We are engaged, as you all know, in a whole range of
    crucial issues here on the Hill, issues that affect the Nation
    domestically, health care, tax reform. I would argue that none
    of those is as important as this issue we face today. And if we
    get this wrong, none of those matter either.
        That we are in a situation today, as you have all laid out
    during this hearing, that we have got to make sure that not
    only do we fill the gaps, but that we begin to rebuild our
    superiority. And in that regard, General Keane testified last
    year about the extent to which we are running the risk now of
    not prevailing in a fight in some circumstances.
        And I would like to ask each of you to talk about the
    shortfalls that we face, which you have detailed very
    effectively today, but talk about it in the context of the
    overall threat and as we see our own capabilities decline in
    too many instances, it seems to me we have seen the
    capabilities of our adversaries increasing and advancing.
        And so whether we are talking about ISIS, North Korea,
    China, Russia, Iran, if you could just talk for a little bit
    about the extent to which our declining capabilities have just
    created a gap which may be a gap of historic proportions in
    terms of where our adversaries are.
        General Neller, I will start with you.
        General Neller. I think we have all watched this over the
    last 5 to 6 years as we have been continually involved in the
    daily grind of the counterterrorism fight. We have seen the
    growth of the capabilities of the Chinese, the Russians, the
    Iranians, the North Koreans. On the countering to that is our
    OPTEMPO has stayed high because of what is going on fiscally,
    our ability to modernize and start to train to face that type
    of a threat and develop the capabilities through equipment and
    training and leverage technology. We have made a move. We
    started to do that. It is not like we have been sitting here
    ignoring it, but to get to that point, while at the same time
    do what we do on a day-to-day basis.
        It is the equivalent of rebuilding the airplane or the
    vehicle as you are driving down the road moving toward the day-
    to-day efforts. You are trying to rebuild the thing in motion,
    which is difficult enough, but if you don't have the resources
    to do that, and fifth-generation stuff is expensive. It is. And
    we all want to drive down the costs, we all want to get it
    faster, but to do that we need to have adequate resourcing, and
    it has got to be stable.
        We are not going to get a good price point on any of this
    stuff if we can't tell the vendor, okay, we are in for 3, 4, 5,
    6 years because we know we can buy five for the price of three-
    and-a-half, or whatever it is, if we can get the money to get
    the long-term contract. So, that is the dilemma we face.
        It would be great if we could stop and get a time-out.
    People talk about, you know, the interwar period; we have had
    no interwar period. We have been since 9/11 at war, and I don't
    see there being an interwar period, which makes it difficult,
    but it also makes it necessary that the resources are there to
    maintain the current fight, but to build up the capability for
    the fight that we hope doesn't come. And if we are ready and we
    have the capability, the probability that it will come goes
    down, but we can't assume that it won't.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
        General Goldfein, could you also talk, I know we are
    focused on the CR, but the Budget Control Act and
    sequestration, as a whole, and whether we really can do what we
    need to do before we repeal those.
        General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am, and I would just tell you
    that one of the things that you have heard from us here is that
    when called to go, we go. We have heard all the impacts of a
    CR. We are going to cancel exercises, we are going to cancel
    training. But let no one question for a second that when the
    United States militaries are called upon, we go.
        And when you take the combined military might, although
    none of us, as Joint Chiefs, are happy with our current level
    of readiness, for those that may be listening ought to have no
    question in their mind that if they take us on they lose.
        I will give you just one example. You know, if Mr. Putin
    makes a bad choice, he will face the combined economic and
    military might of 28 nations in the most powerful alliance we
    have ever been part of, and that spells his loss.
        So we are going to work with you on ensuring that we can
    manage this to the best of our ability. We have been through
    sequestration before, and I think we would all tell you we
    still haven't recovered from that. And one of the worst things
    we did during that entire period when we shut down the
    government was we broke faith with our civilian workforce, and
    especially our young civilian workforce that don't have the
    luxury of 4 to 5 months of pay, you know, in the bank that can
    cover them while they are out of work.
        And we had so many civilian workers, young civilian
    workers, that left the government service because they couldn't
    pay the bills. Or those that didn't pay the bills then had
    security challenge issues because one of the things we look at
    are their financial reports. And they left government service,
    talented young men and women, and never came back. We can't go
    through that again.
        Ms. Cheney. My time has expired, thank you very much. I
    appreciate it. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you all for your time, your testimony,
    and your service.
        You know, the earlier conversation General Milley had, Mr.
    Russell referenced to some historical parallels, reminds me
    that tomorrow, April 6th, is the 100th anniversary of our entry
    into World War I.
        You know, we tend to think about World War II and Patton's
    dash across Europe, Iwo Jima, those incredible battles, but the
    thing about World War I is nobody ever thought it would happen.
    They all traded with each other, the rulers were related to one
    another, and they thought they could out-bluff each other, that
    there might be a skirmish, and yet a whole generation of
    European men were wiped out in World War I. It just, I think,
    should be a sober reminder to all of us about the stakes of
    what we are talking about here. They are incredibly high.
        And I appreciate you all's testimony; as you have heard
    many times, I think it has been sobering.
        The bottom line is we have to do better than that, than
    CRs, than not passing a supplemental, than sequestration. We
    have to do better than that.
        The hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 April 5, 2017

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 April 5, 2017

    =======================================================================

       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 April 5, 2017

    =======================================================================

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS

        Mr. Brooks. If a high priority is being placed on the fastest
    schedule to field five Airborne IBCTs and particularly the three IBCTs
    with the 82nd Airborne Division who have the Global Response Force
    Mission, why wouldn't leveraging the 70 DAGORs already in the 82nd
    along with the OEM available inventory and production be the most
    expeditious and cost effective way to accomplish this especially given
    it has been certified for Air Drop and Sling Loaded by the National
    Mission Force?
        General Milley. The DAGORs were bought specifically to support the
    Global Response Force requirement in an Operational Needs Statement
    (ONS) submitted by the 82nd Airborne Division. No other ONS exists for
    the remaining Airborne IBCTs. An additional purchase of the same
    vehicle without a validated ONS is prohibited based on regulatory and
    statutory limitations.
        To quickly field this capability, we will procure a limited
    quantity of 295 GMV1.1 vehicles under a directed requirement for the
    Airborne IBCTs thru an existing, competitively-awarded Special
    Operations Command (SOCOM) contract. The SOCOM's Joint Capabilities
    Integration and Development System-approved requirement for GMV1.1
    meets the Army's current requirement as well. This plan accelerates
    delivery of this critical capability by two years--from Fiscal Year
    2020 to Fiscal Year 2018. It allows us to fill an immediate need while
    refining the requirement to support full and open competition for the
    remaining IBCTs.
        This approach is consistent with Congressional intent to find ways
    to accelerate the delivery of equipment to our Soldiers.
        Mr. Brooks. Why is the Army taking on the significantly higher
    vehicle costs and the cost risk for an unknown final unit price with a
    guidance of $260,000.00 Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC)?
        General Milley. Speed of delivery is our highest priority. The Army
    is willing to pay a higher cost of up to $260,000 to provide the
    initial capability of 295 vehicles to support our Soldiers' as quickly
    as possible. The Army benefits from purchasing the GMV1.1 because the
    vehicle has already gone through testing and logistics development and
    shares the same repair parts system in the Army, all of which save
    time. The remaining 1,700 GMVs will be procured through a full and
    open competition, once the requirement has been refined, which should
    reduce cost.
        Mr. Brooks. Explain the rationale for how the SOCOM GMV 1.1
    requirement can meet the critical parameters of the Airborne IBCT GMV;
    e.g. 9 infantry soldiers and their gear, air droppable, sling load
    capable and 250 miles range or more on vehicle organic fuel tank?
        General Milley. The approved SOCOM GMV 1.1 Capability Production
    Document supports all of the critical capabilities for the Airborne
    IBCTs, except for the 9-seat capacity. The SOCOM program office is
    supporting a contract modification that allows for production of a 9-
    seat variant within the scope of the existing production contract.
    Based on test results, the GMV 1.1 is transportable by CH-47 internally
    and externally with 250 mile operational range. The SOCOM program plans
    to complete the air drop test by the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018.
        Mr. Brooks. Is there a material difference between the Sustainment
    and Maintenance support of the SOCOM GMV 1.1 solution and the
    commercial alternative currently being used by the 82nd?
        General Milley. Yes, there is a material difference. The Army
    benefits from purchasing the SOCOM GMV1.1 because under the contract
    the vehicle shares the same sustainment and maintenance system with
    SOCOM. The DAGOR's were commercially purchased for the specific purpose
    of filling an Operational Needs Statement for the 82nd Airborne
    Division. Because the vehicles are not centrally managed they must be
    maintained by the unit without support from the Army logistics system
    or any additional funding to maintain them. There is also no long term
    sustainment support for DAGOR. The unit must continue to use unit
    training funds to purchase maintenance and sustainment requirements
    directly from a commercial vendor. Ultimately the vehicles will be
    replaced by the GMV which will provide the parts system to support the
    unit.

                                      [all]