[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 115-34]
______________________________________________________________
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING
ON
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE U.S. MARINE CORPS
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 5, 2017
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-150 WASHINGTON : 2018
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi RO KHANNA, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
Andrew Warren, Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff Member
Jodi Brignola, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Connecticut,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Readiness...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Bailey, LtGen Ronald L., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Plans,
Policies, and Operations, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; LtGen
Michael G. Dana, USMC, Deputy Commandant for Installations and
Logistics, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; and William E.
Taylor, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Headquarters
U.S. Marine Corps.............................................. 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bailey, LtGen Ronald L., joint with LtGen Jon M. Davis and
LtGen Michael G. Dana...................................... 27
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness.......................... 25
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 23
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. McSally.................................................. 45
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE U.S. MARINE CORPS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Readiness,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 5, 2017.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:16 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you all
here today and call this unclassified hearing of the House
Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee, on ``The
Current State of the United States Marine Corps'' to order.
The consistent theme of the 115th congressional session of
the House Armed Services Committee is to continue the drumbeat
of our current state of overall military readiness, and in many
cases, where we are not providing necessary resources to enable
power projection and exercise the principle I strongly believe,
and that is peace through strength.
The Marine Corps currently has over 20 percent of its
Active Duty force deployed in 37 countries, so you clearly play
an integral part in deterring adversaries and reassuring our
allies. And even today, with the chemical attack in Syria, it
is actually reassuring to me to know that there is a presence
that can help the people of that war-torn tragic country.
Over the past several weeks, both of our full committee and
this subcommittee have listened keenly to briefings and
hearings from leading national security experts and senior
military leaders describing the current threats we face and the
current state of the military. After listening to these
sobering assessments, there is no question in my mind we are
sadly, indeed, in a readiness crisis.
In addition, earlier this morning, we received testimony
from each of the service chiefs on the consequences of another
continuing resolution. This continuing resolution would only
worsen the damage to our military and its readiness.
The Marine Corps provides our Nation with a versatile set
of capabilities, ranging from crisis response, amphibious
operations, and theater security cooperation. We must assist
your efforts to restore readiness where it is lacking for
today's threats and integrate necessary skills to address
tomorrow's challenges.
I am personally concerned about the lasting impacts
incurred as a result of the Marine Corps prioritization, quote,
``near-term readiness,'' end of quote, at the expense of other
areas, such as capacity, capability, modernization, and
facility sustainment.
I believe the first responsibility of the Federal
Government is to secure its citizens, and therefore, it is our
duty to better understand the readiness situation the Marine
Corps finds itself in and then aid in that recovery.
This is especially appropriate since the originally
required by the 82nd Congress and subsequently referred by the
114th Congress, the Marine Corps is the, quote, ``Nation's
expeditionary force of readiness,'' end of quote.
This afternoon, we are honored and grateful to have
Lieutenant General Ron Bailey, United States Marine Deputy
Commandant, Plans, Policies, and Operations.
We have Lieutenant General Mike Dana, the U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Commandant of Installations and Logistics; and senior
executive servant, William E. Taylor, the Assistant Deputy
Commandant for Aviation.
I want to thank each of you for your admirable and
extraordinary service to the Corps and this Nation. I believe
it is worth noting that our panel--this is amazing--has 110
years of combined experience, and this will be extremely
helpful as this subcommittee seeks to address readiness
challenges moving forward.
We now ask the senior leaders of the Marine Corps here
today to offer us their candid and best military advice related
to the current state of readiness, which includes home
facility--home station facilities, deployed force capabilities,
and those units training to be the next to go forward in harm's
way.
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and thank
you for testifying today as you highlight the current state of
the Marine Corps readiness.
I now would like to turn to the ranking member,
Representative Joe Courtney, from Connecticut, for any opening
remarks he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 23.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONNECTICUT, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would only edit
your comment by saying I am the temporary ranking member of the
subcommittee, because Ms. Bordallo, again, is back home in Guam
taking care of some family affairs, and obviously other work in
her home district.
She has a written statement, which, again, I would just,
again, ask to be entered for the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo can be found in the
Appendix on page 25.]
Mr. Courtney. And she did ask me just to read a very brief
comment as well, which is that she, again, is unable to be here
today, but she communicated that she is looking forward to
seeing the Marine realignment to Guam continue forward without
delay. The Marine Corps and the Department of Defense should
take necessary steps to ensure that the challenges are being
promptly and adequately addressed.
So I am sure it is going to come as a great shock to all of
us that she did want to talk about Guam a little bit in her
comments here. And, again, I had a chance to meet with these
gentlemen in the office and want to, again, thank them for the
great testimony you are about to prepare here today.
General Neller, again, did an excellent job this morning.
It is my understanding he flew in at 5:00 this morning from
overseas and got to the committee. So he deserves bonus points
for, again, his efforts this morning and his concise comments,
which was also really, I think, very effective in terms of his
presentation here.
So, again, thank you, again, to the witnesses. And with
that, I would yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Courtney.
And indeed, we are really grateful for the service of
Delegate Madeleine Bordallo. At this time of the year, she
provides a report to the people of Guam, and so it is a
tradition that she so effectively represents the very patriotic
people of the territory of Guam.
Now, we will be proceeding with the combined opening
statement from the panel being delivered by Lieutenant General
Bailey.
STATEMENT OF LTGEN RONALD L. BAILEY, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR PLANS, POLICIES, AND OPERATIONS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE
CORPS; LTGEN MICHAEL G. DANA, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE CORPS;
AND WILLIAM E. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
AVIATION, HEADQUARTERS U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Bailey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Courtney,
and distinguished members of the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness.
On behalf of Lieutenant General Dana, Mr. Taylor, and I, we
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and report
on the readiness of your United States Marine Corps.
Congress and the American people have high expectations for
the Marine Corps as our Nation's naval expeditionary force in
readiness. As we sit here today, there are over 34,000 Marines
deployed in 37 countries around the globe to assure our allies
and partners, to deter our adversaries, and to respond when our
Nation's citizens and interests are threatened.
While today's force is capable and our forward-deployed
forces are ready to fight, we are physically stretched to
maintain readiness across the breadth of the force in near
term, and to modernize for future readiness against the threats
we will face.
Rebuilding a balanced Marine Corps will require both near-
term actions and also longer-term efforts. To rebalance our
readiness for current operations and future contingencies, it
will require both time and sufficient, consistent, and
predictable funding.
On behalf of all of our Marines, sailors, civilians, and
their families, we thank the Congress and this committee for
the support that you have provided and for this opportunity to
discuss the key challenges your Marine Corps faces. We look
forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of General Bailey, General
Jon M. Davis, and General Dana can be found in the Appendix on
page 27.]
Mr. Wilson. General, thank you very much. And Mr. Warren is
going to keep us strictly on a 5-minute rule, and so we will
begin with me at 5 minutes.
And indeed, today, General, it is such a chilling reminder
of what we face. The chemical weapons used in Syria by the
Assad regime, which has been propped up by the Russian
Federation and the regime in Tehran, the Iranian regime.
And then virtually simultaneously, as the President of
China is here to visit with President Trump, it is no surprise
that North Korea has another missile launch. And somehow, you
would hope that the People's Republic would understand that the
instability in North Korea and Pyongyang is really a threat to
them too. But, again, the Marine Corps has never been more
important as we face challenges around the world.
And this is the same time there was a terrorist attack with
mass killings by Islamic terrorists, extremists in Pakistan.
And this is after, of course, the attack on the subway system
in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and again, a chilling reminder
this week of what you face and the courage and bravery of our
U.S. Marine Corps.
Under the Bipartisan Budget Act and the Budget Control Act
funding levels, what are the hardest readiness choices that you
continue to have to make, and what impact do these have on your
ability to meet mission requirements in the National Defense
Strategy? And please provide specific examples. And General
Bailey, you first and then your colleagues.
General Bailey. Sir, the most difficult readiness challenge
is that we have centers around the framework that we have
established when we look at readiness, that is high-quality
people. And when you think about the challenge that we have, it
is very, very important that we have the opportunity to recruit
high-quality people.
When we are operating off of a budget that is in CR
[continuing resolution], then we can't dedicate the money that
we need towards that. In addition to that, we look at
capability and capacity. And so just as you described, all of
those challenges that are out there, those threats that are out
there, when you start talking capability and capacity, when you
do not have the funds to, one, develop a force to be able to
counteract that, that creates a tremendous challenge for our
forces.
We have clearly recognized that we are devoting money and
time towards those forces that are deployed and preparing to
deploy. But in order for us to continue, we need to have a
budget, a budget that is predictable, reliable.
And one other thing that I would like to add to that before
I turn to my colleagues is that when we start talking
modernization of our equipment, that is a big challenge for us.
You have got to have modernized equipment. The enemy that we
face, as you describe, is an enemy that is in complex terrain.
That enemy can also cut us off when we start talking
electromagnetic spectrum.
They have capabilities now to detect signatures. That enemy
can also fire long-range precision fires. And so we need
modernized equipment to be able to compete on a battlefield so
that we can stay at the top and stay at the top of our game.
Mr. Wilson. General Dana.
General Dana. Chairman, if I could add to that. As you look
at World War II--and General Milley talked about that today--
that is a three-dimension fight, sea, air, and land, and now we
have space and cyber. And as we look at our near-peer
competitors and the weapons that they can bring to bear, we
require more standoff distance and we need to be more
distributed.
So as we look at that modernization effort and we look at
all our shoot, move, and communicate platforms, the only things
that are getting refreshed or that we are actually getting new
platforms for are the ACV [Amphibious Combat Vehicle], JLTV
[Joint Light Tactical Vehicle], and G/ATOR [Ground/Air Task
Oriented Radar] radar.
And I forgot to mention upfront, we appreciate every penny
you give us, because we are good stewards of the taxpayer
dollars. So I am bringing these requirements up. We appreciate
whatever you can provide us.
So in that new what I call extended battlespace, we need
these new capabilities like the 53K [CH-53K], the MV-22, the
ACV to ensure that we can have the standoff distance and then
be able to go ashore, and then have the capability to move
logistics ashore, again, with platforms like the 53K. And we
are looking at unmanned platforms also.
The other thing I would bring up is we plan on a 5-year
window with our equipment and with our facilities, and we have
a very rigorous process. The Commandant holds my feet to the
fire. We can't waste any money. And when we develop that plan
and you have either sequestration, a CR, or reduction in
funding, it throws the plan off track.
So thank you for listening.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. And on the aviation side, our biggest risk is
our ability to balance future readiness versus current
readiness. Future readiness is derived through sustainable
readiness as a function of recapitalization. Not too many
people think of it in that terms, but recapitalization isn't
just for the purpose of fielding capability. It is also for the
purpose of fielding sustainable readiness as compared to what
we call ``tired iron.''
The legacy aircraft, for instance, the 53 Echo [CH-53E], on
average the 53E was 28 years old. I was a member of the unit
that first sent the 53E on its first operational deployment and
that was 34 years ago. And then there is the F-18. The F-18 we
are struggling to maintain. Again, several variants of the F-18
are 28 years old, and just the fundamental material condition
of the aircraft is almost unmanageable at this point.
We send it to the depot, they peel back a panel, they find
corrosion, they peel back another panel. There has been, to my
knowledge, at least half a dozen F-18s recently that were
inducted into the depot only to be stricken halfway through and
they realized it is not even salvageable.
So we are bouncing the criticality of getting out of
``tired iron'' and fielding our new aircraft as soon as
possible versus current readiness, current readiness being our
readiness accounts. They have been underresourced consistently
over a period of about 12 years now, whereas a sustainable
level of readiness in terms of those readiness accounts is
around 85 percent.
Over those 12 years, the readiness levels have deteriorated
in those accounts to an aggregate level of about 67 percent. So
that equates to our inability to support the legacy aircraft we
have on the flight line. And that has manifested itself in
deteriorating non-mission-capable supply rates; so, in other
words, of the aircraft that are available on the flight line
today, in the aggregate, 23 percent of our inventory on the
flight line is not available due to parts.
And that percentage actually masks the fact that that
metric is agnostic to how many parts that aircraft is down for.
So it assumes it is one part when, in fact, it can be multiple
parts after constant cannibalization by the maintainers to try
and keep a certain percentage of aircraft up.
So our biggest risk is balancing future readiness through
procurement of new aircraft so that we can have sustainable
readiness versus current readiness in robustly funding those
readiness accounts.
Mr. Wilson. And thank each of you for your clarity.
We now proceed to Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said earlier, I had a chance to meet with the panel
earlier, so I am going to defer my questions for now to
Congresswoman Gabbard, who is next in line.
Mr. Wilson. And Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for your service.
I want to bounce a little bit off of Mr. Taylor's comments
mentioning aviation readiness. This is something that has been
identified as an area of acute need, both with the aircraft and
the maintenance but as well as the ability for our pilots to
have enough training hours to have the experience they need to
complete their missions.
Can you talk a little bit about the plan to get to where we
need to be in both of those respects with regard to aviation,
and how either a CR or a supplemental will impact the execution
of that plan?
Mr. Taylor. Okay. I will take that first one. So Marine
aviation is about 2\1/2\ years into a readiness recovery plan.
Our ultimate objective is to have 1,065 aircraft available on
the flight line, not necessarily up, but available for
maintenance, available for training, available to support
operational plans.
Where we are right now is we have about 983, so we are
about 82 short of that goal. The intent is to achieve that
1,065 and have what they call a ready bench around the 2022
timeframe. So we have an interim goal, an interim goal of what
they call Ready Basic Aircraft, and that essentially means the
aircraft is up and available for training or tasking.
And our goal is an interim goal of fiscal year 2020 to have
about 589 of those aircraft available for tasking. We are
currently sitting at about 433 or 156 short. So that is really
talking about current readiness, so that is really talking
about our readiness accounts.
And I could just refer you to, if we go long term, what
this means in terms of specific accounts. I will just pick out
a couple to give you an idea if we continue down this path of a
full year CR or we don't get the supplemental, here is just a
comparison.
For the aircraft depot maintenance account, we are talking
84 percent versus 88 percent funding levels. The air systems
support, air systems support is essentially what Naval Air
Systems Command uses to pay their engineers, to take care of
engineering issues, logistics issues, to monitor the air
worthiness of an aircraft. We are talking about 58 percent
versus 93 percent, so a big dip there.
And then aviation logistics, that is our 1A, 9A account as
we call it, that is essentially what we pay for like PBL
[Performance Based Logistics] services and such. And on that
one, we are talking about 80 percent versus 94 percent.
And the biggest one, I earlier referred to our biggest risk
on the current readiness being spares, the difference would be
83 percent--I am sorry--73 percent versus 88 percent. So that
is probably the most significant one aside from the air systems
support, spares at 73 percent versus 88 percent.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
General Dana.
General Dana. I am from New York so I am going to talk fast
because I have got a minute, 30. But there is three quick
points I would like to bring up. If you look at our depot
funding over the past 10 years, we have been funding to 80
percent of the requirement. So that means 20 percent of that
work is being deferred and pushed to the right. And anytime we
have interruption in funding, it really impacts the schedule in
a negative way.
The other thing is, in 2013, when we had the furlough, it
did two things: 888 pieces of gear were not inducted for
maintenance that were critical to the shoot, move, and
communicate portfolio that I talked to previously; plus, we
broke faith with the workers. Because just to retain, you know,
our artisans, our skilled workers, I mean, it is a very close
relationship that we have. We have education programs for them.
We do a lot to mature them and grow them. And then when you
furlough them, they look at you and go, what are you doing? You
are breaking faith.
General Bailey. I would like to add that in all of that, it
comes home to me because I need those aircraft to train. And so
when those aircraft are not available for us to train with,
that creates a tremendous amount of challenges for a portion of
the Marine air-ground task force, and that task force cannot
conduct all this training to be ready for the missions to
support requirements that may be deemed by the national command
authority or combatant commander.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Gabbard.
We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service; 110 years, that is a
long time in anybody's book, so we have been honored to have
you.
General Bailey, many of my constituents work at the Marine
Corps Logistics Base in Albany. Some are even family over
there, although I don't tell them. Don't tell the command over
there when I am visiting. The work that is performed at those
depots is key to the fight and enabling the warfighter and our
readiness.
The impact in the current budget environment on readiness
that we keep talking about, what specific challenges do you
face with the Marine depots operating at current capacities and
being able to successfully execute the maintenance missions?
General Bailey. Congressman, we have an expert here who
works in that field, so I am going to pass that question off on
him because he has spent the bulk of his career working in that
area.
Mr. Scott. General Dana.
General Dana. Sir the biggest challenge--and we are going
to foot stomp this all day today, and we really appreciate you
listening--is stable, uninterrupted, consistent funding so we
can do our 5-year planning window. The Commandant has told us,
he has given direction that we will know what equipment we
have, what condition it is in, and what we need to do to
sustain it.
And I have to provide him a brief and walk through all our
depot requirements for all of our equipment. And when I lay out
that 5-year plan, sir, and then we don't get the funding or we
are funded to 80 percent or the funding is interrupted, the
schedule blows apart.
Now, where I am seeing that is in our top 25 items that I
mentioned earlier, our shoot, move, and communicate; that, for
instance, AAVs [Assault Amphibious Vehicles] are at 65 percent
readiness across the Marine Corps. I mean, that is our main
connector to get to the beach in an amphibious operation or an
expeditionary operation.
We are looking at LAV [Light Armored Vehicle] readiness
around 70 percent, tanks around high 70s. So all these critical
warfighting assets just keep--it is slow, but it is gradual, it
is discernible, and it is measurable, and we are seeing the
impact to readiness. So what we are asking for, whatever money
we get, we will use it wisely, we will plan accordingly, but we
just need consistent funding.
Mr. Scott. General Dana, I am going to hang with you for a
second. As you know, there was recently significant storm
damage to the infrastructure at the Marine Corps logistics base
in Albany. We have got big storms on the ground right now in
that area.
As you know, there are only two depot sites, a lot of talk
about BRAC [base realignment and closure] concerns, people in
the area. We obviously have one on the east coast, one on the
west. One, would you talk about where we are specifically with
the cleanup in Albany; what do you need from us to get back to
full capacity; and then, why is it so crucial to have two
depots in the Marine Corps?
General Dana. Yes, sir. Great question. Thank you.
Having the two depots--I mean, it has been proven by this
unfortunate tornado, which inflicted $100 million worth of
facilities damage on the Albany depot. Thank God, no one was
hurt. It was on a Sunday. We didn't have any workers. Today we
sent the workers home because we are in a high state of storm
alert down in Albany, so we are making sure we are taking care
of the workforce.
So as we look at the depots, we are working very hard to
get after this issue. We moved $45 million in facilities
sustainment, readiness, modernization money to work on the
current damage to Albany, but that takes away from another
account for other bases.
So we also, sir, have the $233 million in equipment damage
at Albany, which will be another bill, but we are looking at
that very closely to make sure that that is an accurate number
before we come to Congress. So in review, $100 million on the
facilities side, $233 [million] on the equipment side, and we
are taking care of the workforce.
Mr. Scott. Thank you for your service, and thank you for
the time to discuss these issues in our office and how we can
be more efficient with the taxpayer dollars.
Gentlemen, I appreciate all of your service. And I don't
know how much time I have left, but I am pretty sure it is not
5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. You have a perpetual 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. I will yield whatever time.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Scott.
And indeed, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of
Georgia and South Carolina today as they are under a tornado
and storm alert and watch.
Mr. Scott. Chairman, there are four tornados on the ground
in my district right now.
Mr. Wilson. An extraordinary storm coming through toward
capital city of Columbia and Lexington and Aiken.
We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member
Courtney.
And thank you to all of you for addressing us today. And
thank you for your service, most of all.
I believe we are all in agreement in terms of the negative
impacts of sequestration and how Congress' inability to pass an
actual budget is making it difficult for the Marines, along
with all other services, to execute any type of good planning.
Last month, the full committee held a hearing on the state
of the military, where I expressed my concerns not only in
regards to sequestration but also how we are going to balance
the growing defense budget versus a shrinking domestic agenda.
The Marine Corps conducted a bottom-up review of the force
entitled ``Marine Corps Force 2025.'' During this review, did
the Corps take any steps to identify wasteful spending and
possible efficiencies? And if it did, can you provide us with
some examples.
Additionally, a part of readiness is investing in our
infrastructure, as was touched on earlier. What are some
immediate infrastructure needs the Marine Corps has identified?
General Bailey. Sir, let me start with ``Marine Corps Force
2025''. The Commandant had taken the time to kind of look at
the threat. Some Marine Corps intelligence activity put
together an assessment that stated that in 2025, these are the
capabilities that we are going to need in order to be
competitive to be able to compete with our adversaries.
So in this review--and it is still going on--he is looking
at all aspects of our Corps in terms of the organization of our
Corps, the number of our different squad sizes, the logistics,
the aviation. So he is looking completely across the Corps.
In his look, it is looking to see where we can gain
efficiencies. And the reason we need to gain efficiencies is
because we have got to develop a skill set. And a skill set
that we need, we have determined that we need about 3,000
Marines to fulfill that skill set, that skill set in cyber,
that skill set in information operations, that skill set to
have someone maintain the ability to identify electromagnetic
signature release, and on and on and on.
So in that process, we have all looked across at the Marine
air-ground task force from a ground combat element side, from a
logistics side, from an aviation side, and from the command
element side. And I can assure you we will gain some
efficiencies, and that in itself will cut back on the wasteful
activity.
From the infrastructure side, I am going to turn to my
counterpart here and let him talk about infrastructure.
General Dana. Sir, great question.
On the efficiency side, we are making sure we know what we
have and we are spending it wisely. The Commandant has directed
we conduct 149 what we call FSMAOs [Field Supply and
Maintenance Analysis Office]. I know you remember what one of
those are, but it is a supply and maintenance inspection, to
make sure that we know everything that we have and that if
people are using the proper procedures to, you know, have
accountability for equipment, how they are spending money. And
those reports are briefed out to him personally by me. If you
get a good grade, it is good for that commander; if you don't,
it is bad day for that commander.
Next, on the infrastructure, we have an infrastructure
installation reset strategy where we are looking at our entire
portfolio, the 24 bases and stations. And what we do is we look
at consolidation, demolition, refurbishment, and new build.
That plan is briefed to the Commandant. So every penny that we
are spending, he is vetting the entire plan on what we are
doing with our facilities.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I thought you were going
to tell me you got rid of ``hurry up and wait'' in the Marine
Corps.
Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson. And Congressman Carbajal, thank you very much
for your insight.
And we now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of
Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for your service in difficult times.
I wanted to follow up on some of the earlier discussion
about the aviation shortfalls and ask you to just start off and
review--maybe Mr. Taylor--where we are at in the process of
transitioning to the F-35s, and how many are coming online, how
many F-18s are you still operating with, how many are able to
fly at any given day, and come and give the transition plan
there again.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. As far as the transition, I believe we
currently have inventory of 45. We have three operational
squadrons at this point. The transition goes through--the
transition end date, or FOC [full operational capability], goes
through 2031 based on assumptions with respect to the
procurement profile and rate. The biggest struggle is whether
or not our F-18 fleet can be maintained that long.
General Davis has recently made a decision to revise the
transition plan, whereas it was previously a mix of
transitioning Harrier squadrons and Hornet squadrons. He has
reprioritized based on the material condition of the Hornet,
and he has made a definite decision that the next three
transition squadrons will be F-18s, and potentially the next
five.
Because of some of the things we have done to invigorate
the health of the Harrier, that is one of the least of our
problems right now. So we believe we can get the Harrier to the
finish line in its current state by monitoring it. It was, in
fact, our first type model series that we put through an
independent readiness review to make recommendations as to how
to sustain it long term. So at this point, it is whether or not
the F-18s can last that long.
Mrs. Hartzler. So are you asking for some new F-18s to fill
in in the meanwhile?
Mr. Taylor. We are not asking for new F-18s. We don't have
a requirement for that. In fact----
Mrs. Hartzler. Well, the Navy asked for unfunded
requirement, so----
Mr. Taylor. Yes, they did. General Davis' view of this is,
why would we want a fourth-generation fighter, another one. The
F-35 is a fifth-generation fighter. We have already
accommodated fourth-generation requirements by procuring over
380 H-1 aircraft, that also include the AH-1 attack aircraft.
So we have fourth-generation capability level of effort. So we
are----
Mrs. Hartzler. Gotcha. I am sorry to cut you off. We have
limited time.
So let's talk about the parts issue though because this is
really serious what you were sharing, you know, that they open
them up and, you know, it is not even worth fixing. We have had
issues--I have Whiteman Air Force Base, the B-2s having the
parts.
Mr. Taylor. Right.
Mrs. Hartzler. We have been working on the parts
sustainability. So what are you--are you taking any efforts to
try to get the parts that you need for these F-18s to help
carry over----
Mr. Taylor. So I mentioned the independent readiness review
for the Harrier. That was the first of five that have now been
executed. After completing an independent readiness review for
the 53, after Harrier, we did the 53, we did the V-22, we did
the H-1, we did a ground safety mishap review, and now we are
about T-minus a month away from launching an independent
readiness review of the legacy Hornet.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. That is great.
I want to switch real fast in my last minute to talk
about----
Mr. Taylor. The real answer is to get out of the legacy
Hornet business as fast as possible and transition to the F-35.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. End strength. So Congress has
authorized the Marine Corps to halt its end-strength drawdown
during fiscal year 2017, but the current continuing resolution
does not fund the Marine Corps at this level. And Secretary
Mattis wrote in January of this year a guidance that the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2018 will, quote,
``grow force structure at the maximum responsible rate.''
So what is the maximum responsible rate the Marine Corps
can grow by, and how big does the Marine Corps need to be to
carry out its current missions and potential contingencies?
General Bailey. Ma'am, thank you very much for that
question.
As I had mentioned earlier, we looked at the 3,000 as the
Marines that we needed to give us the capability for a 2025
fight. The Commandant has stated that 3,000 Marines per year is
the way we plan on bringing in new recruits and Marines to
build up the capability that we need.
And so that is the responsible way to do that, when you
start talking about keeping high-quality Marines in our Corps,
and so that we can provide the Nation the crisis reaction force
that you expect us to have. So that is the direction that we
are going at this point.
Mrs. Hartzler. My time has expired. Thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler.
We now proceed to Congressman Trent Kelly of Mississippi.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and answering
these questions.
I want to start with, I heard--Task Force Smith in Korea
was what happens when we are not ready to meet the challenges
of today. I brought this up in a full committee hearing, but I
think so many of the American people don't understand that
regardless of how well trained and how much heart you guys as
Marines have, if we don't have the right equipment, the right
munitions, the right amount of equipment that works or right
repair parts, it doesn't matter if we have a next generation,
an F-35 in waiting, the enemy will not wait until we are ready
to attack. And if they are smart, they will attack while we are
not ready, which is what we would do.
And so I am so scared with all this BCA [Budget Control
Act] and sequestration and all these things that people are
failing to understand that we are at critical risk in this
Nation of asking our armed services to take massive casualties
because we are not giving them the right amount of dollars to
have the right munitions, the right equipment, the right parts,
and the right training to meet those objectives on the day.
I think, Mr. Taylor, you said, or it may have been you,
Lieutenant General Bailey, about 65 to 70 percent OR
[operational readiness] rate among many of our--to get our
Marines the equipment they used to get from the ships to the
beach. Is that correct?
General Dana. Yes, sir, that is correct, 65 percent.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. Now, going back to the time when I was a
lieutenant and a company commander and a battalion commander
and all those things, pre-9/11, battalion commanders and
brigade commanders and division commanders got fired if they
had an operational readiness rate, an OR rate of less than 90
percent, in many cases. But now it is acceptable to have
equipment at 65 to 70 percent because that is the best we could
do. Is that correct?
General Dana. Sir, how I would like to address that is,
that is a great question. As we look at the war plans and you
look at the Korea set, and I won't get into a lot of detail,
but that is a very demanding logistics and equipment plan,
that--you know, based on our Korean war experience.
Just to give you an order of magnitude, as you look at
General MacArthur in the Pacific, the logistics that he needed
for that fight was 83 percent less than was used in Korea. And
that fight generated a cost of $157 billion.
So as we look at across our portfolio, we need $11.2
billion for modernization of our equipment to get us where we
need to be. That is the new field I talked about, in refreshing
our other equipment. We need $9 billion in facilities
sustainment, readiness, modernization because the bases and
stations are platforms to deploy from and get people out.
So if we get that funding, we will be on a higher step. But
what I will say, and I think the Commandant who was sitting
here and General Bailey would say is, we are the ``fight
tonight'' force. We have got what we have got. We will do the
best we can with it. But if you give us this funding, we will
be more expeditionary, more capable, more punch on the other
end.
Mr. Kelly. And a CR, without the supplemental and even just
not doing the appropriations process like it is, that does not
get you any closer to being able to modernize and equip our
Marines that go into the fight at the level that they deserve
to be. Is that correct?
General Bailey. Sir, that is correct. And let me just kind
of go down. We are talking about the CR and the supplemental.
And so here is what we are talking: Loss of Active Duty
Marines; we are going to have to cancel Reserve Force drills;
we have to stop our CONUS [contiguous United States] flights;
cease the recovery from the tornado down in Albany; we will
lose one amphibious ship; it will reverse modernization. It
will push us back.
And then Mike just talked about the facilities aspect of
it, but those are the things that if we don't get the
supplemental, that we will be impeded and create challenges for
us there.
Mr. Kelly. And I think this is you, Lieutenant General
Dana, but one thing, we talk about standoff a lot. And I
understand what standoff is because I am an engineer and I am a
military guy and spent some time. I don't think most civilians
though or most people understand what standoff really is.
And so I am going to try to explain it, and you tell me if
I am right. It is the whatever weapon system we are talking
about, the range, like 2,500 meters for a tank if we want to
use that, at which it has a 50/50 chance of hitting an enemy
target. And if the enemy has 3,000 meters and we have 2,500,
that 500 meters difference is a standoff, the distance where he
can kill us but we can't kill him back. Is that true?
General Dana. Sir, you nailed it.
General Bailey. Yep.
Mr. Kelly. And right now, because of munitions and lack of
fifth-generation fighters, those kinds of things create more
standoff for the enemy, especially in some areas like
artillery, that we have the capabilities but we right now don't
have the equipment to take care of that standoff. Is that
correct?
General Dana. Yes, sir, on target.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I yield
back. And thank you, gentlemen.
General Bailey. Sir, let me add something to that also,
because in addition to that standoff, and we have said this
over the years, that the--our adversaries have not sat idle.
And while we were engaged in combat for the past 15 years, they
have been developing their capability and developing their
capability to allow them to be able to work in the cyber world,
have standoff, have precision weapons. And so that is what we
are pushing towards when we start saying we need the money for
modernization to be competitive against our adversaries.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Kelly, and thank you for
your military engineering insight.
And now we proceed to someone with a military aviation
insight, Congresswoman Martha McSally of Arizona.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
We talked this morning, the full committee, about the
impact of a CR. Those of us who are here, obviously--I don't
want to speak for everybody else, but we are very committed and
understand the impacts of the military.
As we look at the timing, obviously we need to fund the
government and the DOD [Department of Defense] by the end of
April to get off the CR, but then there is a supplemental
issue, the supplemental request. Can you give a sense of--I
know immediately is probably the answer--but the supplemental
resources, is there a--if we don't get that solved by the
middle of May, let's just assume we pass the fiscal year 2017
in an omnibus, a cromnibus or whatever for the baseline, but
now we are dealing with a supplemental; if we don't get that
by, you know, a certain date like this is when you are really
in a crisis. I am just trying to understand the impact of the
prioritizations here and better understand when we really need
to be getting that supplemental done. And I know earlier is
always better, but can you give us a good sense of the impacts
of----
Mr. Taylor. On the aviation side, I can really only speak
to the impact of continuing this CR for the whole year.
Ms. McSally. Yeah.
Mr. Taylor. And the Commandant essentially nailed that this
morning.
Ms. McSally. Yeah, we got that. I am talking about the
timing of the supplemental now.
Mr. Taylor. Right. I can't help you with the supplemental.
It is percentages.
Ms. McSally. Okay. Any other insights on baseline funding
versus----
General Dana. You know, ma'am, no new starts, I mean, in
the MILCON [military construction] realm.
Ms. McSally. No, again, assume we pass an omnibus bill to
fund the government, which includes the fiscal year 2017 DOD
appropriations before the end of April, then there is a DOD
supplemental for the fiscal year 2017 as well. I am asking
specifically--I am not talking about a CR anymore--the timing
of the supplemental money and what that does to you. Does that
make sense?
General Bailey. Ma'am, let me take that for the record
because you are asking specific dates and times. I understand
your question.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 45.]
Ms. McSally. Yeah, we heard this morning for example, you
know, if we are on a CR, you know, airplanes are going to be
grounded starting in June.
So there is a very specific thing related to a CR. I am now
saying, let's just say we get this first land mine out of the
way of funding the government for fiscal year 2017,
supplemental versus not supplemental, we need to understand
that impact and timing. That would really help us as we are
working with our colleagues here.
Mr. Taylor. I can give you a partial answer on the aviation
side. However, trying to tie it to a direct date is----
Ms. McSally. Challenging.
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. Is kind of cloudy because I can't
predict whether or not they will be able to make fourth-quarter
contract awards. I won't be able to predict whether or not it
is marked as a result of the late award.
But in terms of numbers, we are talking three V-22s, four
C-12s, two C-40s, 53 Echo----
Ms. McSally. In the supplemental.
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. Degraded visual environment----
Ms. McSally. Got it.
Mr. Taylor [continuing]. MV-22s, CC-RAM [Common
Configuration Reliability and Maintainability]. It is an
attempt to try and take 77 configurations and consolidate
around 1 configuration. So there are impacts. I just don't know
if I am able to tie them to a direct date.
Ms. McSally. Got it.
Mr. Taylor. I would have to have a crystal ball.
Ms. McSally. And are you all agnostic as to whether they
are together or passed in separate vehicles? Is that mox nix to
you guys?
General Bailey. If it passed separate, we just want to make
sure it is passed.
Ms. McSally. Got it. Thanks.
Mr. Taylor, back to the aviation issues, your assumptions
on the F-18s for the transition of the F-35, obviously
concerning based on what you talked about, that every time they
go in for maintenance you peel back and you see it worse and
worse. Media reports saying you are pulling a couple dozen out
of the boneyard.
Mr. Taylor. It is actually upwards of 23 perhaps and 7
additional from within the----
Ms. McSally. Okay. Twenty-three. That is close to a couple
dozen, isn't it, in the boneyard, to address that. But the
sunset date is until 2018 for the F-18. Right? What are you
doing between--what is the----
Mr. Taylor. Negative.
Ms. McSally. All right. So talk through how you sustain the
F-18 until it is completely replaced by the F-35, and are the
assumptions good?
Mr. Taylor. It is an art not a science. I will start with
that statement. So they have already extended the service life
of the legacy Hornet twice, once beyond 8,000 and once to
9,000. They may have to consider extending the life to 10,000.
That is one.
Another effort--another initiative that is being prototyped
as we speak is trying to take this myriad of disparate
maintenance efforts, field events, depot events, which make no
logical sense right now.
All they do is guarantee that the aircraft is not available
to the operating squadrons, because this week it is out for
this inspection, they return it to the flight line, and that
next day it is out for another inspection or a modification.
So right now, NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] is under
work in prototyping two logical consolidated depot events to
try and guarantee more aircraft availability on the flight line
once they come out of that depot event. So that is looking very
promising.
And the rest is really driven by the extent to which our
readiness accounts are funded in terms of spares, in terms of
engineering disposition. That is another big one. A lot of time
is wasted waiting for an engineer to reach back to NAVAIR
proper and get engineering disposition on a certain risk event,
and that consumes a lot of time.
So, for instance, NAVAIR just put another--a second
engineer down at Beaufort, as just one example of some of the
ways they are trying to mitigate that.
Ms. McSally. Great. My time has expired. But I appreciate
it. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congresswoman McSally. We now
proceed to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
gentlemen for your service and for your testimony today.
In the context of readiness I want to focus on emerging
threats, specifically in the 21st century battlefield. The
Marine Corps operating concept acknowledges going beyond
physical terrain and operating in the information domain. This
is something that my subcommittee, the Emerging Threats
Subcommittee has spent a significant amount of time on.
Can you describe how the Marine Corps is doing this and
some of the challenges it has encountered in the cyber domain?
General Bailey. There have been a tremendous amount of
challenges that we have encountered in the cyber domain and
that is the reason why we are eager to get the 3,000 Marines to
get trained in cyber information operations and electromagnetic
spectrum.
And so what I would like to say, Congresswoman, is that
when you talk about the cyber world, we are talking about the
fight that starts now. We are in that fight right now. And so
we put together 13 of these cyber teams, we expect them to be
at FOC [full operational capability] in 2018, that is to give
us an offense and defense capability. But the most important
aspect of it is is that we are pushing those down to the Marine
expeditionary force level so that they can operate and function
and so we can train and prepare our Marine air-ground task
forces as they go out to be able to fight in that environment.
That environment is very dynamic, it is ever changing, and
it is extremely complicated. And so as we move forward there
are a couple of things that happen.
And I say thank you because you have given us the
authorization to stand up a three-star and so the Commandant is
standing up a Deputy Commandant for information operations in
that field so that we can continue to expand our capability and
also focus in on the challenges that we will have and prepare
us for the future threat.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you for that.
In the hearing at the full committee this morning which was
focused on the consequence of a continuing resolution, General
Neller highlighted an interaction that he had with a Marine who
specialized in cyber who asked him, and I quote, ``Sir, how can
you afford to keep me?'' That's extremely problematic. And
that's extremely concerning for members of this committee.
Can you talk about those challenges of maintaining Marines
with specialized skills, such as those in the cyber field, and
what options we can explore to retain them?
General Bailey. So I actually did hear that testimony this
morning and I heard the Commandant describe that situation. And
he said that basically we are going to establish the same
approach that we established with our special operators. And
one of the things that we are doing is to allow Marines to stay
in that field, to work in that field.
For example, because of how we started and the different
Marines that we pulled in to the particular MOS [military
occupational specialty], we really need the opportunity one, to
develop the field. It takes a tremendous amount of training and
schooling to get qualified in it.
And so we are going to have to do several things. We are
going to have to keep them in the billet, pay them their
different types of bonuses and programs that you can establish
so that you can keep the Marines in it, and allow the Marines
to work in that field, because what they want--they're just
like pilots, pilots want to fly.
Marines who are good in cyber want to work in cyber, but
the competition, as you know, is out there. And we are not just
competing against the other services, but we are competing
against all the other businesses that are needing cyber
expertise.
So that is just a couple of the things that we are going to
look towards to ensure that we can keep those Marines in that
field. It's a growing process and when you give Marines the
opportunity, they look forward to staying in that field and
working in that field. And then you back that up with schools,
jobs, and good command climate, they stay.
Ms. Stefanik. Absolutely. I think that increased
flexibility is the right direction, particularly when there are
opportunities outside of the military certainly within the
government broadly, but also in the private sector.
And we want to make sure that our best and brightest
continue to see opportunities in cyber within the Marines.
So thank you for that answer and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairwoman Elise Stefanik of the
Emerging Threats Subcommittee. She does a great job and we
appreciate that.
I was happy that she referenced earlier today with the
Joint Chiefs. And I want to commend each of you, you have
really continued making the points that are so important to
Chairman Mac Thornberry of where consistent funding be
established that indeed a long-term continuing resolution would
be a threat to our military personnel, our military families,
and a threat to readiness.
And with this, we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 5, 2017
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 5, 2017
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 5, 2017
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. McSALLY
General Bailey. The Marine Corps assumed receipt of FY17 Additional
Appropriations in May 2017 when the request for additional
appropriations was submitted. If funding was received after June 1,
2017 there would be the potential that some of the funding appropriated
would not be executed prior to October 1, 2017. [See page 15.]