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

                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018

        __________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                                  _________

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

                          KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky               PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      KEN CALVERT, California               BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                    TIM RYAN, Ohio
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama           MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                 HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
    full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
    committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

            Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, B G Wright,
          Adrienne Ramsay, Allison Deters, Megan Milam, Cornell Teague,
                  Collin Lee, Matthew Bower, and Sherry L. Young
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                    ________

                                                                       Page
      Testimony of Members of Congress..............................      1

      United States Pacific Command.................................    189

      U.S. Central Command..........................................    257

      U.S. European Command.........................................    281

     National Guard Bureau / Reserve Componets .....................    319

     Department of Defense..........................................    451

     Public Witness Statements.....................................     529

                                      ------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

      28-272                   WASHINGTON : 2018

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\          NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                   PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho            JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas          ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      KEN CALVERT, California              LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BARBARA LEE, California
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia                  TIM RYAN, Ohio
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas                  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas               DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    DEREK KILMER, Washington
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                 MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California         GRACE MENG, New York
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                 KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada               PETE AGUILAR, California
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
      ----------
      \1\}Chairman Emeritus

                       Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018

                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                        TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order.
        Good morning. The subcommittee will hold an open hearing
    during which Members of the House of Representatives will have
    the input and the opportunity to provide the subcommittee their
    input on how to address the challenges and needs facing our
    military.
        At no other time in history have we as a Nation faced such
    serious, complex, and growing threats to our national security.
    As Members of the Congress, it is our constitutional
    responsibility to provide for our Nation's defense. We must
    ensure that the brave men and women who protect us have the
    tools, training, and equipment they need.
        Mr. Visclosky, the committee's ranking member, and I are
    here today to hear your thoughts and ideas about how we can
    make sure the Department has what it needs to meet the
    challenges. Your input today will be of great benefit to the
    committee as we draft the fiscal year 2018 defense
    appropriation bill.
        At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Visclosky, the
    ranking member, for any opening comments he would like to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

        Mr. Visclosky. I thank the chairwoman.
        First of all, I want to thank the chair for holding this
    hearing. I do think it is vitally important at the outset,
    given the fact that we are going to have a supplemental due
    shortly, as well as a fiscal year 2018 budget submission in May
    to hear from our colleagues in advance. I also look forward to
    the hearing. I also appreciate the fact that I believe this is
    now the first hearing that I will share with the chairwoman and
    wish her luck in this endeavor and look forward to hearing from
    our witnesses throughout the day.
        Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Out of respect for members' time, we will strictly adhere
    to the 5-minute clock. The timer in front of me, this one right
    here, will change from green to yellow when you have 1 minute
    remaining to conclude your statement. Your full written
    statement will be made a part of the record.
        The gentlelady from Guam is recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

                     Summary Statement of Delegate Bordallo

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Chairman Granger, and
    Ranking Member Visclosky, and the members of the Defense
    Appropriations Subcommittee. And thank you for allowing me the
    time to address you this morning.
        I do very much appreciate the work that this subcommittee
    made in developing the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill.
    And I believe it makes many good investments in the defense of
    our country. And I thank the subcommittee for their support of
    some critical programs.
        Though it is difficult to make requests without a budget
    before us, I would like to take a few minutes to outline a few
    critical capabilities which I hope to see supported as the
    appropriations process for fiscal year 2018 moves forward.
        In particular, I would first like to note my appreciation
    for your inclusion of $9.5 million in fiscal year 2017
    appropriations bill for the reestablishment of drydocking
    capabilities in the western Pacific. This critical funding,
    which is a tiny fraction of the Navy ship repair account, will
    enable our forward deployed forces in the region and reduce our
    reliance on foreign ship repair. This is particularly important
    in a contested environment with the potential for limited
    access, so I very much appreciate the committee's support in
    appropriating at the authorized level for fiscal year 2017.
        Now moving forward, I do hope to continue to work together
    to ensure that the Navy is adequately resourced to operate and
    maintain their fleet in the western Pacific, especially given
    that 60 percent of the fleet is to be operating in the Pacific;
    60 percent. And the threat in our region, Madam Chairman and
    Ranking Member, is very, very real, and it grows more so every
    day. Funding this capability is essential to having a viable,
    forward deployed fleet.
        The second item I would like to raise is my support for
    full funding of the B-21 Raider program. This next-generation
    bomber will replace a sorely aging fleet that has provided us
    with long-range strike capabilities for generations. With an
    ability to strike anywhere in the world, it is the most
    versatile leg of the nuclear triad, and also provides a tested
    and proven conventional strike capability.
        Moving forward, especially at this stage of the acquisition
    program, it will be important to ensure adequate funding in
    order to avoid unnecessary and costly delays. On Guam, we
    recently saw the deployment to the Pacific of all three
    existing bomber airframes for the first time in history, and
    the continuous bomber presence at Anderson Air Force Base is a
    linchpin for America power projection in the region.
        And finally, Madam Chairman, I also want to briefly touch
    on the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration
    program. I have appreciated very much this committee's long-
    standing support to find resources to address the unfunded
    requirements of this program. The REPI program helps to stop
    encroachment at the U.S. military installations and training
    ranges across the country. There is a long and a growing list
    of projects that need funding, so I would ask the subcommittee
    to continue to address the unfunded requirements to address
    this backlog.
        And again, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, and other
    members, I thank you again for your time and your support. I
    truly appreciate it and the consideration of my testimony here
    today. And I yield back.
        [The written statement of Delegate Bordallo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for your testimony today and your
    continuing support. I enjoyed our visit there. Thank you very
    much.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania. Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        PENNSYLVANIA

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Thompson

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky. I want to take a couple seconds. I just had the
    opportunity to spend some time with the gentlelady from Guam
    and our Natural Resource chairman in Guam. I certainly want to
    support her request. It is very evident being there how that it
    really is the tip of the spear for us in terms of our defense.
    And good morning and thank you for the opportunity to share my
    priorities for fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations.
        As the father of an Army staff sergeant who has received
    the Purple Heart during combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom and a
    strong supporter of our Nation's defense programs, I appreciate
    the subcommittee's willingness to receive testimony from
    incoming members. This truly is a privilege and an honor to be
    before you this morning. I recognize the challenges placed
    before the subcommittee and I appreciate your ongoing
    commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Coast
    Guardsmen, and Reserve forces.
        For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to
    ensure that our military does not face a continued drawdown in
    force strength. This begins with ensuring that our military
    continues to have the tools and equipment to get the job done.
    And for this reason, I will be respectfully requesting funding
    for the C-130 in-flight propeller balancing system to be
    increased by $18 million from fiscal year 2017 levels. The
    system will improve fuel efficiency, increase readiness and
    mission availability, and reduce maintenance costs for our
    Nation's C-130 fleet.
        I also respectfully request full funding of the Columbia-
    class submarine program. As the Ohio-class submarines begin to
    retire in 2031, it is imperative that we fund their replacement
    to maintain a presence in the world. Supporting our troops when
    they return home from the front lines is just as important as
    providing them the tools that they need to defend our Nation.
        As a former healthcare professional with nearly 3 decades
    of experience, I would like to advocate for expanding
    telemedicine access for veterans and out Active Duty military.
    In light of recent technology advances, evolving telemedicine
    programs and the authority given to the Department of Defense
    by Congress in support of telemedicine, I respectfully request
    strong financial support for both the medical information
    technology development program and the medical technology
    development program within DOD defense health programs for
    fiscal year 2018.
        It is undeniable that those within the Department of
    Defense have demonstrated their willingness to improve the
    lives of the military members and civilians alike. Medical
    research conducted within the Department has led to lifesaving
    breakthroughs and the development of effective treatments for
    numerous conditions. In order for the Department to build on
    previous discoveries and maintain momentum in medical research
    fields, it is imperative that we provide adequate funding for
    vital research programs. These include the multiple sclerosis
    research program, the ALS research program, the breast cancer
    research program, the ovarian research program and the Peer
    Reviewed Orthopaedic Research Program. There is no doubt that
    making critical investments in medical research at the Federal
    level will improve the well-being of our Nation as a whole.
        Now, while we work to assist our servicemen and -women who
    are here with us, we must keep in mind the more than 80,000
    American citizens who served in the Vietnam war, the Korean
    war, and World War II who are still missing in action,
    according to the Department of Defense. For those who made the
    ultimate sacrifice, their families and loved ones deserve no
    less than our greatest efforts for their recovery. To continue
    attempts to recover our fallen heros overseas, diligent work
    planning and sufficient funding is necessary. To provide
    grieving families the opportunity for closure, I respectfully
    request that the subcommittee supports robust funding for the
    Defense POW/MIA office in the fiscal year 2018.
        In tandem with providing adequate support services to all
    our servicemen and -women, we must also recognize the value of
    encouraging innovation in the U.S. defense industrial base. The
    manufacturing technology program, also known as ManTech, is
    intended to improve the productivity and responsiveness of the
    U.S. defense industrial base by funding the development
    optimization and transition of providing manufacturing
    technologies to key Naval suppliers. And specifically my
    district, the Pennsylvania State University's Applied Research
    Laboratory manages two ManTech centers of excellence: The
    Institute of Manufacturing and Sustainment Technologies and the
    Electro-Optics Center. The work accomplished by these
    partnerships includes basic and applied research and technology
    demonstrations and facilitation of technology
    commercialization. I respectfully encourage the committee to
    look favorably at this request.
        And finally, I would like to register my support for a
    diverse energy mix in the American military installations
    abroad, including energy domestically sourced. If there are
    viable, cost effective ways to utilize American energy on our
    bases abroad, I fully recommend that we pursue those avenues.
    And specifically, I recommend the United States implement
    strategies to consider that all energy needs acquired by the
    Kaiserslautern Military Community in the Federal Republic of
    Germany be sourced domestically within the United States.
        Really again, once again, it is a privilege and honor to be
    before you this morning, and thank you for your leadership that
    you are providing.
        [The written statement of Congressman Thompson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman
    raising the issue of the industrial base, particularly ManTech.
    You are not the only member that has certainly brought it to
    the committee's attention, but appreciate your concern. I also
    appreciate the fact that we have been joined by four of our
    colleagues during your testimony. It was compelling. Thank you
    very much.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Oklahoma. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        OKLAHOMA

                  Summary Statement of Congressman Bridenstine

        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    ranking member. I have five specific requests that I will get
    right into.
        First, I would request that this subcommittee appropriate
    $10 million for Air Force weather service or weather system
    follow-on RDT&E funds to fund the commercial weather data pilot
    program. Congress formerly established this program in the
    fiscal year 2017 NDAA. The Appropriations Committee provided $5
    million for the program in the fiscal year 2017 defense
    appropriations bill we just passed yesterday. So thank you for
    that.
        The reason we need, in my estimation, a commercial purchase
    of data for weather for the Department of Defense is threefold.
    Number one, it distributes the architecture. Currently, we have
    massive satellites that could be an easy target for the enemies
    of the United States. If we start purchasing commercial data,
    it very quickly distributes the architecture. In other words,
    there are more satellites that complicate the targeting
    solution for the enemy.
        I am not suggesting that we need to cannibalize any of our
    existing architecture at all. In fact, the program did continue
    to go forward, but we need to augment that with additional
    commercial data simply to distribute the architecture and
    complicate the targeting solution and lower the orbit for the
    enemies of the United States. That is number one.
        Number two, it also spreads the cost across the private
    sector. These constellations are launching not because they
    want to serve the Department of Defense; they are launching
    because they are serving the agricultural industry, the
    transportation industry, the entertainment industry, the
    shipping industry. And so what we ought to do as a government
    is be one of many customers of this private commercial weather
    data and feed our numerical weather models.
        Finally, when we do this, we get more data, better data, in
    some cases, more resilient data and, certainly, more rapid
    refresh of the data, which all improves the weather models for
    the warfighters in theaters. So I think it is important that we
    fund $10 million in Air Force weather service or weather system
    follow-on RDT&E money.
        Second, this subcommittee should appropriate at least $50
    million in Air Force wide band global SATCOM RDT&E for the Air
    Force satellite communications pilot program. The fiscal year
    2015 NDAA created this pilot program to fund demonstrations of
    commercial SATCOM services which offer order of magnitude
    increases in capability. The Defense Authorization and
    Appropriations Committee have strongly supported this program.
    This Appropriations Committee included $10 million for it
    within the fiscal year 2017 bill.
        The reason this is important, as a warfighter we have
    bifurcated architectures. We lease commercial SATCOM
    capabilities from the private sector at the same time that we
    are building our own government owned and operated systems.
    Government systems use X-band, Ka-band upper. Commercial
    systems use C-band, Ka-band lower, as well as Ku-band. The
    challenge here is they don't work together. We need a single
    integrated system. We have an analysis of alternatives that is
    currently being prioritized right now by the Department of
    Defense to bring these architectures together. And we need
    order of magnitude, generational leaps, and capability that
    commercial can bring to the table.
        That brings me to my third request, which is protected
    tactical service. In this bifurcated environment that we live
    in, commercial SATCOM is not as resilient as it otherwise could
    be. It brings a tremendous amount of capability in throughput
    and data, hundreds of gigabits per second of throughput, but it
    is not protected. It is not frequency hopping for antijam
    capabilities. In many cases, it is not encrypted. So what we
    have to do to bring the architectures together is fund the
    protected tactical service so we get the wave forms and the
    modems necessary for commercial operators to be able to provide
    the warfighters some level of protection. So sticking with
    this, we need to fund the protected tactical service.
        Fourth, this subcommittee should support the President's
    likely budget request--I say likely because it is not
    guaranteed--for enterprise ground services. We need to make
    sure that our systems are not bifurcated. So when you think of
    communications, GPS, missile warning and weather, these ground
    systems are not able to receive and transmit each other's data.
    What this means is that everything is stovepiped and it
    prevents us from being able to create a single integrated
    operating picture for the combatant commanders in theater. So
    we need to fund the enterprise ground services program that I
    hope will be in the President's budget request.
        Finally, this subcommittee should appropriate at least $30
    million in Air Force RDT&E money for the space test program to
    fund responsive launch operational demonstrations and missions.
    The Appropriations Committee included $15 million in the fiscal
    year 2017 appropriations for this purpose. The reason this is
    important, constellations are growing, electronics are getting
    smaller, we are seeing a whole lot more activity being launched
    into low Earth orbit. We are talking about launch manifest
    growing exponentially and these launches are going overseas.
    The Department of Defense is now dependent on commercial
    satellites, commercial capabilities, and these are growing
    rapidly. And our launches now are going overseas because we
    don't have the infrastructure here. So that would be my final
    request.
        [The written statement of Congressman Bridenstine follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
    information.
        Each person has 5 minutes to speak. At the 4-minute time,
    your yellow light will come on, that gives you one more minute.
    However, we have your written testimony. So if you are not able
    to testify and finish that in 5 minutes, we have it written
    here.
        Mr. Visclosky, did you have something?
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
        OF PENNSYLVANIA

                  Summary Statement of Congressman Fitzpatrick

        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Good morning. I would like to start by
    thanking Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and
    members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. And I am
    here today on behalf of Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional
    District in their support for Department of Defense funds be
    allocated to a comprehensive health study and remediation
    effort of public and private wells contaminated by
    perflourinated compounds, namely PFOA and PFOS.
        Nearly 70,000 Pennsylvanians may have been exposed to
    levels of PFOA and PFOS exceeding the lifetime health advisory
    level set by the EPA. These chemicals have been reported in
    public and private drinking wells at and around the former
    Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster and former Naval Air
    Station Joint Reserve Base in Horsham, as well as the Horsham
    Air Guard Station. These contaminants have also been found in
    communities surrounding over 600 military installations
    nationwide. PFOA has heavily impacted communities such as
    Hoosick Falls, New York, as well.
        PFOS, PFOA, and other emerging contaminants are unregulated
    compounds being sampled for the first time in public water
    systems. The EPA uses unregulated contaminant monitoring rule
    to collect data for contaminates suspected to be present in
    drinking water. In the summer of 2014, as a result of the EPA
    effort to test for emerging contaminants, concentrations of
    PFOS and PFOA were found to exceed the EPA's provisional health
    advisory levels of 400 parts per trillion in several onsite
    monitoring wells. The U.S. Navy and Air National Guard, in
    conjunction with the EPA, expanded groundwater sampling in my
    district to include private wells and public offsite wells. In
    May of 2016, the EPA released a lifetime health advisory of 70
    parts per trillion on the chemicals. Since then, 22 public
    wells and over 140 private wells have been shut down due to
    high levels of PFOS and PFOAs.
        The military does not dispute its responsibility for the
    well contamination in Horsham, Warrington, and Warminster. And
    it is suspected that high levels of PFOS and PFOA originated
    from firefighting foams used in the Naval and Air National
    Guard bases in the 1970s. The Navy has spent at least $19
    million and the Air National Guard has spent at least $8.3
    million in remediation efforts, which includes the installation
    of granular activated carbon filtration systems in public
    wells, bottled water for residents with private wells, pump
    connection to public water systems, and paying for replacement
    water from neighboring public water systems. That said, the
    Department of Defense should work with Centers for Disease
    Control and the Pennsylvania Department of Health to conduct a
    comprehensive study related to the long-term health impacts of
    both PFOA and PFOS. My constituents have a right to safe, clean
    drinking water and they deserve to know if PFOS and PFOA have
    compromised their long-term health.
        I urge you to include funding for the Department of Defense
    to conduct long-term health study on the impacts of these two
    chemicals, PFOS and PFOA. These studies will aid the Federal
    Government, in conjunction with State and local agencies, to
    reverse the contamination and protect the health and welfare of
    residents. Additionally, I urge the committee to appropriate
    funding that allows the Department of Defense to fund cleanup
    and remediation of PFOS and PFOA.
        While the U.S. Navy and Air National Guard have worked in
    conjunction with affected municipalities in supplying clean
    drinking water to residents, the decision for public water
    suppliers to purchase uncontaminated water from the surrounding
    communities resulted in the water customer bearing the cost.
        Again, I would like to thank you for your time and
    consideration. A low cost, common-sense study will go a long
    way in providing Americans critical information about the
    impact that these unregulated chemicals may have on our health,
    and we look forward to working with you and this committee in
    accomplishing that goal. And I thank you for your time.
        [The written statement of Congressman Fitzpatrick follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. And thank you for your
    testimony.
        We have two others that signed up for this time who are not
    here right now, they haven't come in yet. So we will give a few
    minutes to see about that.
        Are there any questions on this testimony?
        Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Texas, welcome. We will take you now,
    Roger Williams.
        I recognize the gentleman from Texas. Welcome. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. ROGER WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        TEXAS

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Williams

        Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Visclosky, members of the subcommittee. I thank you for
    allowing me to testify before you today about some of my
    priorities for the fiscal year 2018 Department of Defense
    appropriations bill.
        But first, Madam Chair, I would like to congratulate you on
    the chairmanship of this prestigious subcommittee. I think the
    funding of our Nation's military and national security could
    not be in better hands or more capable hands, and I am proud to
    call you my friend. So congratulations.
        The single most important duty for Congress is to provide
    for our national defense. Our troops deserve to have the
    resources they need to be the very best in the world and to
    protect our country and our way of life. As a Member of
    Congress whose district includes Fort Hood, I know that the
    great place is the gold standard for the Army, the Department
    of Defense, and our Nation's overall national security posture.
        It is my hope that this subcommittee will aggressively fund
    our military personnel and pay to cover the base requirements,
    as well as overseas contingency operations and global war on
    terror requirements. I oppose any troop reductions and fully
    support an additional pay raise also for our troops.
        I want to express my support for the F-35. As the only
    fifth generation aircraft in production, I would urge the
    subcommittee to support an investment in F-35 production
    tooling to ensure that the program can support full rate
    production of 80 F-35As, 36 F-35Bs and 30 F-35Cs in 2021.
        In order to help address the critical need to maintain air
    superiority and support a ramp up to full rate production, I
    urge the committee to support a production ramp of 60 F-35As,
    24 F-35Bs and 12 F-35Cs in fiscal year 2018. This production
    ramp would continue to restore the previously planned F-35
    procurement to address readiness of the fleet and ensure as
    more aircraft become operational that the correct spares are
    available. And I encourage an investment of spares that would
    support $272 million to improve spares performance and another
    $562 million for additional spares procurement in the fiscal
    year 2018 budget.
        Readiness investment in spares is required to ensure that
    we can keep these fifth generation aircraft flying. The program
    supports more than 1,400 suppliers, more than 45,000 direct
    jobs, and another 125,000 indirect jobs in the United States.
        Mr. Williams. I also support the third multiyear
    procurement for the F-22 Osprey. It is my hope that the
    committee consider the $1.25 billion already saved by the first
    two multiyear procurements over year-to-year procurement
    pricing.
        Identified requirements for additional aircraft by all of
    the services should be incorporated into this multiyear
    procurement plan to the maximum extent possible so that
    aircraft's unit cost is the lowest possible. Not only does this
    contribute to further savings for the U.S. taxpayer, but also
    makes the aircraft more affordable to our foreign partners that
    is helping sustain our critically important aerospace
    industrial base and U.S. jobs.
        Madam Chair, our country is facing unprecedented threats
    here at home and abroad from radical Islamic terrorists,
    Russia, North Korea, and China, to name a few. As you make the
    difficult funding decisions for fiscal year 2018 Department of
    Defense appropriations bill, it is my hope that you ensure we
    have the strongest and most effective military to keep our
    country safe.
        Thank you again for allowing me to testify before you. May
    God bless you, may God bless the United States of America and
    our military. Thank you.
        [The written statement of Congressman Williams follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
        CAROLINA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Wilson

        Mr. Wilson. Fellow Members of Congress, what an honor to be
    here. This is a pleasant surprise, Madam Chair, for you to be
    here and equally to see what a stellar bipartisan membership
    you have. So I am just very honored to be in everyone's
    presence today.
        I am grateful for the opportunity to meet with you. First,
    I would like to thank Chairwoman Kay Granger for her leadership
    as chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Defense. As we face limited resources, I am especially grateful
    to the chairwoman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee
    for advocating on behalf of our national security.
        I am speaking today as both a Member of Congress from South
    Carolina's Second Congressional District and also as chairman
    of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. The
    Second Congressional District is home to Fort Jackson, the
    largest initial entry training facility of the U.S. Army. Fort
    Jackson expertly trains tens of thousands of soldiers each
    year, approximately 53 percent of the Army's basic combat
    training load and 56 percent of women entering the Army.
        The base also trains thousands of soldiers in their
    adjutant general, finance, postal, and chaplain schools.
    Additionally, Fort Jackson supports thousands of Active Duty
    military, civilian employees, military family members, and
    veteran services. And I know personally as a former member of
    the Guard I trained at Fort Jackson. I have three sons in the
    Army Guard who have trained at Fort Jackson. And so it is a
    facility that I know firsthand how important it is.
        There is no question that the Second Congressional District
    is possibly impacted by servicemembers stationed at Fort
    Jackson, just as there is no question we uphold our reputation
    as a strong military friendly community. I encourage you to
    continue your support of the unique missions at Fort Jackson
    and across South Carolina.
        As chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on
    Readiness, I am grateful for the opportunity to ensure our
    soldiers, sailors, and airmen and marines have the training,
    equipment, and resources they need to complete their mission.
    That means, hopefully, appropriating the Thornberry-McCain
    proposal of $640 billion to defense spending so we can begin
    the much needed resourcing of our troops.
        As chairman of Readiness, I have heard testimony from each
    branch outlining the negative impacts of sequestration and the
    material effect it has had on each branch. We currently have
    the smallest Air Force since it was created in 1947, the
    smallest Navy since 1917, and the smallest Army since before
    World War II. Yet today, we are facing growing threats or
    capabilities from Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and Islamic
    terrorists. The facts are clear, for too long we have asked our
    military to do too much with too few resources, forcing
    difficult decisions and delaying critical maintenance
    priorities. This is not sustainable and directly limits our
    military's ability in current and future conflicts.
        I appreciate the President's promotion of additional
    personnel. I respectfully urge the chairwoman and committee to
    support a level of funding that will adequately provide for our
    military and national defense. Threats around the world are
    increasing, sadly, as our military funding has degraded through
    the harmful policy of defense sequestration. We must change
    course to promote peace through strength.
        The first priority of the Federal Government is to do and
    provide for common defense, to do for us what we cannot do for
    ourselves. The government I urge, therefore, support for the
    Armed Services Committee Chairman Mack Thornberry and also
    Senate Chairman John McCain's call for the defense budget of
    $640 billion for fiscal year 2018.
        I would like to thank everyone here for your attention and
    your service on behalf of the American people. I have actually
    seen it firsthand visiting with our personnel in Jordan with
    Congressman Cuellar. And I know what extraordinary people there
    are here. So thank you for your service.
        [The written statement of Congressman Wilson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The subcommittee welcomes the gentlewoman from Arizona. You
    are recognized for 5 minutes. The lights in front of us will
    show, when it goes from green to yellow, that means you have 1
    more minute.
        Ms.McSally. Great. Thank you.
        Ms.Granger. Thank you so much.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MARTHA McSALLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ARIZONA

                   Summary Statement of Congresswoman McSally

        Ms. McSally. Thank you Chairman Granger and Ranking Member
    Visclosky and members of the committee. Thanks for inviting me
    here today.
        I would like to open by asking for your continued support
    for the A-10 Warthog. I was an A-10 pilot and I commanded the
    354th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in
    Tucson, Arizona. I have flown 325 combat missions myself in the
    A-10. I can tell you firsthand when the American troops are on
    the ground, under fire, on the move, often in very complex
    circumstances, the sound of the A-10 overhead is a sound of
    them being able to live to fight for another day and get home
    to their families. It is a very important asset for our troops,
    and we have got to keep it flying until we have a proven tested
    replacement for it. And I appreciate this committee's support
    in the past and in the bill that we passed yesterday for this
    critical asset.
        Only the A-10 has the lethality, the loiter time, the
    survivability to provide closer support and combat search and
    rescue. It is another important mission that often gets
    overlooked. If a pilot has been shot down or we have somebody
    isolated, it is the A-10 that shows up to provide locating the
    individual, communicating, protecting them, running the entire
    search and rescue operation, to include escorting the
    helicopters in to pick them up. And that often gets overlooked
    to the closer support mission. There is no other asset in our
    inventory in any of the services that provide this capability,
    which is a strategic capability to keep our covenant that we
    are going to bring our troops home if they are ever shot down
    in harm's way.
        So again, we have got to keep this asset flying. We have
    already put the equivalent of four A-10 squadrons in the
    boneyard over the last several years. We are down to only nine
    remaining, which is four Active Duty and five in the Guard and
    Reserves. And these squadrons are smaller than the ones we have
    had before. The squadron I commanded had 24 A-10s. The current
    squadrons, most of them have 18. So we just have a smaller
    capability, and we are really at the floor with 283 airplanes
    in the inventory and we believe that that is where it needs to
    stay.
        Right now, we have got the A-10s. The squadron I commanded
    is over in Turkey and is kicking butt in the fight against
    ISIS. They are going to be exceeding all records from the
    history of that squadron in weapons employment in that critical
    counterterrorism fight. They are in South Korea providing
    critical anti-armor capability, right there south of the DMZ.
    They were deployed for the European Reassurance Initiative last
    year. Again, first time since we have had the A-10, and we have
    no A-10s in the European theater. So now, they are deploying
    back to work with our allies in the face of Russian aggression.
    And last year, they were also deployed to the Philippines. So
    that's four different unique theaters. And again, with only 4,
    8, 10 Active Duty squadrons left that are operational, and we
    really are at the absolute minimum capability and we would like
    to keep it there.
        The fiscal year 2017--fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017
    NDAA and DOD appropriations keeps a minimum of 283 A-10s
    flying, which includes 171 operational. That then adds training
    and test requirements and, again, this is really a minimum
    capability.
        In the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, we also require a side-by-
    side comparative test between the A-10 and the F-35. In close
    air support and combat search and rescue, and say we can't
    retire one more A-10 until we are done with that and we get a
    full report to Congress. Now, let me say I am a strong advocate
    of F-35, I love the F-35. We need a fifth generation fighter
    with that capability. As an airman, I understand what it is
    going to bring to air superiority. But I believe we need both
    of these capabilities, this high end F-35, fifth generation
    fighter, plus the ability of an attack airplane like the A-10,
    and we shouldn't have to choose between the two.
        So the support that we have gotten from this committee in
    the past includes also a very critical requirement for
    upgrading the wings of the A-10. In order to keep it flying, we
    have got to rebuild some of the wings structurally so they can
    keep flying well into the 2030s, which the Air Force has
    finally agreed that they want to keep it flying into the 2030s.
    Only 173 of the 283 have had their wings rebuilt. So there is
    110 left in the fleet that haven't been rewinged. And if we do
    nothing, they are going to start being grounded in static
    displays. So we have got to get that going again.
        Now, the bill we passed last night has $20 million in it to
    plant the seed for us to continue with this rewinging. We had
    $100 million in the original bill, it was $20 million
    yesterday, but I think that is a good start to show, hey, we
    are serious about keeping this asset flying and so we have got
    to continue to invest in that. And I appreciate this
    committee's support so that we can rewing the remainder of the
    110.
        I know I am running out of time, but I would also like to
    share my support for the Tomahawk, the AMRAAM, the SM-3
    missiles. These missiles are developed in my district at
    Raytheon. They are critical for our homeland defense. Tomahawk
    is often the first missiles we fire into combat zones. And when
    I was running counterterrorism operations in Africa, often it
    was our weapon of choice to be able to--when Intel came
    together for us to be able to take out the bad guys. So
    continued funding for those critical missile programs is
    something I would really appreciate.
        Also important for our troops and all our services is the
    electronic warfare. The electronic proving grounds is at Fort
    Huachuca--and I know I am running out of time--so please
    continue your support for EW and also remotely piloted
    aircraft. So thanks for the opportunity to testify before you
    today and for all the work you do. And thanks for hearing my
    considerations.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman McSally follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. Thank you for your service,
    first of all. Thank you for the good job you are doing here in
    Congress. And we have your written testimony also for the
    record as we move through the bill. Thank you.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Appreciate your being here.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. PATRICK MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        PENNSYLVANIA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Meehan

        Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking
    Member Visclosky. That is a tough act to follow, as you all
    know that. We have great respect for my colleague and her
    service. And I thank you for the work that you are doing on
    this committee along with your colleagues.
        I came before the subcommittee to discuss two particular
    rotocraft programs that are critical to our warfighters and to
    maintaining the strength of the American defense industrial
    base. The V-22 Osprey is the expeditionary platform of choice
    for the Marine Corps and continues to be a workhorse for our
    Air Force Special Operations Command.
        The V-22's one-of-a-kind capability allows for mission
    flexibility and enable our warfighters to operate safely in the
    most austere and dangerous environments. I am pleased the Navy
    will join the ranks of V-22 operators as it begins procurement
    of CMV-22s this year for its carrier on board delivery mission.
        It has come to my attention that the fiscal year 2018
    budget will request a third multiyear procurement contracting
    authority. And as you well know, these longer contracts allow
    for stable--proven programs like the V-22 to promote supplier
    and manufacturing efficiency and take advantage of economies of
    scale and encourage investment and cost saving initiatives.
        The previous 2 multiyear contracts with the V-22 program
    saved taxpayers over $1 billion. And while protecting taxpayer
    dollars, these contracts have also ensured that our warfighters
    have the resources necessary to carry--to protect our Nation's
    interests. It is for these reasons why I encourage the Air
    Force to take advantage of the multiyear procurement contract
    to procure additional CV-22s for its long-range personnel
    recovery mission. The Air Force leadership has suggested that
    CV-22s make sense for the mission because of the superior range
    in speed, and adding them to the multiyear contract will save
    taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
        The budget should also reflect the development efforts to
    create a common configuration for the diverse MV-22 models. The
    fiscal year 2018 program will improve fleet readiness and
    insert technology as M-22s upgrade from block B configuration
    to a block C configuration.
        And as the subcommittee considers the totality of the V-22
    Osprey program, I would ask that you support the multiyear
    procurement and common configuration effort and encourage the
    Air Force to add CV-22s in its multiyear procurement contract.
        I would also like to discuss the Army's CH-47 Chinook and
    the U.S. Special Operations Command MH-47 variant. Both the CH-
    47 and the MH-47 aircraft continue to perform well in combat
    theaters. They fly over three times the normal peacetime
    operating tempo, while maintaining readiness rates that are
    above the Army standard. And fiscal year 2017 is the last year
    of the current 5-year procurement contract for the Chinook,
    which has saved U.S. Taxpayers another nearly $1 billion. And
    due to budget constraints, only 22 aircraft were requested in
    the President's fiscal year 2017 budget. This is five fewer
    aircraft than were called for in the multiyear. And while I am
    grateful for the subcommittee generously adding five Chinooks
    to restore cuts in the fiscal year 2017 budget, unfortunately
    they are not in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill that
    was filed on March 2nd. And I would respectfully request the
    subcommittee consider adding them in 2018.
        And while we do no have the President's 2018 defense budget
    yet, it is anticipated that we will request 13 aircraft: Nine
    CH-47s for the Army and four MH-47s for SOCOM. The Army's
    invested funding in a block II modernization plan to improve
    capability and increase commonality between variants.
        As the committee considers the Chinook program, I encourage
    you to support the budget request for the procurement of the
    additional 13 aircraft as well as block H modernization
    efforts. These two priorities, the V-22 Osprey and the CH-47
    Chinook will help the warfighter as well as workers that supply
    the manpower, parts, and expertise to build such capable
    aircraft. I will support a fiscal year 2018 budget that
    reflects the importance to our Armed Forces that these
    priorities can provide.
        I thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify.
        [The written statement of Congressman Meehan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you very much
    for your testimony. We have written as well as what you said
    today.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from
    California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JIMMY PANETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Panetta

        Mr. Panetta. Thank you very much, Chairman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky. Good morning. I hope I don't disappoint you
    this morning. I am not actually talking about hardware,
    military hardware, but I am talking about something that I feel
    is just as important, and that is the education of our military
    members.
        I represent the central coast of California. You may know
    it for its beautiful environment or its bountiful agriculture,
    but also it actually has a booming defense presence as well.
    Although for most of the 20th century, that area was known for
    Fort Ord and its fighting 7th Infantry. But now, rather than
    being known for training, how to drive a tank or fly a plane or
    shoot a gun, which we still do at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp
    Roberts there, but we are known for our military training and
    how to speak a foreign language, cyber warfare, fly a drone,
    and to be leaders in the 21st century of warfare.
        We are known for our military institutions, like the Navy
    postgraduate school, which I will here on out refer to as NPS,
    and the Defense Language Institute, which I will also refer to
    from now on as DLI in my comments. These are part of 13 Defense
    equities that are located in my district. And it is an industry
    that leads to an employment of over 15,000 people and generates
    more than $1.3 billion for the local economy.
        So today, that is why I am here, to respectfully ask all of
    you to include report language to ensure that any new BRAC
    round captures the intellectual capacity of installations in my
    district, like NPS and DOI.
        Previously, my predecessor, Congressman Sam Farr, made
    these same types of requests that are consistent with
    Representative Adam Smith's bill H.R. 753. That is a bill that
    is cosponsored by Ranking Member Visclosky. In that bill, I
    would like to highlight section 6, which defines military value
    criteria as ``the ability to support educational requirements
    that enhance the success of members of the Armed Forces in
    their military career fields and the impact on operational
    readiness of the total force of the Department, including the
    impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.''
        As you know, the COBRA models give weight to bases that
    have traditional military assets, like runaways and hangars.
    But there is not any established criteria on how to quantify
    intellectual capacity. Today, the 21st century military force
    must focus on DOD educational institutions because it is that
    type of education and training that I believe are integral to
    our Nation's security and our Nation's military readiness.
        The Navy postgraduate school is a prime example of that
    type of education to prepare our future leaders. It has a
    foreign affairs graduate school, it provides training in cyber
    warfare and how to fly drones and about satellites as well. It
    is clear that when those students graduate, they are prepared
    to lead in the future of warfare.
        Another critical part of the NPS education is the center
    for civil missile relations. That is a place where the focus is
    on relationships with other nations, including enhancing
    democratic civil-military relations, supporting defense reform,
    and teaching institution building, peace building operations,
    and how to combat terrorism. I have no doubt that an investment
    in the NPS and similar types of institutions is a prime
    investment, not only in our military, but in our civil military
    relations around the world.
        Having served with the Special Forces unit in Afghanistan
    as a Naval intelligence officer, I know how important advanced
    education and foreign language training is to doing our duties
    and carrying out our mission. Students at the Defense Language
    Institute, DLI, are not only taught how to be proficient in a
    number of languages, but the school teaches them to understand
    the cultural and regional nuances of a duty assignment.
        Two weeks ago, I had the fortunate opportunity to visit DLI
    and was given my first command briefing. But I have to say that
    the highlight of that visit was the time I spent in a classroom
    with six students in their Farsi language class. And it was
    unbelievable that in the short period of time that these six
    students, who they did not look Middle Eastern, they were from
    Ohio and Florida and California, but what was amazing to see is
    how comfortable they were in speaking that language. It was
    unbelievable, and it actually gave me a lot of hope. And I hope
    it gives you hope in our military personnel and their ability
    to carry out their mission.
        Now, on a separate topic, I know how difficult military
    service can be, not only to a servicemember but on his family.
    As I said, I served in Afghanistan, but I was a reservist who
    was mobilized and deployed for a yearlong assignment, and it is
    nothing compared to the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen
    that I saw and met who were on multiple deployments and
    separated from their family multiple times for multiple months
    at a time. That is why I will be submitting to you bill
    language that expands the pool of qualified marriage and family
    therapists in order to increase access to mental health
    providers for our Active Duty military personnel.
        As you know, a great deal of education and training goes
    into getting our servicemembers ready to serve and deploy
    anywhere in the world. Based on education and training that
    takes place at installations like the NPS and the DLI, I am
    confident, and you should be confident, that investments not
    only in our military hardware and training but in the education
    of our military members can only make us more prepared and
    ultimately more safe.
        Thank you, and I look forward to working with you as we
    develop the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill.
        [The written statement of Congressman Panetta follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. Thanks for testifying today
    and thank you for your service. It is very helpful that we have
    so many who have served, and so they can speak from experience
    about what is needed now. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Panetta. Understood, ma'am. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Rhode Island. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        RHODE ISLAND

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Langevin

        Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking
    Member Visclosky and members for the committee, for providing
    me this opportunity to testify before you on matters of
    importance and priority to Rhode Island and the Nation as a
    whole. I serve as a senior member of the House Armed Services
    Committee, so I wish to bring several matters before you today
    as you formulate the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriation
    bill.
        First, one of my highest priorities is ensuring robust
    funding for several programs under the Defense health program,
    specifically Spinal Cord Injury Research Program, or SCIRP as
    it is known. SCIRP was established by Congress under the
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program to advance
    research innovative technologies to regenerate and repair
    damaged spinal cords, as well as improve rehabilitative
    therapies. Studies have identified a marked increase in the
    rate of combat related spine trauma among casualties in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, and the incidents of spinal injuries
    among combat casualties in the global war on terrorism are
    among the highest in American military medical history.
        Research into spinal cord injury treatment is producing a
    wealth of discoveries that are making the repair and
    regeneration of nerves in the spinal cord in particular a
    potentially not only likely but attainable goal. Major
    improvements in emergency and acute care have improved overall
    survival rates. However, the devastating nature of these
    injuries imparts substantial disability, borne by wounded
    servicemembers, their families, and the American healthcare
    system.
        Remarkable advancements in treatment are now ripe for
    further development, including clinical trials, but these next
    steps will only be achieved if we continue our support for the
    program through robust funding and larger individual research
    grant awards.
        Second, we must ensure, on another topic, that we continue
    to support vital submarine programs at the highest levels
    possible, particularly the Virginia class, Virginia payload
    module, moored training ship, and Columbia class programs, all
    of which maintain our dominance in the undersea domain and
    provide the day-to-day nuclear deterrent as part of the triad.
        As you know, the Columbia class SSBN program is the Navy's
    highest acquisition priority and is being designed by our
    Nation's best and brightest to have a longer service life,
    better operational availability, and better survivability than
    its predecessors, all at a reasonable cost and with the most
    advanced capabilities available.
        The need is urgent, members of the committee. The current
    Ohio class force will begin retirement in 2027 and must be
    replaced. The Columbia class program is out of margin in its
    timeline, and we must continue to support this program at the
    highest levels possible lest we fall behind schedule and suffer
    cost overruns.
        For this reason, it is vital the committee support advanced
    procurement funds for these programs to support acquisition of
    long lead time material and advance manufacturing efforts so
    that we can maintain the on-time deliveries of our submarines
    to support our Navy's operational needs and minimize the
    projected shortfalls of fast attack submarines starting in the
    mid-2020s.
        Third, I urge your support for the rapid development,
    prototyping, and fielding of new and advanced technologies. New
    tools are being deployed at record speed, on a larger scale,
    and with a cost-effectiveness that will exploit our enduring
    advantages over our competitors. We never want to send our
    warfighters into a fair fight, and it is these advanced
    technologies that make sure that our warfighters continue to be
    effective and save.
        Technologies such as directed energy, hypersonics,
    electronic warfare, and autonomous systems are truly game-
    changing tools for our arsenal. And these technologies are at
    the forefront of the third offset strategy. Too often, capable
    improvement directed energy weapon systems languish in
    perpetual research and development. As these systems reach
    their maturity and risk mitigation techniques are applied, we
    must provide our military with tactical and strategic
    advantages wherever and whenever possible.
        Finally, as we have seen over the past decade, cyber
    intrusions into American networks and systems have become more
    prevalent and more deleterious than ever before. I have been
    encouraged by the Department of Defense's efforts to develop a
    unified cybersecurity strategy and solidify cyberspace doctrine
    in order to protect our Nation against the many threats that we
    face today. The Department is well positioned to capitalize on
    these activities, thanks to the recent elevation of U.S. Cyber
    Command to its own combatant command as well as its Cyber
    Mission Force development. Great strides have been made to
    strengthen their persistent training environment for our
    service branches so that they have more opportunities to put
    fingers to keyboard in realistic conflict scenarios, but we
    must continue to fund this effort.
        While joint exercises such as cyber guard and cyber flag
    are critical in training our cyber warriors, we must ensure
    there are more opportunities to train for the missions yet to
    come. These investments deserve our continued support and we
    must work tirelessly to ensure that the Department of Defense
    resourced appropriately to defend against adversarial threats.
        So let me close by saying, I want to thank you very much
    for receiving my testimony and taking my request into
    consideration for fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill.
    These investments are critical in providing for our collective
    national security and I encourage their inclusion.
        [The written statement of Congressman Langevin follows:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for being with us and thank you for
    your words. We have a written copy of your testimony. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Hanabusa.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentlelady from Hawaii.
    Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. It will show on this
    light green meaning speak. When it goes to yellow it means you
    have got one more minute. Glad to have you here. Thank you.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        HAWAII

                  Summary Statement of Congresswoman Hanabusa

        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
        Chairwoman Granger--I don't see our ranking member--and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before you today. I assume that my
    written testimony will be part of the record and for your
    consideration.
        As you know, I am the Congresswoman for the Congressional
    District 1 from the State of Hawaii, which means all the
    services are located in my district. It is an amazing
    situation, 17 miles will have everything in one place.
        One of the interesting things that has happened since the
    releasing of our statement is the fact that the President has
    now said that he is calling for an increase of $54 billion,
    albeit unspecified at this time, in defense spending. Everyone
    agrees, especially those of us in Hawaii, that the increase is
    needed; however, the question is how.
        One of the most critical points for myself is that the
    pivot to Asia Pacific continues to remain foremost and a
    concern of all of us and one that we would put our money where
    our mouth is. There is no question whether people are willing
    to say it openly or not, Russia, China, North Korea are major
    concerns and they are all in the Asia Pacific.
        One of, I believe, our commitments in terms of the FSA,
    which the Department of the Navy has conducted, is the fact
    that we are in the need of building a fleet. However, one of
    the things that we all tend to forget is that in building the
    fleet, we must have people who can maintain it. So it is
    paramount for us to look at the health, welfare of our public
    shipyards. I don't think there is any question that the public
    shipyards and our employees there, we must covet them and we
    must always have them ready so that we don't have the ups and
    downs that we face with the budgetary constraints. They are the
    backbone for all of us so we must remain committed to them.
        We know that the plan is that 60 percent of our maritime
    force will be in Asia Pacific. I have said it constantly: Asia
    Pacific is an air and seapower. I think that, with all due
    respect for those on the East Coast, you don't quite understand
    how large the Pacific is. The AOR of the PACOM is 55 percent of
    the Earth's surface. You have the three greatest economies of
    the world, and almost 50 percent of the population is in that
    area of the world. That is why we must remain focused on the
    Asia Pacific pivot.
        We must keep healthy the PACOM headquarters, which is
    located also in my district. And we ask that consideration be
    given for the USARPAC 4-star command, because it is a great
    statement for our allies in the region that we in fact are
    committed to that. USARPAC is U.S. Army Pacific.
        We must also be very receptive and able to respond to our
    allies' issues. One of the most successful and coveted roles
    that we play in Asia Pacific is in the area of HADR, and we
    must also continue to remain committed to do that. That is
    where we are welcome in all regions of the Pacific.
        We also have to, basically, stay very true to our
    environmental remediation and protection. You may be aware of
    this, but one of the things that we face in Hawaii is that we
    have had the fuel tanks, which have kept the Pacific since
    World War II, we have had leaks. Luckily, so far, it hasn't
    been into our water system, which as you can imagine is
    islands. They must be protected. But we ask continued support
    in ensuring that the remediation will continue.
        It is so important that we remain committed to this region.
    The threats that our country will face will come from this
    region as well. So we ask that you give serious consideration
    and with more details in our written submittal that the Asia
    Pacific remain our primary concern and also, also that we
    continue with the pivot to that region, because when you look
    at the statistics is where the economies are, where the people
    are, and where our threats are, it is in the Asia-Pacific
    region.
        Thank you very much. I stand for any questions, and Mr.
    Ranking Member, nice to see you.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman Hanabusa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Mr. Visclosky has a
    question.
        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your
    testimony. And often, we rightly are focused on those in
    military uniform, but I do appreciate you bringing up the
    contribution that DOD civilian employees play as well. Thank
    you so much.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Madam Chair, any other questions for me?
        Ms. Granger. No questions. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from New York. You will have 5 minutes. The lights in front of
    me will show green to speak. When it turns to yellow, it means
    you have got 1 minute left. Thank you, and welcome for 5
    minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2016.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. THOMAS R. SUOZZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        NEW YORK

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Suozzi

        Mr. Suozzi. Thank you so much. It is the first time I have
    done this. I am excited to be here.
        Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
    Visclosky and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    this opportunity and the time to request funding to help
    facilitate the cleanup of the Bethpage Plume, a significant
    contamination of our drinking water that was discovered over 40
    years ago but has not been properly contained or treated.
        The U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman are the responsible
    parties, and we are asking them to do their part to help clean
    up this plume, which is the result of their activities. It is
    currently in my district, but it is moving, the plume is moving
    south into our colleague Peter King's district. We need to take
    immediate action because Long Island relies on a sole source
    aquifer for our drinking water. Put simply, this is the only
    source of drinking water for our constituents.
        Prior to World War II and in the postwar era, Bethpage was
    the military and defense industry hub of Long Island. Long
    Island has produced the aircraft that helped carry the Allies
    to victory during World War II and developed the technology
    that ushered in the jet era, and they helped to win the war and
    put a man on the moon.
        The Navy, Northrop Grumman, and the people of Long Island
    are proud of this legacy, but this is also a legacy of
    pollution. My constituents are concerned that those who have
    profited the most, as well as their own government, are failing
    to properly mitigate and clean up the environmental impacts of
    manufacturing, modern aviation, and aerospace technology.
        I represent the Third Congressional District of New York,
    which stretches from northeastern Queens, along Long Island's
    North Shore, and throughout Nassau County into Suffolk County.
    I am a lifelong resident of the district, and along with my
    family and friends and neighbors, we have waited for a long
    time for the responsible parties to step up and assume
    responsibility and truly address the issue.
        Instead, we have received studies, reports, and remedial
    efforts while responsibility is litigated and liability is
    shielded. Meanwhile, the plume spreads, now covering an area 2
    miles wide and 3 miles long, and as mentioned earlier, it is
    travelling south to the neighborhoods and towns on Long
    Island's South Shore, where Peter King represents.
        The Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations may seem like an
    odd place to speak about environmental issues, but the funding
    to help clean up the plume is subject to the annual
    appropriations of the Defense Environmental Restoration Account
    of the Navy. Congressional funding is currently insufficient to
    address the Bethpage Plume, let alone thousands of sites and
    hundreds of locations scattered across the country that are the
    Navy's responsibility to lead the cleanup efforts.
        Representatives from the Navy have told me it would take an
    estimated $4 billion to clean up every site, but Congress
    continually authorizes and appropriates only pennies on the
    dollar. Furthermore, the Navy cannot prioritize the sites and
    must spread funding across sites and locations.
        On its face this may seem like a good idea, but this
    approach forces the Navy to engage in remedial efforts instead
    of comprehensively addressing projects with high cleanup costs.
    Engaging in these smaller efforts without addressing the issue,
    as occurs in Bethpage, will cost the taxpayers more in the long
    run because it fails to address the underlying issue.
        We have a responsibility from the Federal Government to our
    local water authorities to work with all stakeholders to ensure
    clean drinking water and where appropriate hold those
    accountable for contaminating the water supply. Nowhere is this
    truer than when contaminants in the water stem from government-
    related activity.
        In this case, the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman are the
    responsible parties. The Navy must have the necessary funding
    to lead the cleanup efforts, and we must hold Northrop Grumman
    accountable and require them to fully contribute their share.
        And I request that the committee fully appropriate
    authorized amounts and look forward to working with you and
    other colleagues to address this and similar issues with
    necessary and appropriate funding measures.
        Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. I can't
    believe you have to do all these different hearings. It is
    really amazing. So thank you so much for the good work.
        [The written statement of Congressman Suozzi follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. Mr. Visclosky has some
    comments to make.
        Mr. Visclosky. Just a comment. Representing Gary, Indiana,
    East Chicago, Indiana, and other industrial areas, we suffer
    from the same problem of a 100-, 120-year industrial legacy. It
    is not odd that you brought this problem up. We have not done a
    good enough job as a Nation, and certainly I look forward to
    working with you. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Suozzi. Thank you so much for that comment. I
    appreciate that help. Thank you.
        Mr. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Suozzi. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, other members of the committee.
        Thank you so much, Ms. Roby.
        Mr. Carter, thank you so much.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Florida. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MATT GAETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Gaetz

        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
    Visclosky. I bring you good tidings from the Budget Committee,
    and I thank you for loaning the incredible talents of Mr.
    Womack to us on occasion. I want to thank you for providing me
    and other Members of the House with the opportunity to testify
    to the subcommittee on issues we believe to be critical to our
    Nation's security.
        I am referring to the U.S. Special Operations Command's
    basic research into warfighter performance and resilience in
    extreme environments. I feel strongly that to enable the
    continued supremacy of U.S. Special Forces in the 21st century,
    our warriors need to be the most physically fit, optimally
    performing, and resilient to extreme environments of any force
    ever assembled.
        SOCOM has repeatedly recognized these requirements through
    programmatic documentation and broad agency announcements for
    research areas of interest. But an extremely austere budget
    environment has prevented full funding of these critical
    requirements. When viewed across the Future Years Defense Plan,
    the SOF Technology Development PE has been underfunded over the
    past 3 years by an average of more than $6 million per year.
        In its 2017 President's budget request to Congress, Special
    Operations Command estimated needing $34.5 million in fiscal
    year 2018 for SOF Technology Development. That is almost $10
    million less than was programmed in fiscal year 2016. According
    to the 2017 budget request, this project provides an investment
    strategy for SOCOM to link technology opportunities with
    capability deficiencies and objectives in technology that
    thrust into areas including human performance around endurance.
        Proposed research areas in support of those SOCOM
    requirements include sustaining optimal human performance in
    austere training and operational environments, identifying
    meaningful interactions between pharmaceutical and nutritional
    supplements, and establishing heart rate variability for
    potential measuring of psychological and physical readiness and
    stress. Also, researching and applying methods to accurately
    measure nutritional status, and finally, developing
    technologies that enhance physiological performance, including
    greater mental acuity, increased strength and endurance, and
    tolerance to extreme environments.
        This research is of particular interest to me beyond its
    impact on warfighting capability and doing what is right for
    national security. As you know, I have several military
    communities within my district that will benefit directly from
    this research. I also feel strongly that the health benefits of
    this research in my district, it is a large retired military
    community, and to the American civilian population at large,
    will ultimately be very significant.
        Additional funding is urgently needed in fiscal year 2018
    for competitively bid research to augment Special Operations
    Forces' training and performance. As you begin work on fiscal
    year 2018 defense appropriations, I respectfully request that
    your committee appropriate $39 million for the Special
    Operations Forces Technology Development line, a generic
    program increase of $4.5 million for competitively bid research
    to develop and transition technologies that provide asymmetric
    training and performance advantage to our most elite special
    operators.
        This funding will guarantee the development of important
    technologies and research capabilities to address the existing
    SOCOM requirements. Let me reiterate, if appropriated by
    Congress, this additional funding will be competitively awarded
    and address requirements currently established by the
    Department of Defense.
        I commend you, Madam Chair, for having this hearing, and I
    urge you and the subcommittee to look closely at this issue as
    you develop the Defense Appropriations bill for the upcoming
    year. Thank you so much for your time, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to address your subcommittee.
        [The written statement of Congressman Gaetz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate
    your taking the time to do this.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Missouri. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. WM. LACY CLAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MISSOURI

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Clay

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
    Visclosky, as well as the other members of the committee. It is
    an honor to be with you today offering support for the men and
    women in our Armed Forces. This is the third year in a row that
    I have testified, and I appreciate the opportunity to let my
    voice and that of my constituents be heard. Even without the
    benefit of the fiscal year 2018 budget yet, it is important to
    let you know our priorities.
        Last year I testified in front of the subcommittee about
    the Navy's tactical aviation shortfall and supported the chief
    of naval operations' call for more strike fighters to fill that
    requirement. This subcommittee responded by adding both F/A-
    18E/F Super Hornets and F-35Cs in its markup. Since then it has
    become well known that the Navy and Marine Corps are facing
    readiness challenges to more than half of its aviation fleet.
    Significant delays in maintenance and sustainment of legacy
    aircraft have created a readiness crisis. On top of that,
    higher than expected utilization rates of the Super Hornets has
    only exacerbated the strike fighter shortfall. This trend needs
    to be reversed quickly.
        The near-term solution to this challenge is twofold. First,
    procure additional F/A18-E/F Super Hornets with upgraded
    capabilities to meet the threats we face in the 2020s and
    beyond. The Block III Super Hornet will complement the F-35C by
    bringing enhanced networking capability, extended range, and
    increased number of weapons into battle. I believe that the
    Navy's budget will show an investment in these modernized
    aircraft and how they can support carrier operations for
    decades to come.
        Second, the Navy should invest in sustainment of the
    existing fleet of Super Hornets, a plan that the service has
    worked on but will finally implement in the upcoming budget.
    Extending the life and capabilities of these older aircraft,
    paired with new Super Hornets, will immediately help fill the
    strike fighter gap.
        After several years of congressional support, I expect the
    Navy to take action to budget for these solutions. Congress has
    provided a life preserver to the Navy, but it is time for the
    Navy to step up.
        St. Louis, my home town, is one of the Nation's premier
    homes for tactical aviation, an area of expertise that I know
    the chairwoman knows a great deal about in her own district. I
    am proud that my district is the home of the Super Hornet, and
    the men and women that work on the aircraft are proud for what
    they do for the warfighter. Their efforts are in service to the
    Navy and to their country. They also understand the critical
    role that Congress plays in ensuring that the Navy has the most
    capable and cost-effective fleet of aircraft.
        I hope that the fiscal year 2018 budget submission includes
    the procurement of at least 24 new Super Hornets and that the
    subcommittee can support them in your markup. The strike
    fighter shortfall is a serious issue that can and should be
    addressed, and I look forward to working with you throughout
    the year, and I have been a strong vote yes for the work that
    this subcommittee has done each year.
        Thank you for offering me this opportunity to discuss our
    security priorities.
        [The written statement of Congressman Clay follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much for appearing and, for the
    third time, reminding us of what we need to do with our
    military and our equipment. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Clay. Thanks Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the
    gentlewoman from New Mexico. Welcome. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
        STATE OF NEW MEXICO

                Summary Statement of Congresswoman Lujan Grisham

        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and
    Ranking Member Visclosky and of course members of the
    subcommittee. I am also delighted to be here and appreciate the
    opportunity to speak with you today about the Army's AN/PDR-75A
    Personal Dosimeter Radiac Set. These measure and collect
    radiation exposure data in order to reduce health risks for the
    brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way.
        This program is critical to the security, safety, and well-
    being of American servicemembers who are exposed to radioactive
    weapons systems, devices, and materials on a daily basis. It
    also ensures that we are prepared for a broad range of
    contingencies that could expose our soldiers to potentially
    high levels of radiation, including the use of a dirty bomb.
    Without accurate data, we have no way of assessing and reducing
    radiation exposure health risks, including acute radiation
    sickness and cancer.
        The new Radiac set replaces old, obsolete systems being
    used by the Army since the 1960s. The outdated systems cannot
    measure the range of dose presented by current scenarios or
    provide a legal dose of record capability, or, frankly, what is
    occurring over the lifetime of exposures.
        The new system meets the Department of Defense standards
    and includes a personal dosimeter, which resembles a
    wristwatch, that a soldier wears and a small, 5-pound reader
    that provides a legal record of radiation exposure for each
    soldier. Now, this recorded information is kept as part of the
    soldier's medical record and provides the soldier with a
    comprehensive record of radiation exposure over his or her
    entire career.
        And while not part of my remarks, radiation exposure also
    causes a change in DNA which actually gets passed on to future
    generations. It is critical that we provide our men and women
    with not only the information related to these exposures, but
    the opportunity to mitigate those and deal with issues for
    their entire families.
        This detail is extremely helpful to both the soldier and
    the Department of Veterans Affairs once the soldier seeks
    medical care upon leaving the service because cancer risks, of
    course, increase as one's total lifetime dose increases. Recent
    news reports have highlighted current problems facing soldiers
    and veterans seeking treatment at the VA whose radiation
    exposure was not recorded or tracked.
        Unfortunately, this spans across exposures at Pacific
    island nuclear test sites in the 1950s, in Desert Shield and
    Desert Storm, around the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and via
    depleted uranium use in current operations. These examples
    demonstrate that the need and application for these Radiac sets
    is wide ranging, and the AN/PDR-75A device removes any doubt
    and provides a legal record of all exposure during a soldier's
    career of service to our Nation.
        Now, the Army began purchasing new Radiac sets in 2012 with
    procurement dollars, but due largely to budgetary constraints,
    decided to pause production and fielding until 2020. Prudently,
    the Army Reserve and Army National Guard use National Guard and
    Reserve equipment account funds to field Radiac sets to 100
    percent of their soldiers and are 100 percent mission ready.
    The bad news: Unfortunately, that is not the case with the
    active Army, which has since placed the shortfall of Radiac
    sets on its unfunded requirement list and remains only 50
    percent mission ready.
        The current active Army shortfall stands at 2,323 Radiac
    sets, which of course places these soldiers at risk. The active
    Army needs an estimated 26 million over the next 2 years to
    complete fielding the newest, most capable systems to our
    Nation's soldiers.
        One further point of consideration, Madam Chairwoman, the
    Army-proposed pause in production will have a profound negative
    impact on the industrial base for this central piece of
    equipment. Shutting down and then restarting the production
    lines increases future production costs and, of course,
    jeopardizes the development of the state-of-the-art technology
    and leads to the loss of a highly skilled and proficient
    workforce.
        We can't wait, quite frankly, until 2020 to resume
    production of these items. Funding and fielding the items in
    fiscal year 2018 improves Army readiness, stabilizes the
    industrial base, and most importantly, protects the safety and
    welfare of our Nation's soldiers.
        I thank the committee for inviting me to appear today and
    of course for your consideration of providing support and
    funding for this vital Army program in fiscal year 2018 and
    beyond. Thank you very much.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman Lujan Grisham
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank
    you for your remarks.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Hunter

        Mr. Hunter. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky, members of the subcommittee. I am here before
    you to talk about one thing first and a couple of other things
    that are near and dear to my heart.
        The first one is the Army has got four divisions of Gray
    Eagles. Gray Eagles is the MQ-9 Reaper. That is what the Army
    calls it. They call it Gray Eagle instead of the MQ-9 Reaper,
    which is the armed predator that can carry 500-pound bombs,
    Hellfires, and do ISR. They are 3 airplanes short per four
    divisions, for a total of 12 planes short.
        The shortfall in division-level intelligence, surveillance,
    and reconnaissance assets impacts the training and the
    readiness of both the deploying unit, as well as the units that
    are forced to surrender aircraft to fill the resourcing
    shortfall. So what you have is you have units that aren't going
    to be deploying borrowing planes from the units that just got
    back. So the units that just got back can't even train up on
    their planes because they don't have them because they had to
    give them to the guys that are going overseas.
        So what I am requesting right now in the fiscal year 2018
    Department of Defense Appropriations Act is an acquisition of
    12, and, again, 12 is 3 airplanes per division for the four
    divisions in the Army that do this. It is $195 million in the
    Aircraft Procurement, Army appropriation account so that all
    Army companies have their full allowance of Gray Eagle systems
    and related ground support equipment.
        That is the first thing. And I think this is one of those
    things that I think, when it comes to Predators, whether it is
    the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, they always want more, but in
    this case, they are not at what they are supposed to have in
    the first place. So they are not asking for extra. They just
    want to be at their full complement.
        Number two, things that I would just like to say that
    aren't specific things that I am requesting that you take a
    look at, somebody smart said if you control the ocean, you
    control the world. And nowadays if you control space, you
    control the ocean. I think we need to look at you, the
    Appropriations Committee--and, by the way, it is interesting
    coming here as opposed to talking to each of you begging for
    things as us authorizers do on the Armed Services Committee.
        Two things. The Coast Guard-Navy matrix needs to be fixed.
    I know Coast Guard isn't Navy, but the fact that we have so few
    Navy ships, and you have Coast Guard now doing Navy things
    because the Coast Guard is a U.S. military service with dual
    roles, I think that is really important for the Nation. I think
    if you look at, like, the top three things we should do as a
    Nation defense-wise, Navy and Coast Guard are one of those
    things.
        The second thing are out-of-the-box ways to look at missile
    defense--out-of-the-box ways. We have THAAD. We have all these
    different intercept things. We are able to shoot down multiple
    projectiles coming in from space that we have to track. The
    time to hit missiles is when they are taking off, nuclear
    missiles. You are going to have North Korea, the Iranians now.
        Nuclear ICBMs will become ubiquitous, I think, in 25 or 30
    years, and short-range a lot sooner than that. The time to hit
    them is when they are slow, when there are big plumes of fire
    and they are taking off to go into space, that is when you do
    that.
        There are ways to do this that are not billion-dollar
    programs, line item by the Army or the Air Force. There are
    out-of-the-box ways to do it. And I would beg of you to look at
    these different ways that we can shoot down our enemies'
    missiles as they launch when it is the easiest time to hit
    them, because, again, they are going slow, they are taking off,
    and it is not that hard to hit one and blow it up when they are
    taking off.
        With that, thank you for all that you do, and I look
    forward to having a more robust defense budget this year. Thank
    you all.
        [The written statement of Congressman Hunter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your
    words. We appreciate it very much.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Ohio.
    Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. STEVE STIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Stivers

        Mr. Stivers. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking
    Member Visclosky and all the members of the subcommittee. I am
    here to testify today about the Technology Transition Program,
    that during fiscal year 2018 the Air Force has requested $497.7
    million.
        And only $87.4 million of that, 18 percent, is set aside
    for technologies other than advanced engine development; $410
    million is exclusively ramped off, 82 percent, roped off for
    engine development. That is an insufficient amount for all the
    other things that need to happen. It will cause some critical
    Air Force technology development needs.
        And in addition, there are now opportunities for the Air
    Force to partner with State universities, national
    laboratories, medium and small businesses, to identify novel
    technologies and concepts on 100 percent cost-shared basis,
    which could leverage dollars better. And the Air Force's 2018
    budget estimate does not allow for the service to take
    advantage of these opportunities. And I think that we should
    change that and allow that to happen.
        I strongly urge the subcommittee to provide a program
    increase of $15 million for fiscal year 2018 for the Technology
    Transition Program when it marks up the Defense Appropriations
    Act of 2018 and specifically allow cost-match technology
    transition to be fully competitively awarded by the Air Force,
    so it would be on a competitive basis.
        I think this will fund a diverse portfolio of capabilities
    to enable multiple combinations of air-to-space to cyberspace
    operations in all environments, even in highly contested as
    well as permissive environments. It will ensure that new
    concepts and capabilities to counter increasing technology and
    proliferation of anti-access and area denial threats, and to
    include multidomain approaches and systems that can be rapidly
    modified when adversaries adapt their defenses. It will also
    ensure tailored forward presence from small, resilient bases,
    and it will algorithm as opposed to hardware-based human-
    computer interface systems that will work with humans to
    provide predictive analysis and assist in rapid multidomain
    courses of action. It will allow big data analytics and testing
    that will help improve our Nation's defense and allow the Air
    Force to see the entire operating picture.
        I thank you for the opportunity, and I hope you will
    consider increasing the TTP by $15 million, which is a mere 3
    percent, and ensuring specific language that allows cost-
    matched technology transition to be fully awarded competitively
    by the Air Force. Thank you very much.
        [The written statement of Congressman Stivers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for being here, and thank you for
    your remarks. I just returned from a short trip to California
    looking at some of those exact issues. Thank you.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Alabama.
    Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. The lights in front
    of you show when you can start. When it hits yellow, it means
    you have got 1 minute. Thank you so much.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ALABAMA

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Byrne

        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and distinguished members of this committee. It is
    my pleasure to appear before this committee once again to
    testify on two issues important to our national security: the
    Littoral Combat Ship and the Expeditionary Fast Transport, or
    EPF, which was formerly known as the Joint High Speed Vessel.
        I would be remiss if I did not begin by thanking the
    committee for its support for three LCS's in the 2017 Defense
    Appropriations bill that passed the House yesterday. Continuing
    to fund three LCS's in fiscal year 2018 is important to the
    Navy, the program, the industrial base, and American taxpayers.
        Because of concentrated efforts by the Navy and the
    shipyards, construction deficiencies have been identified and
    implemented, reducing each ship by almost a half million man-
    hours. This, as I am sure the committee knows, equates to a
    significant cost savings of somewhere between 15 and 20
    percent. The shipyards in Marinette, Wisconsin, and Mobile,
    Alabama, have been extremely clear, these savings can only be
    achieved by continuing a hot production line and maintaining a
    skilled workforce.
        The Trump administration is faced with overcoming some
    significant hurts. Decisions were made in the past
    administration which puts the future of our Naval fleet at
    risk. For example, the Navy has been and continues to be
    steadfast that their requirement for small surface combatants
    is still 52 ships. Despite the Navy leadership's articulation
    of this need, former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter attempted
    to decrease the number of LCS's from 52 total ships down to 40
    and required down select to a single shipyard in fiscal year
    2019.
        The Navy's Force Structure Analysis, which was completed
    just this last year, articulates the need for a 355-ship Navy
    and maintains the requirement for 52 Littoral Combat Ships. The
    only means to produce the desired number of small surface
    combatants is to continue building at least three LCS's per
    year.
        The Navy is advancing strategic concepts to maintain of sea
    lanes by using distributed lethality. The USS Coronado is
    currently outfitted with an antiship missile defense system and
    an over-the-horizon missile system. These added capabilities,
    combined with the speed of the LCS, enables the Navy at low
    cost to reshape the Russian and Chinese calculus of our forces
    in places such as the South China Sea.
        I was fortunate to attend the 2016 Rim of the Pacific
    Exercise, which is the world's largest naval exercise, with
    participants from over 25 nations, including the Chinese. The
    USS Coronado conducted exercises at RIMPAC that demonstrated to
    the world the capabilities of the LCS, and I can tell you for a
    fact our adversaries were present and were closely watching the
    capabilities of that ship.
        Following RIMPAC, the Coronado replaced the USS Fort Worth
    on a rotational deployment to Singapore. I visited Singapore
    just 2 weeks ago and met with the admiral that employs these
    ships, and he stressed to me that the requests from our partner
    nations to work with the LCS are in higher demand than we have
    ships available. He indicated to me that he needs more LCS's in
    theater as soon as possible.
        Next, I would like to share my support for the
    Expeditionary Fast Transport, commonly known as the EPF. The
    EPF is a shallow-draft, high-speed catamaran, which is a small
    amphibious vessel used for intra-theater support of personnel,
    equipment, and supplies.
        I have talked to combatant commanders, the Marine Corps,
    and the Military Sealift Command about the EPF, and each has
    stressed its important and unique capabilities. These ships are
    making an impact around the world. They have operated in PACOM
    for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, SOUTHCOM for
    counterdrug missions, and EUCOM for antipiracy missions.
        As we meet, the USNS Trenton is forward deployed to Naval
    Forces Europe-Africa Command's area of operation, performing
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. The
    EPF is currently in serial production with a stable and highly
    trained workforce. We are benefitting from the efficiencies
    gained through the construction of the initial eight vessels.
        At roughly $225 million per ship, the EPF is a fraction of
    what other shipbuilding programs cost. In order to ensure the
    capability to build these ships and maintain such an affordable
    price, we need to keep the production line open and meet the
    stated requirements of a total of 18 vessels. Unfortunately,
    without further procurement in fiscal year 2018, this line will
    close.
        Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate the
    opportunity to share my thoughts on these two valuable ships
    and the state of shipbuilding with the subcommittee. I am happy
    to answer any questions.
        [The written statement of Congressman Byrne follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. I have no questions, but I share your
    appreciation for Littoral Combat Ships. I am the sponsor of the
    USS Fort Worth and watched that competition. There is more to
    go with that. So thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you. Good to be with you.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. PAUL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Cook

        Mr. Cook. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, members of the Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you this morning to testify on
    an issue important to our national security.
        Many, many years ago I was a platoon commander. I was the
    most dangerous weapon in the world, a second lieutenant with a
    map and a compass and a radio man who followed behind me, you
    know, usually trying to keep me out of trouble.
        Today's warfighter tracks his mission enemy using radio and
    digital communications on multiple platforms. We expect them to
    bear this burden, the weight of the equipment, while still
    becoming a faster, more agile, and more lethal fighting force
    than ever before. We owe these combat leaders and their troops
    a simpler system to make the best use of all this information
    that they are receiving.
        The Army Geospatial Center is the office responsible for
    the development of the system that I am talking about. They
    create standards shared by all Army platforms to provide a
    single operating picture for the commander. By combining
    multiple intelligence sources on one device, a commander can
    spend more time making combat decisions and less time sorting
    through data and trying to figure out what to do when there are
    mortars, machine gun fire, everything going on at once.
        An additional $4 million is needed in fiscal year 2018 to
    finish development efforts and get the software to the troops.
    These funds would provide necessary hardware, software,
    personnel to ensure the technology is combat ready. This
    program can be found under Army's Technical Information
    Activities in R-1, Romeo-1, line 155.
        The modern battlefield can change quickly, and our troops
    need access to the most accurate, up-to-date information to
    make informed tactical decisions. It is essential that our
    intelligence provide a clear, concise picture to the commander
    and the warfighter.
        Our troops have always been leaders in battlefield
    management, but we cannot assume that this will always be the
    case. This program will enhance our troops' ability to locate,
    close with, and destroy the enemy. Timely access to accurate
    information will help our commanders to bring our troops home
    safely.
        If somebody that existed in the world of Jurassic Park
    where the systems we had were crude, to say the least, and
    which was 1967, 1968, the times have changed, but the basic
    mission is the same: carry out what we are supposed to do and
    make sure that we take care of the troops once again and bring
    them all back home alive.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        [The written statement of Congressman Cook follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for appearing, and thank you for
    your remarks. We appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentlelady
    from American Samoa. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
        TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA

                    Summary Statement of Delegate Radewagen

        Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa, taeoa manuia. Good morning,
    Chairman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky. Thank you for
    allowing me to testify before you today. I come to support
    additional funds for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriation, NGREA, so that the Reserve can purchase Modular
    Small Arms Ranges, MSARs.
        American Samoa is the only U.S. Soil in the Southern
    Hemisphere, lying approximately 2,500 miles south of Hawaii. We
    may be far from the mainland, but we love the United States, as
    demonstrated by the rate our sons and daughters enlist in the
    military, the highest in the United States, a fact that we are
    proud of. The U.S. Army Reserve website states: ``The Army
    recruiting station in Pago Pago is ranked number one in
    recruitment out of the 885 Army recruiting stations and centers
    under the U.S. Army Recruiting Command.''
        American Samoa has been and continues to be an important
    strategic location for the United States for 117 years now,
    providing the only U.S. deep seaport in that part of the world,
    and is home to a U.S. Army Reserve unit.
        Currently stationed in American Samoa, we have two infantry
    companies of 200-plus soldiers that belong to the 100th
    Battalion of the 442nd Infantry, the most decorated unit of its
    size in the entire Army. They are warriors, knowledgeable
    professionals, tactically and technically proficient soldiers,
    and they are great role models for our community. Even our late
    member, my predecessor, Representative Eni Faleomavaega, served
    with this unit in Vietnam and as a reservist.
        Most families back home have many members that are serving
    or have served in the Army Reserve in the Pacific, and many
    community leaders are current or former members as well. These
    soldiers have and will continue to be called upon to perform
    dangerous missions in remote locations around the globe, and we
    want to provide the best possible training and equipment to
    ensure that they return home safely to their families and
    community.
        I am here today as their voice in Congress to solicit your
    support in making sure our soldiers are provided the best
    equipment and training tools to allow them to be trained and
    ready to deploy into harm's way when called upon to protect our
    way of life.
        The Army Reserve Command is asking us in Congress for
    funding for a containerized small arms range for their units.
    To this end, both General Brown, commanding general for the
    U.S. Army Pacific, and Brigadier General Curda, commanding
    general, 9th Mission Support Command, have called on Congress
    for additional funds to purchase Modular Small Arms Ranges for
    Reserve units.
        The Modular Small Arms Range is a containerized facility
    and not an open or outdoor live fire range. There is no live
    fire range on American Samoa because Army safety standards for
    live fire ranges prohibit the construction of an open air live
    fire range. This is largely due to our islands' terrain and
    population density. It is next to impossible to conduct live
    fire and ensure public safety on an open air range. The closest
    small arms range is in Hawaii, 2,500 miles away.
        As it stands, in order for our Army Reserve units to be
    combat ready, they must fly to Hawaii, 5 hours away, to train
    and qualify on their individually assigned weapons. The cost to
    send 200-plus soldiers to Hawaii and the logistics to support
    them is upwards of $1.2 million annually. Modular Small Arms
    Range will save the Army and our taxpayers millions of dollars
    in the future while allowing our soldiers to be trained at
    home.
        As you know, marksmanship is a perishable skill, and our
    soldiers' lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers depend
    on their ability to properly engage a target. Simple functions
    such as changing a magazine or sighting in a target can become
    monumental when the stress and frustration of combat is added.
    Live fire training and consistent weapons training ensure that
    the soldier has the muscle memory to perform these critical
    functions when under stressful combat situations.
        Ensuring that our soldiers are ready to fight is one of my
    top priorities, and I urge you to consider this request for a
    Modular Small Arms Range for our Army Reserve units.
        Thank you for your time. Fa'afetai tele lava. I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        [The written statement of Delegate Radewagen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank
    you for your remarks.
        Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from
    California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. TED LIEU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Lieu

        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
    Visclosky, as well as the members of the subcommittee and your
    staff, for the hard work you do to help protect America.
        I served on Active Duty, and I fully support giving our
    armed services the resources they need to execute their
    missions. But as this subcommittee knows, the Navy has had a
    strike fighter shortfall for a number of years. And, in fact,
    it was this subcommittee that led on this issue for the last 2
    years.
        You have generously funded additional tactical aviation,
    both F-18 Super Hornets and F-35s, that address one of the
    Navy's biggest challenges. However, the magnitude of the Navy's
    shortfall is so large that single-year solutions are not the
    ultimate answer, instead requiring ongoing, long-term
    procurement and modernization of the current fleet. I am
    hopeful that the fiscal year 2018 budget request will
    demonstrate our sustained commitment to addressing this
    shortfall.
        The Super Hornet is the Navy's workhorse for its aircraft
    carriers throughout the world. However, even though it has been
    operational since the early 2000s, the aircraft was originally
    designed with the foresight to upgrade its capabilities to meet
    emerging requirements and threats.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget should support the introduction
    of the Block III Super Hornet to the fleet. The Block III Super
    Hornet will be based on the same air frame as the current Block
    II aircraft that is the Navy's most lethal strike fighter. But
    the new features of Block III will make it relevant well into
    the 2040s. Those capabilities include increased range,
    networking capability with other Navy aircraft, longer-range
    sensors that identify the enemy from farther away, new
    cockpits, and improved stealth.
        Block III Super Hornets offer cost-effective ways to
    complement the F-35, EA-18G, and E-2D as they operate together
    in the air wing.
        As you may know, California's 33rd District is a critical
    hub for aerospace design, engineering, and manufacturing. I
    work in both military and civilian capacities with Los Angeles
    Air Force Base, which is surrounded by a unique and incredible
    array of institutions and companies focused on space and
    aerospace ranging from the federally funded research and
    development center, the Aerospace Corporation, to world-class
    universities.
        Nearby the base, some of the largest components of the
    Super Hornet are built by the hardworking men and women of the
    district, including the fuselage and components of the radars.
    The continuation of Super Hornet production is not only vital
    for the warfighter, but it sustains manufacturing for a proud
    and incredibly skilled American workforce.
        I understand you have a number of interests to consider as
    you review the fiscal year 2018 budget. I believe, however,
    that the Super Hornet is vital to addressing the Navy's strike
    fighter shortfall.
        Thank you very much for your past support and for the work
    that you are doing for the men and women in uniform. I
    appreciate you letting me testify.
        [The written statement of Congressman Lieu follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you for your service, and thank you for
    your remarks here today. Your experience is very helpful.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Oregon. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Thursday, March 9, 2017

                                    WITNESS

    HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        OREGON

                  Summary Statement of Congressman Blumenauer

        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Visclosky,
    members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to spend
    a couple moments with you this morning.
        You folks have one of the most difficult tasks in Congress.
    We have talked about it before. Other people can conjure things
    up and be aspirational, but you folks have to allocate the
    dollars.
        And there is a seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of
    opportunities to deal with our military. We struggle to
    maintain entitlement benefits for military personnel. We need
    to invest in safety improvements, command and control
    structure. There is a danger of hollowing out conventional
    forces.
        And against all these requirements, there are some things
    that loom large that I hope the committee can help. First and
    foremost, I think it is past time to take a hard look at the
    trillion-dollar commitment that is made for enhancing our
    nuclear commitment over the next several decades. It will
    inevitably crowd out other Air Force and Navy conventional
    priorities for instance. You can't wish this away.
        We have an administration that is seeking to prioritize the
    fight against the Islamic State and terrorism, and this
    trillion dollars is not going to help us at all.
        We have an administration that is looking to reset
    relationships, evidently, with Russia. Well, here is an
    opportunity to maintain our philosophy in terms of trying to
    reduce and scale down nuclear weapons.
        The New START treaty level of 1,550 weapons is far in
    excess of what our experts say we need for deterrence, at least
    one-third more, according to the 2013 President's military
    advisers. And this isn't theoretical. I mean, these are
    expensive, and they commit us to long-term expenses.
        And, unfortunately, we have a terrible record of tracking
    what the actual cost is as opposed to estimates. Last month,
    the CBO released its latest report projecting the cost of our
    nuclear forces for the next 10 years. The cost estimate for the
    next decade is $400 billion, which is 15 percent higher than
    the previous year's estimate.
        My hope is that the committee, given your responsibilities,
    can help us push for looking at some alternatives, scaling some
    things down, having new weapon systems, the new nuclear-armed
    cruise missile, the B61, the weapons in design and production
    that are going to push those estimates even further in the
    future.
        I think it is past time to evaluate the need to replace our
    land-based missiles. Thanks to New START we are down to 440,
    but the replacement project for Minuteman III ICBMs is as much
    as $100 billion. Do we really need that scale for the triad? It
    goes with the bombers. It goes with the nuclear-armed
    submarines.
        And I think that there is an opportunity for us to actually
    deal with the communities where they are located. And I know
    there is a pushback for people who have those facilities, and
    they don't want to lose economic activity. But we could
    allocate a significant amount of the savings back to those
    communities. They would be better off. There would be more
    jobs, there would be more economic activity, and there would be
    long-term savings for the country, and we would be safer.
        I hope that you give us an opportunity to know what we are
    getting into. The committee is uniquely positioned to at least
    insist that there be real cost estimates. You deserve no less
    as you are making these difficult allocation problems because
    they are going to haunt the people who are in your position in
    2 years and in 4 years if we don't do a good job of knowing
    what we are getting into.
        Again, I know you have got a difficult task. There are many
    things we all want to do for our military, for our veterans,
    and we are trying to deal with budget deficits and long-term
    activities. But I hope looking carefully at these items will
    give us all the tools we need as Members of Congress, and
    especially you on this committee, to know what we are getting
    into and to be able to meet those commitments in the long-term.
        I really appreciate your courtesy. I appreciate what you
    are doing, listening to some of us with our ideas about how to
    do the job, and wish you the best in being able to balance
    those going forward.
        [The written statement of Congressman Blumenauer follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
        I believe your testimony really evidences why I want to
    thank the Chairwoman again for holding this hearing. You talked
    about our difficult task. You had a very difficult night, and
    you still saw fit to show up today. Given your commitment, I
    appreciate it.
        The area you talk about is very difficult, and I am very
    concerned about the impact kinetic weapons, speed of some of
    our weapons, and other issues have on that nuclear enterprise.
    I also have emphasized to the administration that because there
    is a change, this is a perfect opportunity to assess the triad
    because too often both parties have been very reflexive that,
    no, we need three. And maybe we do. But we ought to have a
    serious examination about that issue, I would absolutely agree
    with you.
        The final thing I would point out is on the cost of this
    endeavor, and, unfortunately, our difficult task is there are
    other bulges coming up here on the budget with other systems,
    is Mr. Smith, who is ranking on Armed Services, and I sent a
    letter to the Congressional Budget Office this week asking for
    them to do a study and examination of what the 30-year cost is
    going to be.
        I am very proud that this subcommittee in report language
    for our bill 417, and the conference report was passed by the
    House yesterday, asked DOD for a similar assessment as far as
    what the costs were going forward.
        So you do raise a very significant and important issue as
    far as policy, but also the cost impact for the subcommittee to
    consider. I appreciate it very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Blumenauer. You are the only thing that could get me
    going this morning.
        Ms. Granger. We have one more witness, Mr. Franks, and he
    is on his way here.
        This concludes the morning portion of the subcommittee's
    Member Hearing Day. We appreciate our--well, sorry. We had some
    misinformation, and we are really glad to see you standing up.
        Mr. Franks. Madam Chair, will you forgive me?
        Ms. Granger. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman
    from Arizona. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. And
    this light will show green, which means you can start. When it
    goes to yellow, it means you have got 1 more minute. And we are
    anxious to hear what you have got to say.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ARIZONA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Franks

        Mr. Franks. Well, thank you. And I apologize, Madam Chair,
    for the lateness. They had to drag me out of a classified
    briefing. So I am sorry.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Franks. But I would first like to thank you, Chairwoman
    Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, for the opportunity to
    add my voice to those of the many others concerned about the
    crisis facing our military.
        Madam Chairwoman, you are no doubt aware that our guardian
    class has consistently set before us the devastation that
    sequestration has wrought upon our military and the doubt it
    has cast upon our ability to defeat existing and emerging
    threats, let alone deter them.
        For my part, I am here to try to alert you today to the
    dangerous state of our Nation's missile defense capabilities
    and what the Obama years have done to our ability to deter and
    defeat the deadliest weapons known to mankind.
        North Korea has evolved from an eccentric regional problem
    with a nuclear weapons issue into an extremely dangerous
    nuclear threat to America. They are very close to mastering the
    physics required to range the entire continental United States,
    and they are able to threaten our forces in the Pacific. And
    just yesterday, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a
    briefing which laid bare the nuclear and ballistic missile
    capabilities of the Kim dynasty.
        I cannot discuss, of course, the details of what we learned
    in this open forum, but the growing threat posed by North Korea
    is shocking, and I urge you, Madam Chairwoman, to bring the
    Missile Defense Agency and the CIA to brief you and the members
    of this committee on the nature of this growing threat.
        Furthermore, President Obama's policies placed Iran, the
    world's largest financier and enabler of terrorism, on track to
    legally build a nuclear weapons capability within the confines
    of the JCPOA. Unlike the Soviet threat, nuclear jihad cannot be
    deterred by the fear of retaliation. It is an existential
    threat to the peace and security of the entire human family.
        While the Obama administration debated whether or not we
    should develop and maintain missile defense against such
    threats, our near-peer adversaries, who never had such qualms,
    were working tirelessly to exploit weaknesses in our missile
    defense architecture.
        Under President Obama, the MDA's budget was cut drastically
    below the Bush administration's planned $9 billion-plus budget,
    even as China and Russia were rapidly developing and testing
    high-flying, high-speed maneuvering weapons, including
    hypersonic glide vehicles, Madam Chairwoman.
        These weapons present an entirely new capability we must
    counter, as they are specifically designed to exploit the gaps
    and the seams in our existing missile defense architecture,
    thus defeating the systems we currently have in place. These
    new weapons are capable of travelling more than a mile per
    second and fly at flat or nonballistic trajectories to prevent
    our missile defense systems from tracking them. The threat has
    outpaced us, and we must invest the appropriate resources to
    defend against the new threats or lose our ability to deter
    potential adversaries.
        There are a number of specific measures which Congress must
    pursue if we are able to remain capable of defeating, let alone
    deterring, our near-peer adversaries. To this end, I urge the
    committee to support the development and deployment of a
    multimission space sensor layer. This capability is a massive
    force multiplier for our entire missile defense architecture
    and is absolutely essential to allow us to accurately identify
    and target the newest and most advanced missile threats.
        In recent years, directed-energy technology has matured to
    such a degree that were this committee able to invest in some
    of the most promising directed-energy programs, especially
    boost-phase defense, we would see some game-changing capability
    developed in the next few years.
        Thus, directed-energy programs will allow us to complete
    what the Reagan administration began and allow the United
    States to leapfrog the missile defense threat.
        I hope this committee will continue to fund the RKV and
    also provide resources requested by the MDA for the MOKV, which
    will ensure our midcourse defense is capable of meeting the
    most advanced nuclear threat.
        And finally, I would urge the members of the committee to
    not cut the MDA budget item Special Programs--MDA Technology.
    This program is critical to our homeland defense. But given the
    nature of the program, I cannot get into greater specifics in
    an open forum. I would encourage all of you to receive a brief
    from the Missile Defense Agency on the program before any
    decision is made to cut funding below the requested amount.
        The threats to our homeland and our deployed forces from
    irrational regimes armed with nuclear weapons are real and
    growing, and we must respond by investing the resources in our
    missile defense architecture to ensure we are capable of
    mitigating these threats.
        In order to revitalize our military to build a missile
    defense architecture capable of meeting identified emerging
    threats, we require a budget top line of $640 billion.
        Madam Chair, I am out of time, so may history judge that
    this Congress was one that did all that it could to protect the
    innocent in our own generation and to further ensure that
    American generations yet unborn will continue to walk in the
    sunlight of freedom. Thank you, and God bless you.
        [The written statement of Congressman Franks follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Franks, and thank you for your
    continuing concern. You have been there since you came to
    Congress, and we take it very seriously.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you all.
        Ms. Granger. This concludes the morning portion of the
    subcommittee's Members Hearing Day. We appreciate our
    colleagues' testimony here today. The subcommittee will
    reconvene at 1 o'clock today to complete the hearing. The
    subcommittee stands in recess until 1 o'clock.
        [Recess.]

                               Afternoon Session

        Mr. Calvert [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
    order.
        The subcommittee is continuing in open hearing, allowing
    Members of the House to provide the subcommittee with their
    input on how to address the challenges and needs facing our
    military.
        This morning--or this afternoon, we were fortunate to hear
    from 2 dozen colleagues we listened to this morning, and we
    look forward to hearing from more of our colleagues now.
        At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Visclosky, the
    ranking member, for any comments he would like to make.
        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you for holding the hearing. I
    appreciate hearing from our colleagues, and want their input
    before we start down with the supplemental in fiscal year 2018.
    So again, I appreciate very much you calling this to order.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And out of respect for members'
    time, we will strictly adhere to the 5-minute clock. The timer
    in front of you will change from green to yellow when you have
    1 minute remaining to conclude your statement. Your full
    written statement will be made part of the record.
        And at this time, we welcome the gentleman from Louisiana,
    Mike Johnson, for your testimony. You are recognized.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        LOUISIANA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Johnson

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Visclosky and members of the committee. I appreciate you giving
    me the opportunity today to provide input for the fiscal year
    2018 defense appropriations.
        I am excited to advocate today about maintaining a
    strategic edge in reinforcing our national defense needs within
    the Defense appropriations budget, and I will speak fast.
        I have the high honor of representing the Fourth
    Congressional District of Louisiana, which we are proud to say
    is home of Fort Polk and the Barksdale Air Force Base, two
    major military installations. As I am sure you know, Fort Polk
    is home to the Joint Readiness Training Center and Barksdale is
    home to our Global Strike Command. These are two vital
    installations to our Nation and our national security interests
    around the world.
        I am extremely pleased that President Trump has promised to
    ensure our brave men and women in uniform have all the
    resources they need to accomplish their mission. As we begin to
    rebuild our military strength, I will work vigorously to
    protect these missions and ensure our national security is
    fully maintained, as I know you will as well.
        The role of nuclear weapons continues to play an integral
    role in the strategies of Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India,
    and China. In fact, according to many reports, these countries
    are increasing their reliance on and modernizing their
    capabilities: Land, air, and sea-based nuclear forces. At the
    same time, it is clear that Iran has not given up its nuclear
    ambitions, to say the least.
        Furthermore, there is open evidence that Russia's doctrine
    contemplates the use of nuclear weapons to gain advantage in
    crisis. Consequently, the need for a strong, capable U.S.
    nuclear umbrella is growing. But over the course of only 4
    years, from 2010 to 2014, the military budget was cut 21
    percent. This happened despite the fact that the world was
    growing more dangerous and the stage was set for a number of
    Russian and Chinese aggressions against neighbors and the U.S.
    through cyber attacks, information warfare, and kinetic
    actions.
        Due to today's time constraints, I will focus primarily on
    two areas that I think are in desperate need of attention
    within the fiscal year 2018 Defense appropriations budget: Our
    U.S. Air Force and our Army components.
        First, the nuclear enterprise. I would like to offer my
    support for the President's stated plan to prioritize our
    nuclear enterprise through modernizing our deterrent
    capabilities in the upcoming Defense budget. Thankfully,
    despite ideological differences, Congress has taken a clear
    stand on expressing support to the long-term commitment of
    Barksdale Air Force Base, which is home to the U.S. Global
    Strike Command, and responsible for the majority of the nuclear
    triad and enterprise.
        I want to highlight the important and good work being
    carried out by the Air Force. This includes the decision to
    elevate Global Strike Command to a 4-star command, an effort
    that has already begun to demonstrate important rewards.
    Unfortunately, I was discouraged to see that some recent
    budgets fell short of fully addressing items for specific Air
    Force needs related to improvements at Global Strike Command.
    That is why I asked it in the budget before us today, the
    committee strongly consider working to fund advancements
    absolutely necessary to upgrade and maintain the technological
    edge over America's adversaries.
        A few areas in critical need of funding are upgrading
    nuclear communications facilities, addressing the challenges of
    a B-52 reengine, and the future of the B-21, among others.
    Specifically, today, I would like to highlight three important
    areas related to ensuring our nuclear enterprise receives the
    necessary attention in the upcoming budget. Moving forward, I
    look forward to working with you, the committee and its
    members, to address these items.
        Number one, ongoing challenges with our Nation's aging
    fleets, including a B-52 reengine. Earlier this year, debate
    over whether to replace the TF33 engine reignited, pardon the
    pun there, after a B-52 from Minot Air Force Base lost an
    engine during training. Former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee
    James characterized the mishap as, quote, ``a catastrophic
    engine failure,'' unquote, and it was. The challenges in
    maintaining the aging weapons and a robust nuclear enterprise
    infrastructure is the second thing, and the needs related to
    developing critical weapon storage and maintenance facility
    areas.
        There are ongoing much needed upgrades to our nuclear
    command, control, and communications, the NC3, something I am
    thankful the Air Force has begun working on and which I know
    this committee has engaged in as well.
        And lastly, improving to fund a robust set of capabilities
    and options. As you know, the top requirement for nuclear
    forces is to maintain a survivable and ready nuclear force that
    is capable of deterring our enemy, and if necessary, surviving
    a surprise attack. Given today's foreign climate, the need to
    keep a close watch on this is as important as ever in order to
    assure our allies and maintain our own defense against hostile
    nations.
        Members of this committee are well aware of the activity
    Global Strike Command overseas in its involvement in a wide
    array of strategic deterrence, global strike, and combat
    support in a direct fashion. The Bomber Command, eighth Air
    Force, is in charge of our aging fleet, and Missile Command,
    20th Air Force, is in charge of the U.S. intercontinental
    ballistic missiles, ICBMs, which are critical to our deterrence
    and global strategy. As Secretary of Defense James Mattis
    recently stated when speaking about maintaining a safe and
    secure nuclear deterrent, quote, ``We must ensure a war that
    can never be won will never be fought,'' unquote.
        In the event that maintaining a capable and robust nuclear
    option would not suffice enough to justify attention, these
    assets also play a major role in our ongoing fight as the
    terrorist states continue to grow and expand beyond the threats
    to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Nigeria. Global Strike Command has
    played an important role in our national security strategy to
    address new and emerging kinds of threats.
        Mr. Calvert. The gentleman will timely conclude your
    remarks.
        Mr. Johnson. Am I out of time? Well, I will submit the
    written remarks to the record, as you mentioned. And a lot of
    that is about Fort Polk Army Base and our needs there, the
    Joint Readiness Training Center and their ongoing growth and
    opportunity.
        [The written statement of Congressman Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, your full remarks will be
    entered into the record. And we have a copy of those remarks
    and we will be looking at that. I certainly appreciate your
    testimony here.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Next, Claudia Tenney from New York.
        Good afternoon.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. CLAUDIA TENNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
        YORK

                   Summary Statement of Congresswoman Tenney

        Ms. Tenney. Thank you Mr. Calvert, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and other members of the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee. I thank you for providing me with this important
    opportunity to testify.
        As the mother of an Active Duty marine officer and a Member
    of Congress representing New York's 22nd Congressional
    District, I take my constitutional responsibility to provide
    for our common defense very seriously. I thank you for your
    support, for your ongoing support of our servicemen and -women,
    and I am deeply appreciative of your steadfast commitment to a
    strong and robust national defense.
        As this subcommittee begins consideration of the fiscal
    year 2018 Department of Defense appropriations bill, it is my
    distinct honor to testify in support of the Air Force Research
    Laboratory Information Directorate in Rome, New York, also
    known as Rome Lab. Rome Lab has for decades stood at the
    forefront of advanced cyber research and development projects
    within the Air Force. Today, Rome Lab leads a wide range of
    critical missions that are vital to deploying a 21st century
    force. Ensuring that our military has the tools and resources
    to dominate in cyberspace is among Rome Lab's chief missions.
        On today's high-tech battlefields, our country's
    superiority in cyberspace is critical. Rome Lab provides full
    spectrum support for cyberspace operations, equipping our
    operators with the agility to disrupt and deny cyber attacks
    and the resiliency to fight through and recover from
    intrusions.
        Rome Lab is also leading the fight to maintain command and
    control superiority both to the battlefield and in cyberspace.
    Rome Lab continues to push the boundaries in developing
    sophisticated technologies that effectively integrate resilient
    and robust commanding control systems. The advancements made by
    Rome Lab have provided our military with greater situational
    awareness through improved unified planning systems and
    enhanced mission focus autonomy. Ensuring secure and effective
    communications and reliable connectivity are also vital
    components of Rome Lab's mission.
        In battle stations that are increasingly congested, Rome
    Lab provides the warfighter with mobile and secure
    communications. On the ground, Rome Lab facilitates the
    deployment of technologies that allow our servicemen and -women
    to securely share information. In the air, Rome Lab has
    pioneered technologies to provide mission responsive battle
    space communication abilities across multiple domains.
        Perhaps most impressive is Rome Lab's ability to adapt to
    emerging challenges. For example, in the arena of unmanned
    aerial systems, UAS, Rome Lab is poised for significant
    contributions. As this committee knows, the threat posed by the
    proliferation of UAS is growing and varied. There are countless
    examples of small UAS posing serious threats to our servicemen
    and -women in Iraq, with ISIS increasingly relying on these
    relatively inexpensive tools. With expertise in cyberspace,
    command and control, communications and connectivity, and with
    the continued support of this subcommittee, Rome Lab will lead
    the charge to find innovative ways of detecting, identifying,
    and disabling potentially hostile UASs.
        Rome Lab's advancements extend well beyond the Air Force.
    In fiscal year 2015, Rome Lab leveraged more than $1 billion in
    funding from its non-Air Force defense partners. This
    additional funding has helped Rome Lab serve the critical and
    otherwise unmet research needs of the Department of Defense.
    Ultimately, the stronger Rome Lab's foundation is, the stronger
    our national defense will be.
        This subcommittee has recognized the vital importance of
    Rome Lab providing increased funding over the last several
    fiscal years. In the fiscal year 2017 bill passed just this
    week, the House provided Rome Lab $5 million more in funding
    than was requested by the President, which marked a 4 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2016. This work, supported by the
    funding, is vital to maintaining Rome Lab's dynamic set of
    research and development capabilities. I strongly encourage
    this subcommittee to maintain the funding or to increase it
    accordingly to reflect new and evolving missions.
        I would again like to express my appreciation for the
    opportunity to provide my testimony this afternoon. I look
    forward to working with you and other members of this
    subcommittee to ensure that our Nation's military remains ready
    to confront the challenges of the 21st century. Thank you so
    much. I appreciate it.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman Tenney follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
        Any questions?
        Mr. Visclosky. No.
        Mr. Calvert. Seeing none, thank you again, appreciate it.
        Next, Mr. Trent Kelly.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MISSISSIPPI

                     Summary Statement of Congressman Kelly

        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Visclosky.
        I have served in the Mississippi National Guard for 31
    years. I mobilized in 1990. I have twice deployed, once
    commanding over 670 troops in Iraq, and I represent the First
    District of Mississippi, which also was home of Columbus Air
    Force Base, which trains one half of the Air Force pilots. I am
    not someone who needs to be convinced that national defense
    should be a priority or that the significant work you have
    before you in deciding how to fund the military is important. I
    believe in that already.
        As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and also
    as a serving colonel in the Mississippi Army National Guard, I
    know firsthand from listening to our military leaders and our
    national security experts regarding the threats we are facing
    around the globe at how well equipped we are to address them.
    And I am greatly concerned about the readiness crisis facing
    our Armed Services across the board.
        General Daniel Allyn, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army,
    testified this month--or last month, regarding this issue
    stating that the Army can no longer afford the most modern
    equipment, and we risk falling behind our near-peers in
    critical capabilities, and we risk losing overmatch in every
    domain. General Allyn is not alone in this assessment. General
    Stephen Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified
    that, ``Today we find ourselves less than 50 percent ready
    across the Air Force and we have pockets that are below that.''
    Readiness of our military must be addressed. My priority
    reflects the importance of rebuilding our Armed Forces to
    ensure that we can defend ourselves.
        I think it is important to note by portraying and having
    strength in our military, it preserves peace and prevents wars,
    which is much more costly to fight a war than it is to preserve
    peace.
        We need to make sure that we are manned, equipped, and
    trained at the proper levels. I truly believe that the
    President's $603 billion mark is not enough. I truly believe
    that number should be 640 and not 603, which is really a modest
    increase when you add in OCO. From last year's spending, it is
    only a 3 percent increase. And I think to do it right and to
    make sure we do that, we need to be at 640.
        At all times, but especially under the current conditions,
    the contributions of the National Guard cannot be overlooked.
    The guardsmen that I have served with, both in peacetime and in
    wartime, are dedicated, capable, trained, and professionals. I
    will put their experience and their skill levels up against
    anybody in the world.
        I urge the committee to ensure that they have the same
    equipment and the same training opportunities, CTC rotations,
    the combat training center rotations, to train as one Army.
    Those men and women need to look and smell exactly like their
    Active Duty counterparts, especially when we are talking about
    our heavy brigade combat teams or we are talking about our
    fighter pilots and the equipment that they use in both the
    Guard and Reserves and on the active components.
        Additionally, those serving in the National Guard bring
    experience from a wide range of backgrounds, occupations, skill
    sets that are invaluable contributions to our current military
    readiness. As you consider the funding and policies for this
    year's Defense appropriations bill, I encourage you not to
    overlook the vital impact we have as the Guard being an
    operational reserve and making sure that they are trained,
    equipped, and manned to meet those obligations that this Nation
    requires of them.
        I am committed to working with you as you ensure our
    military is the strongest fighting force in the world. And I
    look forward to working with you to continue to support our
    Armed Forces. Through our strength in the military we preserve
    the peace. And we cannot afford to be at war because we did not
    have the capable military force to deter all foreign forces
    which would do that.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member,
    and any questions you have.
        [The written statement of Congressman Kelly follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. We
    are going to have a supplemental here pretty soon and we will
    be reviewing that. Most of that is going to go toward readiness
    and getting the military back up to par here pretty quickly. We
    look forward to your support on that supplemental. And we are
    going to need everybody to support----
        Mr. Kelly. You can count on it.
        Mr. Calvert. And we certainly thank you for your service.
        Any questions, Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. No.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Knight, Steve Knight from the great State of
    California.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. STEVE KNIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Knight

        Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I come to you from the 25th Congressional District in
    California where we have built, tested, thought of, and drawn
    the last bombers of the generation, the B-1s, the B-2s, and the
    B-21s that are coming up.
        To say that our bomber fleet is old is an understatement to
    mammoth proportions. We have pilots today flying tail numbers
    that their grandfathers flew from B-52s. We have B-1s that were
    built back in the early 1980s, and we are projecting to fly
    them for another 30 years. So I am here to speak about the
    importance of Air Force's new long-range strike bomber, the B-
    21 Raider.
        The ability to project power anywhere in the world is a
    cornerstone of our national security strategy. For decades, our
    militaries enjoyed this advantage. However, as potential
    adversaries rapidly improve their military forces, we must
    modernize our military technology to maintain our strength.
        Most of our current fleet of long-range strike bombers are
    over 50 years old and cannot penetrate advanced defenses. About
    18 of our bombers can penetrate into the maintained airspace
    that we need them to get into. Unfortunately, we only have 18
    of those that are flying.
        Thankfully, work is underway to build a new bomber. The Air
    Force's B-21 Raider will be the world's most advanced, long-
    range strike bomber when it fields in the mid-2020s. It also
    offers noteworthy cost-effective advantages over older fighter
    aircraft and bomber aircraft. It carries larger payloads,
    requires fewer aircraft, and puts fewer men and women in harm's
    way to accomplish the mission.
        As Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein
    expressed the need for the B-21 when he stated, ``In the short
    term, we prefer to have more penetrating long-range capacity to
    ensure persistent air operations in long-range scenarios. For
    this reason, the B-21 is an operational imperative, and we must
    ensure it remains an affordable program in order to augment and
    eventually replace our legacy bomber fleet.''
        I could not agree with the general's comments, and it is
    apparent that many of my colleagues here in the House feel the
    same way.
        As you might recall, last year, a bipartisan group of 28
    members wrote to this committee to voice support of the B-21
    program and encouraged the committee to provide sufficient
    funding to keep the program on track so it is ready when we
    need it. It is also in my opinion for Congress to keep this on
    budget on time, because that is the only way that the American
    people are going to see that programs work, they come to
    fruition, we get them to the pilots faster, and there to the
    warfighter in a much better manner.
        I am encouraged by the committee's support for modernizing
    our nuclear deterrence capability, including the B-21. As you
    well know, we must ensure our military is never in a fair
    fight, and the B-21 will do that by enabling our military
    leaders to strike anywhere at any time.
        I thank you very much for your time, and I will take any
    questions.
        [The written statement of Congressman Knight follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony. We are looking
    forward to that new bomber being built in the great State of
    California, so keep doing the good work.
        Any questions?
        Mr. Visclosky. No questions.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay.
        Mr. Knight. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Next, Mr. McGovern.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MASSACHUSETTS

                   Summary Statement of Congressman McGovern

        Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
    Ranking Member. And thank you for your patience in listening to
    all us members. It is like the Rules Committee. So I also want
    to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify in
    support of funding a competitive grant program for nonprofits
    that trains service dogs for our veterans.
        Specifically, I ask the committee to support a minimum of
    $5 million for the Wounded Warriors service dog grant program.
    Obviously, if it could be more, I would be thrilled because the
    need out there is so great.
        In addition, I request that the committee insert language
    addressing the benefits of K9 therapy for treatment of PTSD and
    TBI symptoms. And I will include this language with my official
    statement.
        I also want to express my gratitude to the subcommittee for
    their assistance in securing funding for the program in fiscal
    year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. Already we have seen so many
    incredible success stories in which these dogs have helped
    veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress or physical
    limitations to reintegrate into the social framework of their
    families and communities and often reduce their reliance on
    prescription drugs.
        Continuing to fund this program at at least $5 million a
    year would allow awardees to continue this all important work.
    That being said, even with this grant program, many nonprofits
    continue to have waiting lists of veterans in need of service
    dogs. And given that fiscal year 2018 will likely see an
    increase in defense spending, my hope is that this subcommittee
    will consider appropriating more than $5 million to grow this
    already successful program.
        Mr. Chair, with so many of our veterans returning from war,
    bearing both physical and emotional scars, we must ensure that
    they have access to treatments that work. Service dogs have
    been shown to have a positive effect on the treatment of PTSD
    and TBI symptoms, and it is not a coincidence that we have seen
    a significant growth in the demand for these service dogs as
    more of our veterans are returning home in need of this
    assistance.
        Last Congress, I had the opportunity to visit the National
    Education for Assistance Dog Services, or NEADS, located in
    Princeton, Massachusetts. I heard amazing stories about how
    service dogs are helping to treat veterans with physical
    disabilities, as well as those suffering from post-traumatic
    stress. This nonprofit organization has connected many
    deserving veterans with service dogs over the past few years
    with incredible results. Like other similar nonprofits, NEADS
    customizes the training of each dog to serve its future owner.
    Depending on the owner's needs, these dogs can be trained to
    retrieve medicine from a refrigerator, turn the lights on and
    scan an empty house before the owner enters, guard an owner's
    back in a public setting, and even wake up an owner from a
    nightmare.
        In the last few years, NEADS, like many other nonprofits
    providing this crucial service, have struggled to meet these
    growing levels of demand. Many nonprofits that train dogs for
    use by veterans are underfunded. The cost of training a service
    dog varies, but estimates range between $15,000 to $60,000 per
    dog, and training can take up to 2 years. Too often, a
    veteran's need for a service dog goes unmet due to financial
    constraints. This competitive grant awarded only to
    organizations that meet the standards of either the
    International Guide Dog Federation or Assistance Dogs
    International will allow nonprofits to help more veterans.
        Congress first directed the VA to research the effect of
    service dogs on veterans with PTSD in 2010. This study was
    suspended in 2012. In 2015, the VA launched a new version of
    the study that will conclude in 2018. Meanwhile, the demand
    amongst veterans for service dogs continues to grow as research
    conducted by private institutions such as Perdue University
    increasingly demonstrates that service dogs can help treat
    symptoms of PTSD. In addition to these studies, I guarantee
    that if you sit down with a veteran who has received a service
    dog for PTSD, it will be perfectly clear how helpful these dogs
    are.
        So, Mr. Chair, with so many of our veterans coming home
    from war suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and
    other physical disabilities, it is critical that we offer them
    multiple treatment options. And while the VA continues its
    exhaustive research on the topic, we have wounded veterans who
    attribute their recoveries to service dogs and other veterans
    for whom a service dog could be key. So rather than relegating
    these veterans to a waiting list, let's continue to support
    these highly technical nonprofits so that they can continue to
    do what they do best: Help our veterans.
        So I ask this committee and my colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle to fund this competitive grant program. And with
    that, I appreciate your time.
        [The written statement of Congressman McGovern follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. I thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. Mr. McGovern, I appreciate you testifying on
    behalf of those who have been injured in defense of this
    country, but also want to thank you very much for your
    continued advocacy asking that Congress be involved as far as a
    new authorization for the use of military force.
        I appreciated your comments in the Rules Committee on
    Tuesday. I know you are joined by colleagues such as Mr. Cole
    and others. I understand you addressed the issue again
    yesterday on the floor, as well as Ms. Lee, and certainly hope,
    particularly with the new administration, that we come together
    and we have a role to play here as well as the change rule. So
    I appreciate your advocacy very much.
        Mr. McGovern. Well, I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mrs. Hartzler, you are now recognized.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Good afternoon. I found a new room in the
    Capitol.
        Mr. Calvert. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MISSOURI

                  Summary Statement of Congresswoman Hartzler

        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you so much.
        I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you as a member
    of the House Armed Services Committee and to share with you
    some priorities that I believe is very, very vital as we move
    forward in this year's budget.
        Recent reports have indicated that the Trump administration
    intends to submit a budget with a defense top line of $603
    billion for fiscal year 2018. While I applaud the President's
    intention to increase our military funding with a, quote, $54
    billion increase, this assertion does not tell the whole story.
        The $603 billion number is actually only an increase from
    the sequestration limits that have wreaked havoc on our
    military for the past 7 years. It is only a 3 percent increase
    from President Obama's administration proposal in the Future
    Years Defense Program, or FYDP, and $58 billion less than
    Secretary Gates' budget, which is what is really, really
    needed. And this chart shows that, that the Trump proposal of
    $603 billion is the orange star there. And you see that the
    Gates' budget, which was the last time that we really had a
    budget aligned with our defense objectives, shows that we
    should be getting far more at this point.
        So our military today is facing a severe crisis. We expect
    our men and women in uniform and the equipment they deploy to
    be able to decisively win a current conflict and posture our
    forces so another enemy doesn't even think they can challenge
    the United States if they tried. Yet this ability is in
    jeopardy.
        According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and
    this is shocking, less than 50 percent of the Air Forces's fire
    and bomber force are able to fight and decisively win a highly
    contested fight against a near-peer such as Russia or China. In
    fact, an engine literally fell off of a B-52 bomber while
    training in North Dakota recently.
        According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, of the 58
    brigade combat teams that our Nation depends on to deploy
    overseas and to defend our freedoms we comfortably enjoy here,
    only three could be called upon to fight tonight, three out of
    58.
        Based on current readiness levels, the Army can only
    accomplish defense requirements at a high military risk. As
    General Allyn stated in his testimony last month before the
    Armed Services Committee, if we continue down this path, quote,
    ``the end result is excessive casualties, both to innocent
    civilians and to our forces,'' end quote. We cannot allow this
    to happen.
        According to the Vice Chief of Naval operations, two-
    thirds, 67 percent, of our Navy strike fighters, the planes
    that are launching entirety of the Navy's attacks against ISIS,
    cannot fly. Sixty-seven percent of the Naval aircraft cannot
    fly. And sadly, in 2015, the Marine Corps aviation deaths hit a
    5-year high as aircraft failed or pilots lacked adequate
    training hours. This is unacceptable.
        Regardless of your budgetary priorities, I call on each of
    you to recognize that it is our responsibility in Congress to
    provide support for our men and women in uniform while they
    selflessly serve our Nation. House Armed Services Chairman
    Thornberry and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain
    have both laid out what the Department of Defense needs to
    begin buying back the readiness that has left our force hollow.
    Our military needs $640 billion to begin the restoration of its
    forces that the American people expect and need in today's
    world, not $603 billion.
        If we do not meet the budget of $640 billion for the
    Department of Defense, we will be shortchanging our military in
    capabilities they need to fulfill their mission. We will impose
    too great of risk in air dominance, Naval presence, ship
    recovery, facilities maintenance, ground forces, medical
    readiness, nuclear deterrent requirements, national security
    space defense, ballistic missile defense, and cyber
    capabilities. Each of these requirements is crucial to our
    national security, and we would not be able to have those met
    without it.
        Our men and women in the military must stand ready and
    actively fight a resurgent Russia, an emergent China, an
    unstable North Korea, an unpredictable Iran, and widespread
    violent extremism. The demand for our forces has never been so
    high and our readiness has never been so low.
        It is within our power to reverse this. I ask you to work
    with me and others in the Armed Services Committee to give our
    servicemen and -women the resources they need to build our
    military and to keep our Nation safe.
        Thank you.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman Hartzler follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for testifying. As you
    know, we are going to have a supplemental coming here pretty
    soon to address some of those readiness issues, and we look
    forward to your support with that. And obviously, we have some
    great needs for our United States military. So we appreciate
    your testimony.
        Next, Mr. Wenstrup.
        Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Good to see you. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Thursday March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BRAD WENSTRUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Wenstrup

        Mr. Wenstrup. I appear before you today in strong support
    of a robust defense budget for fiscal year 2018. It is an honor
    to testify before this committee, and my colleagues and I in
    the Armed Services Committee look forward to continuing our
    partnership with you to support and equip the men and women of
    our Armed Forces.
        In recent years, the U.S. military has faced years of
    devastating cuts, leaving us with the smallest Army since
    before World War II, a Navy fleet among the smallest since
    World War I, and an Air Force whose top general has said it may
    not be able to control the skies in a future conflict.
        President Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for
    rebuilding our military, and I also applaud his commitment to
    cutting waste and eliminating unnecessary spending. However, I
    am concerned that the 2018 defense budget previewed by the
    White House, even with the intent of cuts from within, it is
    not sufficient to fully resource the bold agenda to rebuild our
    military both in capabilities and deterrents that the President
    has set for this administration.
        I would like to highlight three particular areas that
    demonstrate the impossible tradeoffs being forced on our
    military, tradeoffs that we can avoid by properly resourcing
    our national defense. Recently, the largest deployment of U.S.
    Troops arrived in Europe since the end of the Cold War. They
    are on a mission to reassure our European allies and deter
    further Russian aggression on the continent. However, over the
    past few years, Russia has made major investments in
    modernizing its equipment and tactics.
        In response, the U.S. Army in Europe declared an urgent
    operational need for defensive and offensive upgrades to its
    Stryker vehicles. While the single Stryker Brigade Combat Team
    deployed to Europe is receiving these upgrades, limited
    resources will prevent the Army from quickly upgrading the rest
    of our Stryker BCTs. In fact, the production rate is at risk of
    falling as low as one brigade every 3 years, a lethargic pace
    for critical upgrades to an essential combat capability.
        If we want our forces in Europe to serve as an effective
    deterrent to Russian aggression, we must fully fund the Stryker
    upgrades necessary to ensure that we pose a credible threat to
    our adversary forces.
        Another challenge for our military is maintaining the
    golden hour standard for trauma care in future conflicts. The
    golden hour refers to the fact that wounded servicemembers have
    over a 90 percent survival rate when they reach role 2 medical
    care within the first hour of being injured. This standard has
    been a major contributor to the United States suffering far
    fewer combat related deaths in the wars of the last 15 years
    than in any previous conflicts. However, maintaining the golden
    hour when we do not have uncontested control of the air and sea
    domains, as would be the case in a potential conflict with
    Russia or China, requires developing a new set of battlefield
    capabilities. We shouldn't accept a lower standard of care and
    a higher fatality rate for our troops just because the fights
    of the future may pose new challenges. Instead, we must fully
    fund capabilities to maintain the golden hour in both today's
    conflicts and those of the future.
        The final priority I would like to discuss is growing our
    Army. In 2016, the Army reached the lowest level of Active Duty
    troops since 1940. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
    prevented even further cuts, but the Army is still too small to
    meet our national security requirements.
        Quantity has a quality of its own and we will need more
    troops if we are to simultaneously destroy ISIS, support the
    Afghan Government against the Taliban, serve as an effective
    deterrent to Russian and Chinese aggression, and be prepared to
    respond to unexpected contingencies across the globe or even at
    home. Rebuilding the Army's end strength is a complex, decades
    long process, but we must begin making this long-term
    investment today in order to realize the goal of an Army
    prepared for the conflicts of the current decade as well as the
    threats of tomorrow.
        Just as with any Federal agency, the Department of Defense
    has to prioritize, make strategic choices, cut waste and
    inefficiency, and operate within budgetary realities. But
    resourcing these urgent needs of our Armed Forces is not
    optional. A failure to do so will result in a continued
    readiness crisis, weakened national security, and ultimately,
    the loss of American lives.
        However, the good news is that we do not have to force
    these impossible choices on our military. A defense budget that
    is in line with the House Armed Services Committee's proposal
    will fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide President
    Trump and Secretary Mattis with the force they need to deter
    threats and keep our Nation secure. Most importantly, it will
    ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources,
    training, and equipment they need to keep us safe and come home
    safe themselves.
        With that, I yield back.
        [The written statement of Congressman Wenstrup follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and
    thank you for your service. We certainly appreciate that.
        Any additional questions?
        Mr. Visclosky. No.
        Mr. Calvert. Next, Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania. Welcome.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        PENNSYLVANIA

                  Summary Statement of Congressman Cartwright

        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and Ranking
    Member Visclosky. It is an honor for me to join you both on the
    House Appropriations Committee, and I thank you for allowing
    this testimony today.
        The United States military is the greatest military in the
    world, and it can only stay that way if we provide our ongoing
    support. I want to specifically address a few defense spending
    matters of the utmost importance. These issues affect both my
    constituents and the security of the whole country.
        Robust military manufacturing is necessary for the
    sustained strength of our Armed Forces. I am proud to say that
    Tobyhanna Army Depot in my district has contributed admirably
    to that effort. This facility has been able to efficiently
    compete with their private sector competitors for many years.
    For this quality of manufacturing support the U.S. military to
    continue, we must provide consistent and sustain funding.
        Every job at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, the Army's only
    command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnoissance depot generates 2\1/2\ jobs in
    the larger local community. And what these men and women do at
    Tobyhanna is that they refurbish used electronic equipment. It
    is a great way to save money in our defense. This Depot
    provides our troops with state-of-the-art technology, delivers
    a healthy return on investment to the taxpayer, and serves as a
    vital hub of commerce in the community.
        As such, I urge continued funding to support the operations
    and maintenance budget of depots, which are an essential
    component of our national security.
        Additionally, I want to reiterate the opposition I
    expressed last Congress to any implementation of new A-76
    studies by the Department of Defense. The A-76 process uses
    faulty, antiquated methodology to determine whether Federal
    civilian jobs should be outsourced, a matter we simply cannot
    simply approach so haphazardly. Both the GAO and the Inspector
    General of the Department of Defense concluded the process
    could not demonstrate any savings for the taxpayer.
        And so using an arbitrary 12 percent overhead factor cost
    for Federal employees versus contractors, the A-76 process is
    simply not anchored in the facts. And we have to work with the
    facts. We have to act sensibly with taxpayer dollars by basing
    our decisions on the facts. A-76 has faced bipartisan
    opposition and has been subject to congressional moratoriums
    since 2010, and I urge the committee to ensure that it stays
    that way.
        I would also like to stress the importance of several
    programs that affect the general dynamics Scranton operation
    plant located in my district. Specifically, I hope that funding
    can be maintained for two artillery ammunition programs. First,
    the Navy 5/54 ammunition, which is fired from cruiser and
    destroyer types of combatant ships. Second, the 155 millimeter
    M795, which is state-of-the-art, multipurpose, high
    fragmentation, high explosive projectile fired from 155
    millimeter howitzers.
        Lastly, I want to express my support for the sustained
    funding for two larger programs that impact the general dynamic
    Scranton operation plant as well. First, the Abrams tank
    improvement program, which applies modifications to the
    currently deployed Abrams family of vehicles. The second
    program involves upgrades to the Stryker vehicle, which
    improved the protective hull of the vehicle, ensuring that our
    troops remain as safe as possible when carrying out their
    missions.
        All of these programs improve the capabilities of our Armed
    Forces, function as a worthwhile investment for the general
    American taxpayer, and play a major economic role in the
    community surrounding the plant. So for these reasons I do urge
    the committee's continued support.
        Thank you again, Chairman Calvert, for having this meeting
    and allowing me the opportunity to speak at it.
        [The written statement of Congressman Cartwright follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
        Any questions?
        No questions. Have a nice day. Thank you so much for your
    excellent testimony.
        Next, Mrs. Wagner.
        Good afternoon.
        Mrs. Wagner. Good afternoon, Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MISSOURI

                   Summary Statement of Congresswoman Wagner

        Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my support for a matter
    important to the United States Navy and our national security.
        Ensuring the success of our missions and the safety of our
    troops is close to my heart, not only as a Member of Congress,
    but also as a mother. My son, a West Point graduate, is an Army
    ranger currently serving as an Active Duty captain in the 3rd
    Infantry Division at Fort Stewart.
        As I testify before you today, the USSCarl Vinson is on
    deployment in the Western Pacific with three squadrons of F/A-
    18 Super Hornets, ensuring our Nation's security and providing
    the needed presence and deterrence that only United States
    aircraft carrier and its embarked air wing can.
        These Super Hornets have seen their share of combat
    operations over the past 10 years conducting strikes in the
    fight against ISIS and providing air support to our troops on
    the ground in Afghanistan. We have heard from past year's
    testimonies by the Chief of Naval Operations that this
    unrelentingly high operational tempo of F/A-18s on the carrier
    decks and the delays in maintenance and sustainment of legacy
    fighter aircraft have resulted in a significant shortfall in
    tactical aircraft needed to remain mission capable.
        I appreciate the response by this committee in its fiscal
    year 2017 markup to address this shortfall with new F/A-18s and
    F-35Cs. However, this readiness challenge is far from solved.
    And I support the Navy's call for additional Super Hornets and
    for a robust sustainment plan to keep Super Hornets flying into
    the 2040s as a needed fix to this shortfall.
        The men and women building the F/A-18s in Missouri's Second
    Congressional District are ready to deliver the solution. My
    constituents are patriotic and dedicated heros who work hard to
    develop amazing systems that make American leadership and
    global missions possible. They continue to advance the
    capabilities of this aircraft to combat future threats,
    developing a Block III Super Hornet that will compliment the F-
    35's capabilities in the air wing of the future. They have also
    prepared a comprehensive Super Hornet service life modification
    plan to address the readiness of the strike fighter fleet.
        I hope that this committee will continue to support my
    fiscal year 2018 request from the Navy for additional Super
    Hornets, as well as investments to Super Hornet readiness in
    your markup. The men and the women of the Navy have answered
    our call, and I look forward to working with you this year to
    be sure that the men and women of Missouri can help answer
    theirs.
        I thank you for the opportunity to do so, and I appreciate
    your time today, Mr. Chairman.
        [The written statement of Congresswoman Wagner follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for the gentlelady's testimony.
        Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate the gentlelady's testimony as
    well. And I do not want to be insensitive, but I realize that
    there are three purple ties and white shirts. What did I miss
    today?
        Mrs. Wagner. I don't know.
        Mr. Visclosky. Is this just an incredible coincidence? I
    have been sitting here all morning.
        Mrs. Wagner. I wore red yesterday for International Women's
    Day apparently.
        Mr. Visclosky. I have been sitting here all morning and I
    am thinking, did I miss----
        Mrs. Wagner. I am not aware, but I have told my scheduler
    that it is important you let me know what the color of the day
    is----
        Mr. Visclosky. I will simply remember this for our markup.
        Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. For our nation, internationally,
    nationally, and in Congress.
        I thank the gentleman for his question.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mrs. Wagner. My pleasure. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Calvert. Next, is Mr. Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon, and you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. WARREN DAVIDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        OHIO

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Davidson

        Mr. Davidson. Thank you. It is an honor to come before your
    subcommittee. Thanks for the work you are doing to help get our
    Defense Department on a path to a stronger capability.
        And I just recognize that there are so many priorities
    competing for scarce dollars. And all these things have a big
    implication. As a former Army ranger, I was blessed to serve
    with some of those who serve near the tip of the spear in our
    country in earlier days. But all these macro decisions are made
    up of many small things.
        And so I wanted to come before you and highlight one such
    small detail that could escape notice, and it is a small $5
    million program. And as you consider the fiscal year 2018 DOD
    Appropriations Act, I am asking the subcommittee to provide a
    generic increase of $5 million in the Air Force base procured
    equipment for the purchase of civil engineering construction,
    surveying, and mapping equipment. This will upgrade the
    surveying equipment throughout the Air Force's engineering
    units.
        These units perform rapid response and often critical
    construction, surveying, and mapping in garrison or in deployed
    theaters of operation. They provide the needed support and
    heavy damage repair of beddown weapon systems and bare-base,
    high-threat environments. However, existing Air Force civil
    engineering equipment is over 15 years old, much of which was
    discontinued over 7 years ago. Those maintenance costs are
    prohibitive and some equipment in the Air Force is no longer
    being maintained. This has adversely affected the civil
    engineers' readiness and ability to conduct critical missions
    and imposed additional maintenance requirements on aircraft
    because of maintenance capability being degraded.
        I am hopeful that the committee will make sure that our
    engineers have the support they need to provide the reliable
    runways and facilities from meeting the mission and supporting
    the other investments we make in modernized aircraft.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the
    committee. Thanks for the work you are doing. And on behalf of
    the airmen at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Springfield Air
    National Guard Base, thanks for the support you lend them.
        [The written statement of Congressman Davidson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And thank you for your service. And
    you have a great base there at Wright-Pat. It is the oldest air
    base in the United States, I believe.
        Mr. Davidson. It is.
        Mr. Calvert. Is this your 100th anniversary this year?
        Mr. Davidson. It is the 100th anniversary this year.
        Mr. Calvert. That is right. Because March Air Force Base is
    on the West Coast and we have ours next year or the year after,
    so pretty close.
        Mr. Davidson. Very good.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Any other questions?
        Next is Mr. Gallagher.
        Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        WISCONSIN

                   Summary Statement of Congressman Gallagher

        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    colleagues.
        As a Marine Corps veteran and a member of the House Armed
    Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I look
    forward to working with you to fulfill our first and foremost
    responsibility of keeping the country safe. To do that, we need
    to be able to project power throughout the world, which in turn
    depends in large part on our willingness here in Congress to
    provide and maintain a robust naval fleet as duty dictates
    according to Article I, section 8, clause 13 of the
    Constitution. Thanks to mindless defense sequestration,
    however, we have been derelict in that duty. And as a result,
    the Navy is the smallest it has been in 99 years, currently
    satisfying only 40 percent of the demand from regional
    commanders.
        But we now have an opportunity to turn all of that around.
    We now have an opportunity to answer the Navy's own call for a
    355 ship fleet. In support of this effort, it is my honor as a
    Member of Congress to represent the highly skilled American
    workers who build the Freedom class littoral combat ship at
    Fincantieri Marinette Marine in the Eighth District of the
    great State of Wisconsin.
        Every day, 2,200 workers pass through the shipyard's gates.
    They don their hardhats and they go to work building American
    warships that allow the Navy to conduct critical missions such
    as antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, ISR, and
    surface warfare. The construction of these ships in turn
    provides much needed local high-skill, high-paid jobs for the
    shipyard and over 200 contributing subcomponent producers.
        Continuing down the path of sequester or even embarking on
    a decades long development of a new small surface combatant
    would result in the loss of some of the most highly skilled
    workers in the world. Reconstituting this workforce would be
    tremendously difficult if not impossible. It would also do
    enormous damage to our naval capabilities.
        My point here, Mr. Chairman, is not simply parochial. It is
    simply this: When we talk about big words, like our defense
    industrial base, this is exactly what we are talking about.
    Behind such buzz words lie real people, patriotic Americans who
    take pride in working hard and giving our warfighters what they
    need to keep us safe. Our shipbuilding program thus lies at the
    intersection of our national security and our economic
    security.
        With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I applaud
    the committee for the inclusion of three LCSs in your fiscal
    year 2017 defense appropriations bill. And I ask you to
    continue your efforts to return to or plus up the Navy's 52
    ship program of record in your fiscal year 2018 budget
    submission. This will be pivotal as the Navy transitions its
    small service combatant from LCS to a multimission frigate. The
    Navy's small surface combatant task force concluded that
    building a frigate on a modified LCS hull offers the best path
    to affordably deliver distributed lethality to the fleet in a
    reasonable timeframe.
        At a broader level, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully remind the
    committee that the 52-ship requirement represents the bare
    minimum needed to meet naval requirements for projection of
    force. This 52-ship requirement was validated by the Chief of
    Naval Operations several months ago in his force structure
    assessment. The acting Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley,
    has testified that the previous plan to truncate the program to
    40 ships was and is a result solely of budgetary decisions, in
    other words not strategic demands based on what the Navy
    actually needs.
        This previous construct recklessly held the defense of our
    Nation hostage to domestic political demands. This previous
    construct offered us a false choice between posture and
    presence. And so I would submit that we must reject this false
    and dangerous choice and provide the Navy with what it needs to
    get the job done and put this country back on a path to peace
    through strength.
        And so on behalf of the dedicated workers in northeast
    Wisconsin, I thank you for your support. Today, those workers
    will walk through the gate of Marinette to build some of the
    best in our Navy, constantly improving their craft every single
    day to deliver a better product for less money, to give our
    warfighters what they need to keep us safe. They are doing
    their jobs and so we in Congress must do ours.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The written statement of Congressman Gallagher follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. And thank you for your testimony. You are
    absolutely right, the number of ships that we have today is
    totally inadequate and we need to rebuild our United States
    Navy. And I believe that we are going to be on the path to do
    that at this point.
        So, Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, just briefly.
        Welcome to the United States Congress. Is Eagle River in
    your district or the seventh district?
        Mr. Gallagher. Seventh.
        Mr. Visclosky. Seventh district. My mother was born and
    raised there. Sorry about that.
        Mr. Gallagher. Are you a Packers fan, sir?
        Mr. Visclosky. I am sorry?
        Mr. Gallagher. Are you a Packers fan, sir?
        Mr. Visclosky. I have to tell you that she ended up moving
    to Lake County, Indiana, and I grew up with the Bears. But
    actually, the--this is another story, we are on the record. I
    will talk to you later.
        Mr. Gallagher. Packers football is part of our national
    security as well.
        Mr. Visclosky. Good luck to you.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. We are going to wait a minute. We are waiting
    on Mr. Webster. I think he is coming in here.
        Mr. Webster. Am I next or last?
        Mr. Calvert. You are next and last. So we appreciate your
    coming in, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------

                                               Thursday, March 9, 2017.
    HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        FLORIDA

                    Summary Statement of Congressman Webster

        Mr. Webster. Fantastic. Thank you for letting me be here
    today. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for having these
    listening sessions. They are good for the peons like me. We
    really appreciate it.
        I have two requests. One of them is for the Civil Air
    Patrol, for them to be the auxiliary of the United States Air
    Force. I would request that they would get $43.1 million. That
    would be a $3.1 million increase over current funding. That
    would be for upgrades that they are going to have to do based
    on the FAA. All U.S.-based aircraft have to have avionics
    improvements. They are going to have to do the same. They don't
    have the money to do that.
        It is about half of that request. A couple other things
    dealing with cybersecurity and communication equipment, which
    also is a requirement they are going to have to do, would be
    included in that request.
        And my second would be the Navy has had in the Defense
    Review, they initially recommended in 2010 that a carrier be
    based in Mayport, in Jacksonville. That has not changed. The
    Navy secretary, chief of naval operations have repeatedly asked
    for that to take place. At present, our Nation only has one
    carrier based in the Eastern Seaboard, at Norfolk. And I would
    say I would be speaking for the entire Florida delegation to
    say we would like to see that take place.
        Both of those requests would be for fiscal year 2018.
        That is it.
        [The written statement of Congressman Webster follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Calvert. Well, you are carrying on the tradition of
    Ander Crenshaw, who was always asking for a carrier to be based
    in Florida. So we will certainly take that into consideration,
    and we appreciate your testimony. And being a former pilot, I
    understand the importance of the Civil Patrol. So it is a great
    request.
        Mr. Webster. That is my only two requests.
        Mr. Calvert. Any questions?
        Thank you for your testimony.
        This concludes the subcommittee's Members' Day hearing. We
    appreciate our colleagues' testimony here today. The
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Written testimony from Congressman Arrington submitted for
    the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

                         UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND

                                    WITNESS

    GENERAL JAMES VOTEL, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order. This morning the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the
    posture of the United States Central Command. First, I want to
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for a motion.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chairwoman, pursuant to the provisions
    of clause D of section 4 of the rules of the committee, I move
    that today's markup be held in executive session because of the
    classification of the material to be discussed.
        Ms. Granger. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
        Our witness this morning is General Joseph Votel, commander
    of United States Central Command. We appreciate so much your
    being with us, what you do, the importance of what you do in a
    very dangerous world and a very dangerous part. So, General,
    welcome back to the subcommittee, and thank you.
        We understand Central Command is a complex and volatile
    area of responsibility that is filled with instability and
    turmoil. Right now, our forces are fighting pure evil in the
    form of ISIS in Iraq and Syria; As if that isn't hard enough,
    they have to deal with Russia and Iran transferring with the
    fight. However, the war in Iraq and Syria is only one of the
    challenges. Afghanistan faces a resurgent Taliban, the conflict
    in Yemen is escalating, Egypt is engaged in fighting ISIS
    affiliates in the Sinai, and Al Qaeda continues to persist.
    General, given the challenges your command faces, we must
    ensure you do not lack the support you need to accomplish your
    mission.
        As we watch events unfold, we are concerned by Russian and
    Iranian efforts to spread their influence throughout the
    region. Additionally, we are equally troubled by the continued
    presence of violent extremism from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the
    Taliban.
        Our adversaries only understand one thing, and that is
    strength. They must know the United States will stand with our
    allies and respond decisively to their aggression.
        As chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions
    should be guided by experts in uniform like you. There are
    limited resources and significant needs. We should not make
    decisions in a vacuum. We will rely on your best military
    advice.
        We look forward to your testimony and your insight, but
    first, I would like to call on the ranking member, my friend,
    Pete Visclosky, for his comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I simply
    want to thank you for holding the hearing, General, for your
    service, and look forward to the testimony and the questions of
    my colleagues. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Granger. General, please proceed with your testimony.
    Your full written testimony will be placed in the record. Feel
    free to summarize your oral statements so we can leave enough
    time to get to everyone's questions. Thank you.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL VOTEL

        General Votel. Thank you. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear here
    today to discuss the current posture and state of readiness of
    the United States Central Command. I come before you today on
    behalf of the outstanding men and women of the command,
    military, civilians, and contractors, along with our coalition
    partners, representing nearly 60 nations. Our people are the
    very best in the world at what they do, and I could not be more
    proud of them and their families. Without question, they are
    the strength of the Central Command team.
        [The written statement of General Votel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                             Wednesday, March 29, 2017.

                         UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND

                                    WITNESS

    GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES EUROPEAN
        COMMAND

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order.
        This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the
    posture of the United States European Command.
        First, I want to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Visclosky, for a motion.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, pursuant to the provisions to
    clause D of section 4 of the rules of the committee, I move
    that today's markup be held in executive session because of the
    classification of the material to be discussed.
        Ms. Granger. So ordered. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
        Our witness this morning is General Mike Scaparrotti,
    Commander of the United States European Command, NATO, and the
    Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
        General, welcome back to this subcommittee, and thank you
    for your service and your attention, and thank you for being
    here with us.
        Threats from Russia and terrorists have interrupted decades
    of peace for EUCOM, NATO, and our allies. To complicate
    matters, a major refugee crisis is overwhelming many European
    countries, and ISIS is using this crisis to smuggle its own
    operatives into Europe.
        General, given the challenges your command faces, we remain
    concerned you lack the support you need to accomplish your
    mission. The subcommittee has provided EUCOM with additional
    resources through the European Reassurance Initiative; however,
    we are concerned that it is not nearly enough, when you take
    into account the funding is significantly less than the
    resources Russia has dedicated to Crimea and Ukraine alone.
        Bullies often understand one thing, and that is strength.
    Putin must know the United States will stand with our European
    allies and respond decisively to their resurgent aggression.
        As chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions
    should be guided by experts in uniform, like you. There are
    limited resources and significant needs. We should not make
    decisions in a vacuum and will rely on your best military
    advice. We look forward to your testimony and your insight.
        But, first, I would like to call on the ranking member, my
    friend, Pete Visclosky, for his comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. I thank the chairwoman for holding a
    hearing, and I look forward to the gentleman's testimony.
        Ms. Granger. I needed a little situational awareness. I
    apologize.
        Mr. Visclosky. I do too.
        Ms. Granger. General, please proceed with your testimony.
    Your full written testimony will be placed in the record, and
    please feel free to summarize your oral statement so we can
    leave enough time to get to everyone's questions.
        [The written statement General Scaparrotti follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                             Wednesday, April 26, 2017.

                         UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND

                                    WITNESS

    ADMIRAL HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order.
        Today the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture
    of the United States Pacific Command. First I want to recognize
    the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for a motion.
        Mr. Visclosky. I move that those portions of the hearing
    today which involve classified material be held under executive
    session because of the classification of the material to be
    discussed.
        Ms. Granger. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
        Our witness this morning is Admiral Harry Harris, Commander
    of the United States Pacific Command. Admiral, welcome back to
    the subcommittee, and thank you for your service. Sorry you had
    to wait on us. We had a couple of votes.
        An increasingly provocative North Korea, rising tensions in
    the peninsula, and China's military expansion in the South
    China Sea continue to threaten stability in the region and
    remind us of the challenges you face. To complicate matters,
    the PACOM area of responsibility encompasses nearly half the
    Earth's surface. The 36 nations comprising the Asia Pacific
    region are home to more than 50 percent of the world's
    population and several of the world's largest militaries.
        Admiral, this subcommittee is committed to providing you
    with the resources you need to enhance stability in the Asia
    Pacific region, promote cooperation and peace, deter
    aggression, and if necessary, fight to win.
        As Chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions
    should be guided by experts in uniform like you. There are
    limited resources and significant needs. We should not make
    decisions in a vacuum, and we will rely on your best military
    advice. We look forward to your testimony and your insight.
        First I would like to call on the ranking member, my
    friend, Mr. Visclosky, for his comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. I just want to thank the Chairwoman for
    holding the hearing today; Admiral, your service. I know it is
    a long day for you. And look forward to hearing from you.
        Thank you very much.
        Admiral Harris. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Granger. Admiral, please proceed with your testimony.
    The full written testimony will be placed in the record. Feel
    free to summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough
    time to get to everyone's questions if you do decide to do
    that.
        Admiral, thank you for your testimony, and I will call on
    you now.
        Admiral Harris. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairwoman and
    Representative Visclosky and distinguished members. It is an
    honor for me to appear again in front of this committee.
        [The written statement of Admiral Harris follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8272B.120

        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                               Wednesday, May 24, 2017.

                   NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU / RESERVE COMPONENTS

                                    WITNESS

    GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Granger--Panel 1

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order. This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on
    the posture of the National Guard and Reserve Components. This
    will be a two-panel hearing. Panel 1 recognizes the Chief of
    the National Guard Bureau. Panel 2 will recognize the Reserve
    Component Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force
    Reserves. I would encourage all members to stay for both
    panels.
        Our witness for panel 1 is General Joe Lengyel, Chief of
    the National Guard Bureau. We are pleased to welcome General
    Lengyel, a four-star sitting member of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff.
        Welcome, and welcome to the subcommittee hearing, your
    first time to testify as Chief. As Chief of the Guard Bureau,
    General Lengyel will address all joint Army and Air National
    Guard questions.
        General, we have known each other for a long time, and as
    Chairman, I value your knowledge and your experience in leading
    the National Guard. Given the challenges our Nation faces, we
    want to ensure that you have the resources and support to
    accomplish your mission. This subcommittee has provided the
    Guard with additional resources to the National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Account, an appropriation which has never
    been included in a President's budget request, additional
    funding for counterdrug operations, HMMWVs, helicopters, fixed-
    wing aircraft, and more.
        However, we are concerned this is not nearly enough when
    you take into account the funding is significantly less than
    the vast resources available to the Active Components. Our
    country stands for strength, and citizen soldiers are the
    background and the foundation of that strength. There are
    limited resources and significant needs. We should not make
    decisions in a vacuum. We will rely on your best military
    advice to guide these funding decisions. We look forward to
    your testimony and your insight. But, first, I would like to
    call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his
    comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. Well, I simply want to thank the Chairwoman
    for holding the hearing today and, General, for your service
    and your testimony. I look forward to it. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. General, please proceed with your testimony. A
    full written testimony will be placed in the record. Please
    feel free to summarize your oral statement so we can leave
    enough time to get to everyone's questions.

                      Summary Statement of General Lengyel

        General Lengyel. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very
    much.
        I think I say that to you and to Ranking Member Visclosky
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure
    for me to be here today, and I look forward to talking to you
    about the men and women of not only the Army National Guard but
    also the Air National Guard.
        In summary, the National Guard focuses on three things. It
    focuses on our warfighting mission, the homeland mission, and
    building partnerships. And thanks to the support from this
    committee, I can tell you that the National Guard that I have
    the honor to represent here today is the most ready it has ever
    been, I think, or the most capable National Guard it has ever
    been in our 380-year history.
        As I talk to you today, we have 18,000 men and women
    deployed in every combatant command around the globe. In
    addition to that, I have 4,000--you have 4,000 of your men and
    women working for homeland defense and Homeland Security
    missions here today. And we have made and continue to develop
    robust partnerships with not only our international partners
    through the State Partnership Program, which is about to go to
    79 partnerships when we formalize the relationship with
    Malaysia here in the near term--thanks to you and the funding
    that this committee has provided, that State Partnership
    Program has taken on a strategic impact that I think maybe,
    when we developed it, we didn't see that it was becoming.
        This committee provides the resources for us through NGREA,
    as you mentioned in your remarks, to maintain a force that is
    first ready for the war fight but used as a dual-nature force,
    as it is our job as the National Guard to be ready to provide
    those forces here in the homeland when the Governors and the
    States need us to do that. And never have we been more ready to
    do that, whether it is fires or floods or winter snowstorms or
    terrorists, such as bombs blown up in Boston, the National
    Guard is there, and we are trained, and we are ready because of
    the resources that this committee has chosen to give it.
        The relationship with our parent services, the Active Duty
    Air Force and the Active Duty Army, I have to tell you, has
    never been better. My relationship with General Milley and
    General Goldfein, who I understand testified yesterday, have
    committed to a Total Force that includes an operational use of
    the Reserve Component. And if I have one ask of this committee
    today, it is to maintain the Reserve Component, and, in my
    case, the National Guard, as an operational force. We have been
    driven to that because of the demands placed on our Department
    of Defense and the global nature of the threat.
        The services have had to rely more on the use of the Army
    National Guard and the Air National Guard than ever before, and
    because of that, they are willing to invest in us, invest in
    our leaders, invest in our training, and because of the
    resources this committee gives us, we have the equipment, the
    people, and the training to go there. Can we use more? Can we
    get better? Yes, we can. But I report to you today, and I thank
    this committee today for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General Lengyel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. I want to make our members
    aware that we will be using a timer for each member and that
    you have 5 minutes, including questions and responses, for the
    witness. A yellow light on your timer will appear when you have
    1 minute remaining. If time permits, we will have a second
    round of questions.
        I am going to ask a question to begin. General Lengyel,
    full-spectrum readiness training has been suppressed over the
    past 15 years due to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    In recent years, sequestration further squeezed the readiness
    dollars needed to resume such training. Could you describe the
    impact this has on military readiness now and in future years,
    and how does the fiscal year 2018 request begin to address
    those concerns?
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. I think you address the
    problem that the service Chiefs have talked about in terms of
    the ability to maintain full-spectrum readiness for their
    force, mostly because of the demand on that force and the
    limited funding to sustain things like flying hour programs,
    complex training scenario programs. But we are beginning to dig
    out of that and rebuild readiness inside the services and
    inside the National Guard.
        The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard have
    been used in an operational sense, which has allowed the
    services in some cases to maintain or rebuild their readiness.
        Sequestration clearly is going to limit every aspect, would
    limit every aspect of our ability to do that, should it come in
    the future. And I would tell you that predictable and
    dependable funding is probably the single most important factor
    that we in the National Guard need so that we can plan to
    recruit our people, so that we can plan to train our people,
    and so that we can maintain our equipment and recapitalize our
    equipment through the services as we normally do. So I think
    that clearly readiness is funding-related, and this budget
    begins to build some of that back, but it is going to take a
    long time before all of the things, the recapitalization and
    modernization of the force, are fully complete.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. I will pass. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum.

                          FAMILY ASSISTANCE SPECIALIST

        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you. Good morning. I am
    going to touch on something, and then I have a question. So I
    am glad you are here today, in part because we are going to
    learn a lot more on how we can be a proactive partner in making
    sure that the Guard remains the successful part of our military
    force that it is.
        But I also want to take this opportunity to reinstate some
    concerns that I have with you about the family assistance
    specialists. It is still causing a lot of concern among my
    Guard members, family members, constituents which include the
    businesses that employ these Guard members and many, many other
    people in Minnesota and, I know, other States as well.
        As we talked about in my office, these specialists provide
    critical benefits and assistance. And in Minnesota alone, there
    were 1,700 cases handled by these folks. I understand there has
    been a new contract issued, but, folks, when someone's hourly
    wage increase for a job that they are doing is cut from $21 to
    11--to $14 an hour, it sends a message to the people who had
    been previously doing this job: You can work for less money, or
    your work is not valued.
        So we are going to be watching to see what happens with
    county veterans service offices in Minnesota's caseloads, what
    happens in our congressional office with caseloads now that the
    expertise isn't there. So I know you are going to be monitoring
    this, too, and change is always an option, and we need to maybe
    work with a new vendor or figure something out if this is a
    problem. Maybe it won't be, but we are a little alarmed.

                          ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

        What I would like to focus on is the five National Guard
    armored brigade combat teams. Currently, the operating tempo
    has been drastically increased so the number of training days
    for National Guard soldiers went from 60 to 90. That is an
    extra month, right, on average. So we know this increase in
    training days is important. But along with what we have
    happening with mobilization, deployments, it is putting more
    and more of a burden on the quality of life for soldiers, their
    units, and their families. So I am concerned and the Minnesota
    National Guard is concerned about long-term retention in these
    brigades. I know we want to make sure that we have a great
    readiness posture so everybody is able to perform their job
    successfully and come home safely.
        But can you tell me how you are going to be monitoring and
    some of the concerns that you might have with going from 39 to
    60 days on average?
        General Lengyel. Well, yes, ma'am. I can tell you that we
    are aware of this issue, and that is one of the things as the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau that I track closely, is I
    worry about the business model of the National Guard, which
    means our soldiers and airmen have a civilian life and a
    military life. And if I lose support from the soldier or airman
    to support both of those lives, if he is forced to make a
    choice or she is forced to make a choice, then I know which one
    they will pick, and most likely I will lose that soldier or
    that airman.
        So what we are trying to do, as you are aware is, yes, it
    is true that the armored brigade combat teams will require more
    training to be ready should the United States Army need them to
    fight in any of the various scenarios where they will be.
        I will tell you that some of this transformation has
    already happened in terms of the Army force generation model
    previously has been for several years now a graduated increase
    in the training requirements as the brigade progresses through
    its training cycle just before it is available to be deployed,
    and that is not new.
        What is new is that the United States Army has decided to
    increase the training available to the brigade combat teams. We
    are going to go from two combat training center rotations a
    year to four combat training centers a year. In my estimation,
    that is a good thing in that it is going to make this
    operational Army National Guard more valuable to the country,
    more valuable to the Army, and more ready so it can be ready
    quicker should it go out the door.
        To your point about how are we going to monitor them, well,
    I think that this is a leadership issue. This is something
    where we have to watch the people, personal engagement on my
    part, on the adjutant general's part, on the commander's part,
    with making sure that the schedules that we give these soldiers
    are predictable, that we let the employers know that you can
    count on these soldiers, and that these increased training
    times actually result in a deployment for the soldiers at the
    end. Otherwise, they won't be seen as a reason why--why should
    an employer endure the extended time away from their jobs if,
    at the end of that training period, they don't use them? So, as
    we are going through this now, the plan is for the Army to use
    these forces and deploy them.
        This is the first cycle of this, and some people have
    decided that they have to change. They can't support it, and
    they will change MOSes and go someplace else. I lived this in
    the Air National Guard myself as a guardsman in the mid-1990s,
    when we began to deploy regularly, and it definitely changes
    the paradigm. So there will be a change as this goes forward,
    and we are going to have to work with the employers and the
    members to the maximum extent possible so that we don't lose
    them.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, thank you for your answer,
    and I am taking it in the spirit in which I think you totally
    meant it, but I am going to put a cautionary tale on it. This
    just isn't about leadership to put up and to be quiet about it.
    This is also about leadership to see if we need to go back and
    review and figure out how these folks are not only trained but
    deployed in the future.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you. Chairman Emeritus Rogers.

                                  END STRENGTH

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Welcome, General, to these premises. Let me ask you, the
    Guard has a dual responsibility, one to the State of their
    location, the Governor, and, of course, then the combatant
    commands on the Federal level. The previous administration
    proposed cuts, continued cuts, to Guard end strength. But our
    2017 bill reversed those cuts to end strength and will add
    1,000 Army Guard troops above the 2016 level. Tell us how you
    are going to utilize that extra manpower.
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you. That is true, and we
    are happy to see that the reduction in end strength stopped for
    the Army National Guard. And because of the two missions we
    have, when force structure leaves our States, it is a double
    hit. It is a hit against the Federal mission, and it is a hit
    against the ability to do our homeland mission. So our plan is
    to take the additional manpower that we have. If you recall, we
    were on a glide path to 335,000 force structure inside the Army
    National Guard. It stopped at 342,000 last year, and we were
    able to grow it back 1,000 to 343,000 this year. Our intent is
    to take that additional manpower, and as I talked about on the
    five brigade combat teams, is we are going to place it against
    and increase the readiness of these high-demand, operationally
    deploying units that will make them more ready, be able to get
    ready quicker, and train as they go.
        One of the concerns, frankly, of the increased manpower is
    we got the people back, but we didn't get the increased full-
    time support back with it. We got the part-time soldiers back.
    We took the full-timers out all the way down to 335,000. We
    built the Army Guard back up to 343,000, but they were part-
    time billets and not full-time billets. And that hurts our
    ability to generate the force quickly and keep it ready and
    minimize the time it takes to get it ready to go out the door.

                              COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

        Mr. Rogers. In my State, and I suspect I speak for all
    States when I say this, we have got a tremendous, incredible
    drug problem. And in my area, the Guard has had a great program
    to eradicate marijuana in the remote hills of Appalachia, where
    it is apparently a very great climate for the growth of
    marijuana. But that Guard unit has just been tremendous. In
    joint support operations, they have eradicated 13 million
    marijuana plants. They have seized tons of marijuana, illegal
    weapons, and so forth, all to the tune of $25 billion.
        And we are seeing now across the country an effort
    apparently to make marijuana legal. But in the hills of
    Kentucky--and I have been on a couple of these missions where
    they fly into a very remote area of mountains, no homes or
    properties of any kind--mainly the marijuana is grown under
    high-tension electric wires right-of-way. Number one, you can't
    prove who owns it. And, number two, you can't get there with a
    helicopter because of the electric lines and the like. And the
    troopers have to rappel down a rope, cut the marijuana, put it
    in a big bag, put it over their shoulder, and they are picked
    up by the helicopter and carried 50 miles dangling 100 feet
    from below a helicopter. Very dangerous work but very
    productive. Do you see that continuing, and what can we do to
    help you see that?
        General Lengyel. Well, first, let me thank this committee
    for the $234 million we got in this year's appropriation for
    the Counterdrug Program. That Counterdrug Program, as you said,
    sir, is incredibly important, I believe, to leverage the skill
    sets that we have in the National Guard to facilitate and work
    with law enforcement to detect, disrupt, curtail illegal drug
    activities in every State.
        As you mentioned, the State of Kentucky has an issue with
    marijuana, and I think that, you know, as you look across the
    Nation, every State's program is tailored for the individual
    requirements that they have inside their State, and that is the
    way it should be. So, as we look at the disbursement of the
    $234 million, we have what is called the threat-based resource
    model, which has about 70 different factors. It allows each
    State to prioritize what is important to them such that when
    they come into the pool, their particular problem gets
    resourced, and then the States use those funds and develop
    their own plan, and in your case, sir, it is the eradication of
    marijuana inside Kentucky. And so I want to be able to continue
    to support that.
        I want to thank this committee for the continued funding of
    that program. Your funding of that program has enabled not only
    a robust liaison with law enforcement, but the schooling, the
    five additional schools that are funded have allowed us to
    build additional capacity to fight this drug issue, whether it
    is marijuana or opioids or heroin or synthetics. And we all
    know the significant toll that that has taken on our country
    across the Nation.
        Mr. Rogers. You mentioned opioids. My area was ground zero
    14 years ago at the outset of an OxyContin rage that raged
    across the country. But these marijuana growers frequently are
    the dealers in opioids, and it is a double whammy with the
    money that we put into the antimarijuana program because it
    does bring in additional breakers of the law.
        Well, we appreciate your service, sir.
        General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                                RUSSIA AGRESSION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for being here, and also we do
    appreciate your service and what you do in our hometowns and
    also what you are doing to fight the war with ISIS and the
    other issues we deal with.
        I come from local government, so many, many times with
    storms and hurricanes, the National Guard has been there. And I
    also want to get a little local, but I want to acknowledge the
    Adjutant General Linda Singh, who is doing a great job in
    Maryland, is heading that area.
        As you know, the National Guard also plays a critical role
    in deterring Russia's aggression. I was just in Estonia about 3
    weeks ago, and Maryland National Guard has about 500 members
    there right now that are working on the cyber capability and
    helping Estonia deal with the Russian aggression and Russian
    hacks and those types of things.
        And when we met, I think a couple months ago, you said it
    was critical that Russia must respect the frontline National
    Guard combat units as well as the full time. And do you believe
    at this point that Russia sees the National Guard units in a
    strength position? Where do you feel we are at this point? Are
    there additional capabilities that this committee needs to help
    fund to get you to that level? And then also if you have time--
    I think we do--I want to talk, if you can talk a little bit
    about that Maryland National Guard in Estonia and what their
    mission is and what they are doing, and what is their future
    there?
        General Lengyel. Congressman, I think when the Russians
    look across in Estonia or anywhere else in uniform and they see
    men and women in the Army, wearing an Army uniform, they see
    the United States Army. That is what I think they see. I think
    that is thanks in many ways to this committee. It is in thanks
    to 15 years or more now of continuous deployments, of
    integration of Army National Guard formations with Active
    Component formations, of a Total Force policy from General
    Milley and those on his staff that support this associate unit
    pilot program that is training our brigades with the Active
    Army brigades, aligning their formations so that we can train
    together and fight together.
        And I do think that everywhere I go--I was in the Sinai
    Peninsula this past week. I saw the swap out of an infantry
    brigade from Minnesota National Guard to the Massachusetts
    National Guard in the Sinai for the multinational force and
    observer mission, and I can tell you that they see no
    difference when they look across and they see, whether it is
    combat maneuver forces or whether it is combat support
    services, they are wearing the United States Army uniform. And
    there is one training standard for the Army, and the National
    Guard doesn't have a different one. The National Guard will
    train, will deploy, will be ready at the same training standard
    as the United States Army, and that is what I think Russia
    sees.
        And the second part of your question, Estonia, the State
    Partnership Program--and, again, thanks for the significant
    amounts of plus ups that you gave us for this year; I believe
    we got an additional $9 million added to the program from this
    committee--that enables the engagements we have. The cyber
    relationship with Estonia and their Cyber Center of Excellence
    over there, is a model for programs around the globe. That
    engagement since 1993, they were among the first three programs
    that started in the Baltics with us there. That ability to
    assure our allies of the United States' commitment to the
    region, that ability to train together with the forces in the
    region, have had a strategic impact on our ability to assure
    and strengthen the NATO alliance. And my thanks to Linda Singh,
    who has been a great supporter of that, the State Maryland, and
    everyone else who is part of that.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, Estonia is only 120 miles from
    Russia, and Putin is continuing to threaten it. And they had
    one of those severe attacks, and as a country, they only have
    close to a million people. They decided they were going to take
    on Russia. And with our help, the United States' help and
    working with them, they have become pretty sophisticated, I
    think, from all the countries in that region dealing with the
    Russian aggression and trying to counter the Russian attacks.
        General Lengyel. Absolutely.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert.

                    MODERNIZATION RECAPITALIZATION STRATEGY

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Good morning, General Lengyel. Thank you for appearing
    before the committee, and thank you for your dedicated service
    to our great Nation, especially on the eve of honoring those
    who sacrificed everything in the service of our country this
    coming Memorial Day.
        Readiness is the most dangerous limiting factor across all
    branches of our military, ranging from the timely training of
    personnel to aging aircraft. Congress, as you are aware, has
    appropriated additional funds for Army aircraft procurement,
    specifically for Black Hawk helicopters. In fiscal year 2017,
    Congress provided the Army National Guard with 15 additional
    Black Hawks. As you may know, my home State of California is
    one of the country's most active emergency response forces, and
    its primary workhorse for aerial support is the Black Hawk
    helicopter. California flies one of the oldest fleets of Black
    Hawks in the country. Sixty-five percent of them were built
    before 1990. In 2015, only 55 percent of the State's Black Hawk
    fleet was operational at any given time.
        Please explain to us your current modernization
    recapitalization strategy for allocating these aircraft and
    those projected in fiscal year 2018 and 2019. When do you
    expect the States to receive the first of those additional
    aircraft?
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you and to this committee
    for the funding for the 15 Black Hawks. I think that, as we do
    with all our dispersion of equipment and recapitalization and
    modernization decisions, we look across the enterprise and see
    where it best makes sense to recapitalize a fleet at the time.
    I am not exactly sure yet when those Black Hawks are going to
    get delivered. I think that will make a case to determine when
    we get them. We will look at things like readiness as a fleet,
    maintenance statistics of the fleet, the sustainment levels of
    the fleet, potential deployments and utilization of those for
    our three missions--war fight, homeland, and partnerships--and,
    at the time, work with the Army National Guard to determine
    where its best to deploy those additional 15 Black Hawks. That
    is how we look at every stationing of all equipment, sir, and I
    thank you for your support of getting those Black Hawks.
        Mr. Calvert. I hope in that process you think of good ole
    California.
        General Lengyel. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

                             COUNTERDRUG OPERATION

        Mr. Calvert. To carry on with Chairman Rogers' line of
    questioning, combating terrorism and protecting our national
    interests abroad is only a part of the Guard's expansive
    mission. Protecting the homeland through the counterdrug
    operation is a vital mission I know that you take very
    seriously. In my area and throughout the United States, what
    are you seeing from these drug cartels, and do you see any
    association or collaboration between cartels and terrorist
    organizations?
        General Lengyel. So, sir, I think the consensus is that
    they are one in the same. I think that the money from the drug
    cartels is part and parcel to terrorist organizations. And
    counterterrorist organizations, countertransnational criminal
    organizations are all networked and aligned and work against
    the security of the United States.
        Mr. Calvert. Do you see any collaboration outside of
    organizations in South America, or are there organizations
    outside of South America involved in the drug activities?
        General Lengyel. It is a global network, no question. It is
    not limited to South America. The funding streams, part of the
    things that the National Guard provides is counterthreat
    finance analysis. We train people who do these kinds of
    analysis in great detail, and it is clear that funding streams
    in these networks are not geographically limited. They are
    global in their nature. No question.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Cuellar.

                    NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, again, thank you for your service.
        A couple things. There are some of us who pushed for two
    items. One was the million dollars more to the National Guard
    State Partnership Program, from 8 to 9. I would like to get
    your thoughts, what you are looking at doing with that extra
    money. And the other item was the, I think, fiscal year for the
    Counterdrug Program was 192, and some of us pushed it to $234
    million. So I would like to get your quick thoughts on those,
    and then I would like to ask you a question about Operation
    Phalanx.
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I mentioned the
    State Partnership Program and thanks to your funding, it is an
    incredible tool, strategic tools, for the Department of
    Defense, for the country, for our States. And the $234 million,
    my only worry is we got it so late in the year, I am worried
    that getting the money this late will be difficult for us to
    execute some of it because, as you know, we have the posture in
    the SPP, troops and people to go, and events, and work with
    host-nation countries, and some of these things take time to
    develop.
        Mr. Cuellar. And we understand.
        General Lengyel. But, clearly, we can spend every bit of
    money you give us for the State Partnership Program, given the
    lead time to spend it. And the same thing for the Counterdrug
    Program. There is no shortage of requirements or asks from law
    enforcement agencies for what we do across the program. So
    absolutely thank you for the----

                               OPERATION PHALANX

        Mr. Cuellar. If you want to just share with the committee
    and ourselves later on what your plans are, I would like to do
    that. I know the last time we were with Chairman Rogers and Mr.
    Womack, we went down to South America, and there are some
    partnerships out there. Chile has one with Texas, and you have
    other States also. Do you all have anything with Mexico? I know
    we have been trying to do something with Mexico. If we can help
    you, it would only make sense that our largest neighbor, at
    least to the south, is one. So if we can help you on that, let
    me just say that. We can follow up.
        I do want to ask you about Operation Phalanx. I know that
    Chairman Carter and Governor Abbott and I have been working on
    it. As you know, when you have Border Patrol, and they are
    doing night operations, the Air Marine, with all due respect,
    they do it during the day. They don't want to go out at
    nighttime. But you still have Border Patrol that are going out
    there, and you got to have something at nighttime, and
    unfortunately, some of our Air Marine folks, and we can address
    this later, but they don't go after 5 o'clock. And now they are
    trying to move away from the border, trying to set up--like
    they have a base in Laredo. They want to move to San Antonio.
    They want to be away from the border, which is
    counterintuitive. But the National Guard has done a heck of a
    job.
        We added some money, the leadership of John Carter and
    other folks, we added some money for Operation Phalanx, but
    what happened was that the Homeland Secretary, the previous
    Homeland Secretary, even though the money was there, they never
    asked. Then they send this little letter that really didn't
    mean anything. It was a feel-good letter. Then we contacted the
    new Secretary of Homeland, and his people are not familiar with
    it. You are familiar with it. We would ask you to get a hold of
    the new Secretary's office, and I believe the money is there.
    And whatever you all can do, because we got to give our men and
    women of the Border Patrol support at nighttime. It is unfair
    that they are out there in the night and there is no aerial
    support for them. So I would like to--I got about a minute and
    a half, but if you can finish on that thought, some of us,
    including Governor Abbott and ourselves, are big supporters of
    this.
        General Lengyel. Sir, I thank you for the $19 million for
    Operation Phalanx. I have already spoken to Secretary Kelly. I
    went to his office, and I met with him, and I told him about my
    recent trip to the Southwest border, McAllen was one place I
    went, and also in Nogales in Arizona, at the request of Senator
    McCain, to see the Southwest border. And I saw firsthand the
    need, the requirement, for additional air support to the folks
    who are on the border, the Customs and Border Protection agents
    who are there. I rode in an Army National Guard helicopter at
    night flying as part of the Counterdrug Program, with a Customs
    and Border Protection agent in the helicopter, and I must share
    with the committee it was not much different than what you see
    on TV for taking down a spot in Afghanistan. There weren't
    bullets and things flying along, but there were escorters.
    There were people running. There were police officers trying to
    apprehend them. And it is absolutely useful. So I commit to go
    back to Secretary Kelly, and I already have, and provided his
    staff a briefing on the capability we can provide.
        Mr. Cuellar. I know John Carter and other folks are
    interested, but if you can keep us informed, we really would
    appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
        My time is up. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Womack.

                               FULL-TIME MANNING

        Mr. Womack. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to
    General Lengyel for his leadership and the work of our National
    Guard both on the Army and the Air side. Great questions coming
    from my colleagues today, talking about things like Border
    Patrol, security, counterdrug, operational tempo, Black Hawks,
    and those kinds of things.
        I am going to open a line of questioning about what I
    consider to be the single biggest issue facing our Guard today,
    and that is in relation to full-time manning. It is not a sexy
    subject. But it is a critical subject if we are going to
    continue to utilize our National Guard, as we should, as an
    operational force. As an example--and you correct me if I am
    wrong--when we were doing the drawdown on end strength, the
    Army Guard was scheduled to go to a number, and we were on the
    glide path to get to that number. And proportionately, full-
    time manning was cut based on that number. And then when this
    Congress gives money back to the Guard for end strength and we
    increase that end strength, not increased was the proportionate
    loss of the full-time manning. That is insane that we would
    allow this to happen.
        So my question for you, General Lengyel is, how has this
    happened, and what is this doing to impact the readiness of a
    critical operational force for our military and our National
    Guard? Take all the time you need.
        General Lengyel. All right, sir. Thank you very much for
    that question. And so our business model in the National Guard
    is different. And I am a protector of that business model. I
    don't want to look like the United States Army. I do not want
    to look like the United States Air Force. We need to remain a
    preponderantly part-time force. That is the value in it for
    this country and for what we do.
        The United States Air National Guard is about 35 percent
    full-time. In its 100,000 people, 105,000, it is about 35
    percent full-time. In the Army National Guard, 343,000 people,
    we are about 16 percent full-time. What that full-time force
    does, and the only reason we have them and the only reason I am
    here before you today is to make ready for the United States
    Army and United States Air Force and the Governors in our
    States, is to make ready that force, to be ready, to be manned,
    to be trained, to be equipped, so that we can do the missions.
    That is why we have full-time people in the Army National
    Guard.
        So you need to understand why they were gone. Money--I
    understand why they are gone, why we took them. We had
    incredible bills to pay. In our budgets, that is where all our
    money is. Our money is in that small chunk of change, $16
    billion in the Army Guard. Two-thirds of that is people. Most
    of that is people. Same thing for the Air National Guard. So
    that is why it went. We had bills to pay and sequestrations and
    drawdowns and budgets. But what this force does is it prepares
    the force so that, when they come to drill for the 39 days or
    the 45 days or the 60 days, they have the structure to do the
    collective training they need to do to do their wartime
    tasking. They make sure that the equipment that they need to
    train on, the tanks and the Bradleys, that they work, that the
    aircraft are flyable, so that when the people come in, they can
    fly not only together, but they can fly in collective training,
    and they can do the kinds of training that the Army needs them
    to do. Same thing for the Air Force side. So the full-time
    support piece is what enables us to make the Army National
    Guard ready quicker. They come in and they prepare for a
    military unit training assembly for people to come in for a
    drill, and they put them together for 3 and 4 days at a time so
    that they can do some more training. They build the
    battlefield. They build the command post. They build everything
    so the soldiers come in, they get out of their pickup truck,
    they walk into the field, and they train. So, without the full-
    time support, then they waste time. They have to come in. They
    have to build the battlefield. They have to train. They have to
    fix the equipment so they can fly it. It is incredibly
    important.
        I am not looking for huge numbers of--by the way, I am
    looking at my staff, NGB, where do we have full-time people
    right now so that, if I could, I could put some back out into
    the fields so that they can help make the operational force
    more ready. And I would tell you that I think if we are going
    to be ready quicker, stay an operational force, we are going to
    have to slowly increase the percentage of full-time support in
    the Army National Guard.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan.

                     RESERVE COMPONENT BENEFITS PARITY ACT

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Let me associate myself with all of my colleagues' remarks.
    Since I have been here, I agree they have got some great
    questions.
        First, thank you. Obviously, Ohio is a huge part of the
    team and has deployed and will continue to deploy around the
    globe. And we know that post-9/11 use of the Guard has been a
    big part of our plan. One of the things I am concerned with is
    making sure that we are providing the benefits that match the
    service our National Guard are providing. And I understand
    there are significant differences in the benefits provided to
    our National Guard based upon minor administrative coding
    orders, and I will give you an example. I have cosponsored the
    bipartisan Reserve Component Benefits Parity Act designed to
    ensure National Guard who are activated in administrative
    codes, such as 12304(a) and 12304(b) of title 10, U.S. Code,
    are treated in the same manner as other Active Duty orders for
    determining veterans' benefits. This issue and many like it
    were documented in the October 1, 2014, Reserve Force's policy
    board memorandum, and yet we are still struggling to make sure
    that our National Guard and Reserve get the correct benefits
    that they have earned.
        So what have we done to focus on educating our National
    Guard and Reserve on the differences administrative coding can
    make in veteran benefits? And how is your leadership making
    every effort to correctly reflect the importance of military
    service of our National Guard and Reserve by using the
    appropriate coding so their service counts toward their earned
    benefits?
        General Lengyel. Sir, I think this is one of the more
    important issues that we need to fix going forward, is the
    parity of benefits for service. I am thankful for the Parity
    Act. I completely think it is the right thing to do. 12304
    bravo was a flexible mobilization authority given to the
    service Secretaries which has enabled access, mobilization of
    the force. However, when they created it, funding numbers being
    what they were, they didn't attach all the entitlements that go
    with it. So the soldiers who are in the Sinai who I just spoke
    to, they want this fixed.
        Mr. Ryan. How are we coming with it? We are getting calls
    on this, and this is obviously a pocketbook issue for so many?
    Are we making some progress on this?
        General Lengyel. The awareness that thing has got is we
    have got to fix it here. We have got to find the resources to
    put against it so that there is no difference so that they are
    entitled to healthcare beyond 180 days when they come back, so
    that they are entitled to post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits,
    so that they have access to early retirement as per other
    mobilization authorities.
        So what my soldiers are doing, what the soldiers from the
    States are doing, is they are changing their mobilization
    authority to voluntary status, which doesn't give them the
    protections of the dwell periods that we talked about earlier
    with Congresswoman McCollum; that is, they are voluntarily
    giving up their rights to serve their employers and their
    families and give themselves their dwell period as citizens so
    that they can get the health benefits and retirement benefits
    that they deserve. So I ask for your continued support here. It
    is an important issue that needs to be fixed.
        I think that the commission that was established a couple
    years ago, MCRMC commission--I am sorry; I can't spit out that
    acronym for you, exactly what it is--retirement benefits and
    duty status reform, OSD is actually working on behalf of all of
    the Reserve Components, not just National Guard, to streamline
    and make right the entitlements that go with pay and duty
    status, like service equals like pay in benefits. So I do
    sense, inside the Department at least, there is a push to make
    that happen and a push to make the reform. There will be a bill
    with it to do it, but it is the right thing to do.

                               OPIATE DRUG ISSUE

        Mr. Ryan. Well, we need you to continue to push us, and we
    will push you and hopefully make some progress. Real quick
    because I only have 30-some seconds, I know the chairman
    brought up earlier the opiate drug issue. Are you starting to
    make a distinction in prioritization of opiates versus
    marijuana because the problem is so big? Are you prioritizing
    how you are deploying your resources, I guess I should say?
        General Lengyel. So, because of the rise and the
    devastating effects of the opiate piece, it has taken on a more
    important role in the threat-based resource model. That team
    has come together, which is adjutant generals from the States,
    its academic institutions who study this. It is subject-matter
    experts who come together. There used to be 20 variables per
    State, because, as I said earlier, every State has a unique and
    distinct environment that threatens their State. So we need a
    model that is flexible so that each State can articulate it.
    And so the opioid issue has risen inside that threat-based
    resource model, and we will apply the right authority to it.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Carter.

                            ASSOCIATED UNITS PROGRAM

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        General Lengyel, I welcome a fellow Texan.
        I want to thank my friend, Mr. Cuellar, for raising the
    issue on the border, and I associate myself with all the
    conversation we have had today.
        General, our Associated Pilot Program, high-demand National
    Guard units see more training days in combat training center
    rotations as part of the Army Associated Units Pilot Program.
    We talked about that a little bit. The Army requires training
    together to increase the readiness across all three components,
    keep up the demand for soldiers around the world. Can you
    provide the committee with an assessment of the Associated
    Pilots Program to date and if you feel like you are meeting the
    accomplishments that you are seeking to meet? And are there any
    additional funding requirements that you feel like we should
    know about as we go forward?
        And I am reading a book called ``Fast Tanks and Heavy
    Bombers'' that General Milley gave me. And I would venture to
    say that the National Guard trains more than the regular Army
    did. Today, we train more than the regular Army did during this
    period of time between World War I and World War II, and that
    is an amazing change in the Guard's requirements. Would you
    tell us a little bit about that, sir?
        General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
        I am thankful for the Commission and their recommendations
    that came up with the Associated Units Program. It is a test,
    and I am thankful that General Milley has embraced it. And by
    all counts so far, I am willing to say that, from every
    indication I have, it is a success. It has been embraced by the
    Army. It has been embraced by the Army National Guard. It has
    resulted in people swapping unit patches and becoming part of
    each other's uniform. It is a fundamental cultural change of
    integrating the Air National Guard into the United States Army,
    and I think only good things will come from it.
        Time will tell. We will look at the end of this, and we
    will determine, has our readiness increased? I will tell you
    what is increasing: the trust in each other, the ability and
    the awareness of the commanders, the sharing of resources and
    training, the utilization of our force. Everything has gotten
    better since we have become this operational force, and I
    believe the Army Unit Pilot Program, the Associated Units, is
    nothing but good. That is incredible.
        With respect to how we train, I couldn't be more impressed.
    I spent the last 5 years of my life learning about the Army and
    the Army National Guard and how we train. It is an amazing
    undertaking to train a brigade combat team. It is logistically
    complex. To amass the forces and equipment and training that
    you need in the right places where you can actually use them
    and train on them, it takes an immense amount of coordination,
    and, quite frankly, it is expensive.
        Where we save the money is the 27 brigades that we have in
    the Army National Guard save you a little money when they are
    not training. We cost the same when you use us. We cost the
    same when you train us, but when you are not using us, we save
    some money. So it is my job, I think--you don't want 27
    brigades in the Army National Guard at C-1. That is not where
    you save money because it will spoil that readiness before you
    use it. So we want to meter that readiness. We want to make
    them ready faster. General Milley needs us inside of 60 days,
    inside of 90 days, if something happens in North Korea.
        We have to look hard at our business models. We have to
    look hard at the mobilization process. How do we mobilize? How
    can we mobilize faster? I think that is what we are trying to
    do in the Army National Guard Service, is make that force ready
    quicker, and be ready to participate as part of the Army as
    fast as they need us.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. We are very proud of you.
        General Lengyel. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mrs. Roby.

                           CURRENT OPERATIONAL TEMPO

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you, sir, for
    being here. It is great to see you again. I have a few
    questions but first a few comments.
        As you know, the Site Survey Team is in Montgomery right
    now with the 187th Fighter Wing and at Dannelly Field for the
    future fielding of the F-35. And as a long supporter of the F-
    35 program, it is exciting to see how much progress the program
    has made, and I would be remiss if I didn't take the
    opportunity to say to you that, if there are any questions from
    the Guard for the community or for any Member of the Alabama
    delegation, we continue to make ourselves available to you. The
    Alabama delegation, of course, in the community and our State
    is so excited about this possibility.
        In your testimony, you highlight the numerous deployments
    that the Guard has performed since 9/11 and the fact that the
    operational tempo today remains very high. And so I want to
    thank you and all members of the National Guard for your
    selfless service in protecting the Nation in these challenging
    times and the sacrifice of your families.
        I am concerned, however, and have recently had some
    conversations with friends of mine who served about how
    sustainable current operational tempo is and what has been
    brought to my attention as it relates to dwell time. We have
    placed a huge burden on our Guard families and not to mention
    their employers. And the question I have, are we placing too
    much on the Guard to constantly be an operational partner? And
    I have heard the comments of my colleagues in here, and I
    listened to you as well. But when my phone rings and it is a
    member of the Guard who has served both in the Active, for many
    years in the Active Component, and now as a pilot in the Guard,
    and what is being communicated to me is that there is concern
    by those who continue to serve their country hearing these
    rumors about a decrease in the dwell time from 5-to-1 to 4-to-
    1, and then is that a slippery slope? So I just really wanted
    you to take an opportunity to address these concerns that I
    have heard and I am sure others have as well.
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am, the concerns are real. I think
    you probably heard from the fellow Joint Chiefs yesterday that
    the threats that the country is facing is absolutely going to
    require the continued operational use of the National Guard.
        One of the things that you are seeing in Alabama,
    particularly in the 135 arena, KC-135 arena, so, because all of
    these issues that we are dealing with are far away, they
    require a lot of air refueling capability. For the past 15
    years, the Air Force has had the good fortune to have, you
    know, pretty much a downturn in the airlines cycle in which
    they had pilots available and willing to work who were either
    waiting or not engaged in an airline job. And so the
    volunteerism of people who were able to deploy beyond normal
    mobilized deployment was high. And so what has happened now is
    the availability that the airline industry is booming. They
    have a large draw on our pilot force who are now fully engaged
    in a civilian job, and so that volunteerism is beginning to be
    harder to get.
        You have to keep in mind what our units are funded to do.
    So there are areas that are being stressed on the utilization,
    and I would tell you that KC-135s are one of them. Writ large
    across the force, we are using, as I mentioned in my remarks
    opening statement, 18,000 men and women deployed right now
    today. If you go back 10 years ago, we had 70,000 men and women
    deployed today, and an average of that for over 10 years. So I
    characterize the sustainability of our force, the utilization
    of our force right now, as a normal walk, maybe a brisk walk.
    Whereas, 10 years ago, 2005, with 100,000 people deployed plus
    50,000 during Hurricane Katrina, that was a full-out sprint,
    and that would not have been sustainable. Overall, writ large
    across the force, we can sustain what we are doing today, but
    we have to be careful and look at specific threatened areas
    like KC-135s and work to do that, and maybe associations can
    help. Maybe we can put additional Active pilots in there, and
    they can take on some of those flying responsibilities.
        Mrs. Roby. I certainly don't claim to have the solution,
    and that is why I wanted to just bring it to your attention and
    continue to have this conversation. These men and women are
    there because they want to be there and because they love their
    country, and I know we all recognize that, but I do appreciate
    your commitment to them, and I would like to continue to have
    this conversation with you down the road.
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                              COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
        A couple of statements. First of all, General, there is a
    series of questions for the record on the Tactical Wheeled
    Vehicle Strategy for the Guard and certainly attaching
    importance to that program. I will be interested in the Guard's
    response.
        I would join with a number of my colleagues who have
    mentioned the Counterdrug Program, very important in our State,
    particularly important in my congressional district, and I do
    appreciate the Guard's work with the local communities.
        Also, it has been talked about, the partnership act. I
    think it is a very enriching program for the Guard, for our
    country, for the other countries we are involved with. I am
    very proud again that our State now has two such partnerships.
    I was interested in the exchange you had with Mr. Ryan, and I
    will be interested in the Guard following up on his question.
    Some years ago, I asked in a different fashion the same
    question. Some years ago, the Guard said they were working on
    it. So I would hope that some progress is being made.

                    HOMELAND SECURITY AND NATIONAL DISASTERS

        For the questions I have, there has been mention of the
    Guard's responsibility for homeland security, for responses to
    national disasters. You just mentioned Katrina. As far as
    equipment in the Guard, as far as training of the Guard, when
    you do have a hurricane--it could be in Florida; it can be a
    tornado in a Midwestern State, wildfire--are there enough
    training dollars? Are there particular types of training
    programs that we should be attuned to that may not be fully
    funded? Are there types of equipment for some of these natural
    disasters that Guard units across the country may not have
    adequate resources for? We are always thinking of overseas
    deployment, homeland protection, but if there is that natural
    disaster, is there something we are missing here as far as the
    needs that you and the Guard have?
        General Lengyel. Sir, I thank you. You know, I think one
    thing I would point out is thanks for NGREA money that we get
    that allows us to buy some of the equipment that we use
    specifically for the homeland, communications stuff, engineer
    stuff, modernize our aviation fleet with things that help us do
    our homeland mission. A lot of that is done for and used by the
    NGREA account.
        The money that we get in the Counterdrug Program to have
    the schools and to train our servicemembers to be value-added,
    for that helps us. And I consider the counterdrug a huge part
    of the Homeland Security mission and support mission that we
    do.
        I don't have a specific additional ask for you. I would
    tell you that we are looking right now at our cyber training
    requirements. Although I will say, for the most part, our cyber
    training schools are on track, the money that this committee
    gives us--I think we had $12 million this year for the Army
    National Guard to fund the positions that allow us to build and
    grow out our cyber network--we wouldn't be able to do that
    without the money. Although the training is validated by the
    Army, it is not yet funded, is straight in our baseline budget.
    So, without the funding that we get from this committee, we
    wouldn't be able to complete those kinds of training things. So
    I will give you a more direct list, but those are the things
    that come to mind as I sit here right now.
        Mr. Visclosky. I mean, as far as natural disasters, there
    is nothing that comes to mind that we are missing as far as
    resources?
        Okay, thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. General Lengyel, thank you for your time and
    your attention to this concern.
        This will conclude panel one.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army National Guard (ARNG) has identified several domestic
    operations equipment priorities. The ARNG requires $4.1 billion to
    modernize its Black Hawk inventory A models to M models and $100
    million for HMMWV modernization. Equipping needs for disaster response
    include Hydraulic Excavators, High Mobility Engineer Excavators, and
    Heavy Scrapers ($117.5 million), nine additional Disaster Incident
    Response Emergency Communications Terminal systems ($13.5 million), and
    CBRN detection and protection equipment for ARNG first responders ($1.2
    million). The Air National Guard (ANG) domestic operations equipment
    needs include personal protective equipment, such as modernized EOD
    bomb suits ($3 million) and Emergency Responder Personal Protective
    Gear Decontaminators for ANG Fire and Emergency Services flights ($1.8
    million). Aircraft modernization priorities include KC-135 Fuel Off-
    Load Hoses ($0.3 million), HH-60 Firefighting and Search and Rescue
    modernization ($1.7 million), and RPA Sense and Avoid systems for MQ-9
    Launch and Recovery elements ($25 million).
                               RESERVE COMPONENTS

                                   WITNESSES

    LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY, CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE
    VICE ADMIRAL LUKE McCOLLUM, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL REX McMILLIAN, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARYANNE MILLER, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Granger--Panel 2

        Ms. Granger. We will now move to panel two: The Army, Navy,
    Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves. I would encourage all
    members to please stay for this panel. We are going to break
    for just 3 minutes to change panels.
        General Lengyel. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Granger. If you will be seated, please.
        Our second panel this morning consists of leaders of the
    Reserve Components: Lieutenant General Charles Luckey, Chief of
    the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Luke McCollum, Chief of the Navy
    Reserve; Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, Commander, Marine
    Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, Chief of
    the Air Force Reserve.
        We are pleased to welcome these four very distinguished
    general officers as witnesses today, and the subcommittee
    thanks each of you for your service.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks for the first panel,
    this country relies now, perhaps more than ever, upon the
    service of your soldiers, sailors, and airmen to ensure mission
    success. The committee commends the Reserve Components for
    their dedication to service and to our Nation. We look forward
    to your testimony and your insight, but first, I would like to
    call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his
    comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I appreciate again that you are
    holding this hearing, and appreciate the panel before us for
    your testimony and your service, and I look forward to hearing
    it. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        General, please proceed with your testimony. Your full
    written testimony will be placed in the record. Please
    summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time to
    get to everyone's questions.

                      Summary Statement of General Luckey

        General Luckey. Chairwoman Granger, Vice Chairman
    Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, I will keep
    my remarks brief, as the chairwoman just requested. I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
    morning. It is an awesome opportunity and an honor for me to
    represent the 200,000 soldiers of America's Army Reserve, who
    are serving today across 20 time zones and around the globe. On
    behalf of them, their families, the employers of America, and
    the Department of Army civilians who support us, I want to
    thank each of you for your unwavering support and commitment to
    this team.
        As I noted in my posture statement, which has been filed
    with the committee, as the leader of this team, I am well
    attuned to the persistent presence of the asymmetric threat of
    terrorism and radical groups, as well as the emerging and
    compelling challenges presented by near-peer competitors,
    potential adversaries with the capability, propensity, and
    willingness to contest American power in all domains. We have
    not faced these conditions for over a quarter of a century. And
    the Army Reserve must take action, along with the rest of our
    Army, to meet the new and evolving threats.
        In this environment, an operational reality where the
    lethality and complexity of the battlespace presents new
    challenges to our Army, America's Army Reserve's practice of
    building rotational readiness and units over time will no
    longer be sufficient. We must prepare some units for full-
    spectrum operational environment immediately. This includes
    making ready significant portions of our team able to go fast,
    in some cases in days or weeks, in order to immediately
    complement and augment the Active Component formations who rely
    on America's Army Reserve to fight and win on the battlefield
    for the first round downrange.
        In this new threat paradigm, some 300 units of action or
    approximately 30,000 soldiers, need to be able to deploy in
    harm's way in less than 90 days, many in less than 30. I refer
    to this force as Ready Force X. It is a fast-deploying set of
    capabilities, which I will be happy to discuss with the
    committee in more detail. We need to deliver these units for
    the mobility, survivability, connectivity, and lethality needed
    to win on the modern battlefield.
        As always, consistent and predictable funding for essential
    training, equipment, and modernization is crucial to our
    success. The degree of funding which the committee has afforded
    us in the past and continues to is of tremendous benefit to
    America's Army Reserve. It is a superb tool, which in
    accordance with your guidance, enables me to procure certain
    high-priority capabilities that can be used for both combat
    operations and, as appropriate, domestic response operations. I
    thank you for your continued support in this regard.
        Let there be no doubt that my team's number one priority is
    readiness. In fact, as I testified today, America's Army
    Reserve has just completed the largest crew-served weapons
    gunnery operation in its history, Operation Cold Steel,
    conducted up at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. There, we rapidly
    accelerated the training qualification of our master gunners,
    of our vehicle crew evaluators, and individual soldiers, while
    reinvigorating the Noncommissioned Officers Corps of America's
    Army Reserve, which, as you all well know, is the first line,
    if you will, the core role in our Army of training and leading
    our soldiers when the lead hits the air. This is money and time
    well spent and much needed as we move into the future, and I
    appreciate this committee's support in that regard.
        As for the future, America's Army Reserve is uniquely
    postured and empowered to leverage the wide-ranging reservoir
    of professional talent to understand, develop, and exploit
    emerging commercial markets and cutting-edge technologies by
    partnering with private industry in order to stay on pace in a
    very dynamic world. Working closely with Defense Innovation
    Experimental Unit here in Washington, D.C., and spread around
    the country, as well as Military District 5 over at National
    Defense University and other partners, we are well on the way
    to strengthening linkages between the private sector and
    America's Army.
        I want to reiterate the message I shared with the American
    people in closing. I shared this with them on the Army
    Reserve's 109th birthday last month in Times Square, joining
    that stage, if you will, with the Army's noncommissioned
    officer of the year, who, by the way, happens to be an Army
    Reserve soldier from the Golden State of California: My team
    relies, as I told the American people, on our families, on the
    commitment to support them, and the persistent willingness of
    America's employers to share their finest talent with us, and
    working the delicate balance between being ready enough to be
    relevant, but not so ready that my soldiers can't maintain good
    rewarding civilian employment. As I reach out to the influences
    across America and around the globe, I ask them and press them
    to act and to encourage their communities, cities, campuses,
    congressional districts, and the employers located therein, to
    see themselves as full partners in national security, sharing
    America's best talent with us, America's Army Reserve, as we
    support and defend the Constitution of the United States of
    America.
        Distinguished members, your Army Reserve has always met the
    challenges of the time. With the committee's help, we will
    continue to provide the capabilities and readiness, live the
    example, and exude the ethos that the people of the United
    States expect and deserve. We will remain your premier team of
    skilled professionals, serving the Nation's both soldiers and
    engaged civilians around the globe. That is just who we are.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General Luckey follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you.

                     Summary Statement of Admiral McCollum

        Admiral McCollum. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky, and certainly the distinguished members of
    the subcommittee. It is a distinct honor to be here this
    morning to talk to you about the state of the Navy Reserve and
    talk to you about the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request
    and, probably more importantly, to report on the dedicated men
    and women of our Reserve Force.
        The Navy Reserve is the busiest it has ever been, and as an
    integrated force with the Active Component, we are experiencing
    competition in the maritime environment. This environment, it
    is fast-paced, it is complex, it is ambiguous, and, at times,
    uncertain. And the demand signal for the Reserve support has
    now exceeded over 79,000 individual mobilizations around the
    globe. And as you may know, these individuals, our sailors have
    left their civilian jobs, sometimes up to a year, and their
    families as well.
        In addition to these mobilizations that I referenced, we
    have about 20 percent of the force that is engaged day to day
    performing what we call operational support. The Navy Reserve
    works out of 123 operational support centers, and these support
    centers are across the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Guam. And
    the force structure is the result of the Navy's imperative to
    optimize interoperability and operational effectiveness of the
    Navy.
        We spread our units around the country, beyond our fleet
    concentration areas, and this has allowed the Navy to retain
    valuable human capital and provides reservists a convenient
    place to train while remaining close to their businesses and
    their homes. One highly successful example of this strategy is
    the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth, Texas,
    and this facility alone is a model for inter-service
    cooperation and community support that achieves the readiness
    that I am referring to. This installation holds 40 Tenant
    Commands, encompassing nearly 10,000 personnel across all four
    services. This is just one example of how the Navy Reserve is
    operating around the country in each of your districts.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget request is focused on restoring
    balance and wholeness and laying the foundation for future
    investments. This is both in our equipment and our people. And
    as an integrated force, the Navy knows that its heartbeat is
    its people. And this investment addresses Reserve personnel
    wholeness in areas such as unmanned aircraft, cyber shipyard
    maintenance, and tactical operations.
        While our Navy Reserve continues to execute at extremely
    high levels, our hardware, specifically our aging aircraft
    fleet, is facing some obsolescence challenges and rapidly
    approaching the end of its designed service life. Sixteen years
    of hard use has accelerated this effort. Accordingly, aircraft
    recapitalization remains the Navy Reserve's top equipping
    priority. The fiscal year 2018 budget request allows us to
    restore wholeness in aviation maintenance accounts and sets a
    solid foundation for next and future years' investments. And to
    continue restoring the wholeness of our force, we need stable,
    predictable funding mechanisms that allow us to plan
    effectively and react to contingencies.
        Additionally, your increased support for flexible funding
    authority for the NGREA is needed. Providing us this authority
    as well as flexible funding methods enables the Navy Reserve to
    provide operational support where and when needed, and that
    will maximize the total effectiveness of the Total Force.
        While the challenges ahead of us are significant, I could
    not be more proud of our Navy Reserve force. Every time I set
    foot in one of our operational reserve centers around the
    country, I come away, as you can imagine, very impressed with
    the dedication and the commitment of these sailors. And the
    pride that they take combining their civilian skill sets with
    their professional competence in military operations, I must
    admit, is very inspiring.
        So, on behalf of the Navy and the Navy Reserve, I thank the
    members of the committee for your support, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The written statement of Admiral McCollum follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you.

                     Summary Statement of General McMillian

        General McMillian. Chairman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
    on behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your
    Marine Corps Reserve. I am honored to be here with my fellow
    Reserve Component chiefs, and with me here today is my force
    sergeant major, Sergeant Major Kimble.
        I have been at the helm of the Marine Forces Reserve for a
    year and a half, and I am pleased to inform you that your
    Marine Corps Reserve is thriving. On average, we are 95 percent
    manning, and our leadership, morale, and personnel health of
    the force is at unprecedented levels. I am continually
    impressed by the professionalism, competence, dedication, and
    motivation of our Reserve Marines. Like their Active Duty
    brothers and sisters, they serve selflessly to protect our
    Nation while at the same time balancing their civilian careers
    and their families. The strength of Marine Forces Reserve is
    the talent, skill, and discipline of our individual Marines and
    sailors.
        I am motivated by the most common question that I receive
    from your Reserve Marines, which is, when do we get to deploy?
    They maintain the same mindset as the Active Component Marine
    Corps. We are ready to fight tonight, and we are ready to
    respond to any mission.
        My primary focus remains being combat-ready and having
    Reserve Marines and units capable of moving, shooting, and
    communicating across the battlefield. Reserve Marines are
    viewed the same and are expected to respond the same as our
    Active Duty counterparts on a moment's notice. We are
    integrated with the Active Component as part of the Total
    Force. We are expected to be a force that is fully
    complementary, seamless, and an equal teammate to the Active
    Component. We are manned, trained, and equipped to support
    Marine Corps operational requirements across the full range of
    military operations. We are 39,000 strong, formed into major
    commands that comprise the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, and we
    are unofficially known as the Fourth Marine Expeditionary
    Force. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps has said, we are
    one Marine Corps, a Total Force Marine Corps.
        To seamlessly integrate with the Active Component, Marine
    Forces Reserve must maintain equipment parity. Shortfalls in
    equipment modernization result in less interoperability with
    the Active Component, which slows the pace of operations and
    increases risk to your Marines and risk to mission
    accomplishment. Marine Forces Reserve continues to see
    shortfalls in modernization, like our most pressing shortfall,
    the KC-130J, which is used for tactical assault support, air-
    to-air, and ground refueling, and combat logistics support. It
    is the major end item which facilitates moving to and across
    the battlefield. We should not send our Marines to a fight with
    legacy equipment. Transition to modern equipment requires
    budget resources.
        NGREA, as you are all familiar with, is a complement to the
    Presidential budget. And while we greatly appreciate NGREA,
    greater spending flexibility, combined with a more
    representative funding proportion that is more aligned with our
    historical percentage, would significantly contribute to the
    ability of Marine Forces Reserve to modernize legacy equipment,
    transition to new systems, improve our readiness, and better
    support our young marines.
        We owe it to our Nation's most precious assets, the young
    men and women in uniform, to send them into combat with the
    most modern equipment available. With the continued support of
    Congress, Marine Forces Reserve will continue to serve as a
    crucial operational and tactical shock-absorber to the Active
    Component.
        In conclusion, I want to leave this distinguished body with
    two final thoughts: Number one, I want to personally thank you
    for passing the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill.
    Having a predictable and consistent budget in the future will
    significantly improve readiness across the services. And,
    number two, we need a flexible NGREA that complements the
    budget to assist your Marine Corps Reserve in funding major end
    items, as defined by law.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General McMillian follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        General Miller. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
    honored to have with me this morning Command Chief Master
    Sergeant Ericka Kelly. Together, we represent America's 69,000
    Reserve citizen airmen, providing operational capability and
    surge capacity, ensuring airspace and cyber dominance around
    the globe.
        Twenty-six years of continuous global operations and
    decreased budgets have stressed our force, which is always in
    demand. Last year, we were the fourth largest major command
    contributor to combat operations, filling over 10,000 air
    expeditionary and volunteer taskings across the U.S. and in 30
    foreign countries. Our airmen deliver critical capabilities to
    the fight every day, through global vigilance, global reach,
    and global power.
        Your Air Force Reserve operates with 16,000 fewer airmen
    and 220 fewer aircraft than we did in Desert Storm. The stress
    of our size, the steady state operations tempo, and our funding
    shortfalls keep us challenged, yet we remain a lethal combat-
    ready force, composed of amazing and resilient airmen and
    families.
        The concerns which weigh most in our day-to-day operations
    are insufficient manpower for both full-time support and
    critical skills, training availability and funding, weapon
    system sustainment, and concurrent fielding of aircraft and
    equipment. We continue to make incremental steps in the
    readiness needed for today's fight, while posturing for the
    complex future threats and the many challenges.
        Although the fiscal year 2018 President's budget request is
    a good beginning, to ensure that we deliver the most ready,
    capable, and lethal force, a long-term effort is needed. This
    balance of readiness today and the needs of tomorrow is
    difficult without predictable, sustainable funding through the
    outyears.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget request continues
    our efforts to build readiness and capability by adding 800
    positions across our rated space, cyber, and our ISR missions.
    The budget request, with the additional overseas contingency
    operation support, begins to fund weapon system sustainment
    closer to the required levels, ensuring that we can produce the
    exercise, training, and combat sorties needed to sustain the
    best Air Force in the world. Modernization and recapitalization
    are essential to maintaining our combat edge. With continued
    congressional support for the National Guard and Reserve
    equipment appropriation, we can smartly invest in weapon
    systems, which will increase our capability and recapitalize
    systems that will minimize risk against our emerging threats.
        And I thank you for the fiscal year 2017 NGREA funding of
    $105 million, which provided all-weather targeting pods for the
    F-16, enabled KC-135 defensive systems, updated digital
    displays for platforms, such as the A-10, and afforded personal
    recovery equipment for our Pave Hawk helicopters. This funding
    helps ensure that we maintain that lethal edge to dominate and
    to survive in all spectrums of the conflict.
        Delivering combat air power to the joint force is our
    mission. To best execute this requirement, we must develop a
    concurrent fielding and investment strategy to ensure
    operational parity with the Active Component. This ensures
    synchronized use of manpower, equipment, and training resources
    in a fiscally constrained environment.
        Over the past few decades, we have successfully adjusted to
    an operational Reserve. Portions of our force are stressed, but
    our Reserve citizen airmen are resilient, engaged, and honored
    to serve. We require your support for sufficient resources to
    meet full-spectrum readiness, increase end strength to support
    integrated operations, and an increased budget to buy back the
    readiness deficit and modernize weapon systems. A stable,
    predictable budget will ensure Air Force Reserve is combat-
    ready at all times.
        Thank you again for your support and this amazing
    opportunity to represent our airmen, and I look forward to your
    questions. Thank you.
        [The written statement of General Maryanne Miller follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for
    your testimony and for describing the service and the sacrifice
    and the needs of those that you represent here today.
        We will be using a timer this morning. We are going to
    reduce the time for you to ask and answer questions to 3
    minutes, because of the size of the panel and the number of
    members who are here, and we have a hard end time at 12
    o'clock. That will include questions and responses. If time
    permits, we would have a second round, but I doubt that will
    happen.
        I am going to call on Ms. McCollum first.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am going to submit for the record a question on Lodging-
    in-Kind, and what we can do to have, especially in the Army
    Reserve, our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the
    training that they perform.
        [The information follows:]

                                Lodging-in-Kind

                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Navy provides lodging, at no cost to members, for Navy
    Reservists who travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient
    Department of Defense (DOD) quarters are used whenever available. When
    DoD accommodations are not available, commercial berthing is provided
    at no personal expense to Navy Reserve personnel meeting eligibility
    requirements. When Navy Reservists are on travel orders (e.g., Inactive
    Duty Training Travel (IDTT), Annual Training (AT), Active Duty Training
    (ADT), and Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW)) to a location outside
    the vicinity of their drill site, they may receive lodging and per-diem
    pursuant to Joint Travel Regulations.
                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. For eligible, unaccompanied personnel, the Army National
    Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG) provides lodging-in-kind to
    members traveling over 50 miles for inactive duty training. The ARNG
    and ANG fund lodging in kind out of operations and maintenance
    accounts.
                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. The Marine Corps has used Inactive Duty Training (IDT)
    travel reimbursement to offset certain critically-short military
    occupational specialties and/or military billets. This is a targeted
    program that addresses the need of the Service to offset costs for
    Marines who have to travel to locations that are more than 150 miles
    from the Home Training Center (HTC). We expanded the program to fill
    critically-short leadership billets over the past year. There aren't
    any other programs that specifically target travel costs. As
    highlighted during the Reserve Component Duty Status reform process,
    Reserve Marines receive double the amount of basic pay for two drill
    periods performed in one day than if they were in one day of pay
    status. This differential can be seen as a means to lower out-of-pocket
    expenses. Due to the relatively small number of HTCs geographically,
    Marine Corps Reservists often have to travel long distances to attend
    training.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Air Force provides lodging, at no cost to members, for
    Reservists who travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient
    Department of Defense (DoD) quarters are used whenever available. Air
    Force also provides reimbursement for travel expenses up to $300 per
    drill weekend provided the reservist was assigned to a unit or position
    that was affected by a Defense Base Realignment or closure or if the
    individual is in a critical AFSC and there is a documented shortfall in
    the organization for that grade/skill level.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Regarding Lodging-in-Kind, we have addressed it internally
    by funding this program with $26 million per year average through FY22.
    Regarding the related issue of Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) travel
    outside the local commuting area, currently, the Joint Travel
    Regulations cap reimbursement for IDT-T expenses (e.g. plane tickets,
    rental cars, and lodging) at $300 per round trip for select Reserve
    Component members assigned to a unit or position that was affected by a
    Defense Base Realignment or closure or in a skill designated as
    critically short. Over 25% of claims submitted by Service Members to
    the Army Reserve are above the $300 limit.

        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. But I do have a question. I
    think it affects all of you. I commend people who decide to
    continue in the Reserves after their discharge. Sometimes it is
    a very heavy family discussion about whether or not people are
    going to stay in the Reserves. And so people who do that do it
    with their eyes wide open about what a deployment could really
    be meaning for them.
        So, when they come home, they come home as a citizen too.
    And this is a question I had had with General Luckey, but I
    want to pose this to all of you. In many, many cases, soldiers
    and airmen are deployed with as little as 30 days' notice, and
    that can put a lot of strain on the family. So, because they
    have been planning their lives moving forward, they don't have
    the same protection in their civilian jobs that sometimes--and
    I commend our businesses in Minnesota for what they do for our
    National Guard--but they have personal money invested. They are
    getting ready to close on homes. They might have paid tuition
    forward.
        What are we doing? What can we do to help you? What is your
    team doing to ensure that families of these soldiers and
    airmen, when they are given this short notice, that they don't
    find themselves in financial harm or with unexpected
    consequences with their employment when they come back home?
    Thank you.
        General Luckey. To the extent that the question was
    initially directed to me, I will respond first.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I figured you would take one for
    the team.
        General Luckey. So, as you well know, and I think we have
    discussed this before, part of the focus from a priority-of-
    work perspective, if you will, of America's Army Reserve is to
    make sure that we are tracking, if you will, or witting of
    which families and which units are most likely to be forced to
    do exactly what you just said, Congresswoman, which is move
    very quickly.
        This past weekend, I spent the better part of 2 days in
    Oklahoma City at what we call Family Programs University. It is
    an Army Reserve program to essentially bring in volunteers,
    family program coordinators, and family program facilitators
    from units, particularly those units that are most likely to be
    called to go first.
        So I can't give you a complete comprehensive answer as it
    pertains necessarily to units located in eastern Minnesota.
    What I can tell you is the focus and the energy, if you will,
    of our efforts to make sure we have good quality engaged
    outreach, if you will, to families is particularly seized with
    the problem you have just articulated. So I want you to know
    that I am paying very close attention to that.
        Admiral McCollum. Thanks for that question. Just an
    additional thing I would add onto it. The greatest return on
    investment to the American taxpayer in the military for a
    transitioning military individual is if we can retain them into
    the Reserve Component. We don't have to train them; we can take
    advantage of the time they spent on Active Duty.
        So it certainly behooves us to maximize and create an
    environment that allows that reservist to thrive, thrive with
    their families, thrive with their civilian employers. And the
    way I would answer that question is predictability. Create a
    predictable environment with funding that we don't have a
    sustained period of long continuing resolutions, and that that
    predictability allows the reservist, with confidence, that they
    know that they can plan; there is going to be funding and
    funding available for the training to get ready to meet those
    commitments.
        Ms. Granger. Anyone else?
        You are welcome to respond.
        General McMillian. Ma'am, as you know, the Marine Corps is
    a force in readiness. We have to be ready to fight tonight. The
    Commandant depends very much on his Reserve Component to be
    ready on a moment's notice.
        The biggest thing that we do is express that out to our
    Marines and their families at every opportunity, to be prepared
    mentally, to be prepared physically, to know their MOS, to not
    waste 1 minute of their training time. We have 38 training days
    with them a year in order to prepare them to go downrange into
    combat. They have to be ready to fight tonight.
        We have a lot of history or examples throughout our history
    of having to get out the door very quickly, inside of 30 days,
    45 days, and directly into combat. Their families know that;
    they are prepared for it. They are leaning forward. We ask them
    to reach out to their employers to make sure that they are
    aware of the commitment that they have to the United States
    Marine Corps and to the United States for the defense of this
    Nation.
        General Miller. And for the Air Force Reserve, our response
    time is 72 hours. So, for those longer term deployments, at the
    Air Force, we have done an amazing job over the last 26 years
    of getting that battle rhythm of reservists deploying
    downrange. And we will give them 180 days' notice to 270 days'
    notice, and that is good. But every reservist knows they are on
    a 72-hour hook, and our systems support that. Our wing
    commanders support that. The Yellow Ribbon Program supports
    that, and we are structured to support that.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Womack.

                               STATE OF READINESS

        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And thanks to the distinguished panel that is gathered in
    front of us. Because of the short timeframe, I will go to one
    question. Before I do, I want to take just a moment of personal
    privilege in welcoming the great admiral over here, Mr.
    McCollum, who before he took this particular job was working at
    a small five-and-dime in northwest Arkansas that I represent
    and the proud parent I might also add of a young son who is
    making his rounds in the Arkansas General Assembly and doing
    remarkable work, and we are really, really proud of him.
        I wanted to ask the panel if they would just take a moment
    and tell us what their top one or two issues are right now. And
    I will take out of those answers funding, because we know
    funding is the answer to a whole lot of problems that everybody
    has. So we will just leave that off to the side. I don't know
    if it is OPTEMPO. I don't know if it is modernization. I don't
    know if it is medical fitness. But in the Reserves, you have
    got a different set of issues that affect you. And so just go
    from Army down the line and give me the top two. What should
    this committee understand to be your top couple of issues?
        General Luckey. So thank you for the question. Very simply,
    two things: one, being able to generate the formations that I
    need to generate in the timelines required to support the
    warfighter, primarily focusing on two different theaters of
    operation, so the Pacific and Europe, and being able to
    generate, as I said in my opening remarks, capabilities on the
    orders of 10,000, 15,000 soldiers in less than 45 days up to
    33,000 soldiers in about 90 days. So the units, if you will,
    incorporate those capabilities, and the soldiers in those units
    have to be at a very high degree of state of readiness.
        So my challenge, first of all, is to be able to identify
    those requirements, make sure that each one of those formations
    has the training, the equipment, the modernization, and the, if
    you will, mission command architecture to operate in a
    completely interoperable efficacious fashion with Active
    Component formations very quickly.
        Inside that, I would say the number two thing is
    deployability of the individual soldiers, making sure that I am
    affording every soldier the opportunity to get everything that
    they need done so that they are completely in a deployable
    status at the time that somebody needs them to go do a job. So
    that is a persistent ongoing challenge for us, but we are
    getting after it.
        Admiral McCollum. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    So you won't allow us to use the word ``budget,'' but may I
    just use the word what the budget does for us. It creates
    wholeness. Creating wholeness creates the ability to generate
    readiness. And at its core, the U.S. Navy is an integrated
    force and the Navy Reserve, as a component of that, relies on
    the help of Congress to give us the ability to be whole, to fix
    our, what I would say, divots are in our readiness accounts,
    our maintenance accounts. And by doing that, the second thing
    it does then is it then generates readiness to deploy when and
    where the American public chooses us to go.
        General McMillian. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    I will tell you what keeps me awake at night is readiness of
    the force, the Reserve Forces, to fight tonight and be able to
    get out the door and seamlessly augment and reinforce the
    Active Component in a fistfight.
        The things that we need to do is investment in our future,
    modernization of our equipment, and then the maintenance of our
    legacy equipment, those two things and, specifically,
    transition of the KC-130T and the AH-1Z attack helicopter for
    the Marine Corps Reserves.
        General Miller. The two things I think that are most
    important for the Air Force Reserve are the critical skills
    manning, particularly our pilot shortage and our cyber
    professionals. On the cyber side, industry is just pulling
    them. We can attract them, and we can train them, but we don't
    keep them that long. So your Reserve and Guard are the capacity
    that can keep them in uniform, which is great.
        The other piece is weapon system sustainment and making
    sure that is--that is vital to our readiness.
        Mr. Womack. Thanks for the extra time.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                             CYBER PROTECTION TEAMS

        Mr. Ruppersberger. First, General, thank you for meeting
    with me yesterday.
        I want to get into cyber. When we met yesterday, you
    mentioned you were on track to provide 10 cyber protection
    teams for the Army Reserve. Those soldiers who are in cyber-
    related positions require specific skills, as we know. What
    challenges could you face with attempting to fill these cyber
    positions?

                          MODERNIZATION OF READY FORCE

        And let me ask you another readiness question. Then I will
    stop. The National Guard Reserve equipment account we know is
    critical to Army Reserve Force readiness. Can you explain how
    this account and the funds in it will be used to enhance the
    modernization of your ready force and what concerns you have
    with equipment currently on hand and modernization levels in
    the Army Reserve?
        General Luckey. So, sir, if I may answer the second
    question first, very briefly.
        So, in the main, the money that has been given to us by the
    committee--and, again, thank you for that--basically along the
    lines I articulated here earlier this morning. So it is about
    mobility. So some of this is platforms, if you will. A
    significant portion of the investment portfolio is going to go
    against mission command systems. As I think I have explained to
    some members before, one of my concerns is making sure that
    every one of my platforms is completely interlocked, if you
    will, from a network perspective, in terms of communications,
    architecture, and Blue Force Tracker, to make sure that all of
    my formations are completely interoperable from a
    communications command-and-control perspective. So the priority
    is really focusing on lethality, mobility, and that net of C2,
    command and control, structure.
        Circling back to the issue about the cyber specifically, as
    I think I have mentioned before, from a build perspective, we
    are in a very good place. So you are correct, Congressman. So
    10 cyber protection teams over time building out, we are on a
    good glide path for that. In fact, what I would say is--and I
    touched on it a little bit in my opening remarks--part of what
    we are doing in America's Army Reserve is looking at those
    places in America where there is rapidly evolving, if you will,
    digital capabilities, technologies--so cyber, artificial
    intelligence, all sorts of, if you will, exploding capabilities
    in the private sector--making sure that the Army Reserve is
    posturing force structure to be able to retain and in some
    cases actually assess those capabilities into the Army Reserve,
    to make that a much more integrated part, if you will, of the
    Army's linkage, the warfighter's linkage, Department of
    Defense's linkage to the emerging private sectors.
        I think I mentioned to you I have gone out to see private
    industry in many locations. We are investing capabilities and
    we are moving folks, if you will, or billets, opportunities to
    create structure into those rapidly developing parts of
    commercial America. So I think we are in a very good place.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Anybody else?
        General McMillian. Yes, sir, I will just dive in on that.
    We are building out in the Marine Corps Reserves two cyber
    protection teams from our marines who have gotten out, gotten
    into the civilian work sector, learned that skill set, and now
    finding out that we are trying to stand up two teams, one on
    the West Coast, one on the East Coast: one at the 1st Marine
    Expeditionary Force in San Diego; the other one at the 2nd
    Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune.
        What drives these Marines to come back into the Reserves to
    join cyber protection teams is that they are closer to the
    fight. They want to be with those tactical deploying units that
    have the potential to go downrange and do work wherever the
    country may need them. So they are excited about getting their
    boots dirty and deploying downrange with tactical units. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Carter.

                  READINESS AND RETENTION OF SKILLED PERSONNEL

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I am going to address this question to the whole panel.
    General Luckey and I had a conversation yesterday.
        Thank you for coming by. I really appreciate that
    conversation.
        But as citizen lawyers and members of the Armed Forces
    Reserve, people are often called upon to face the challenge in
    the workforce, because people miss work due to their
    deployments. Please provide the subcommittee with your
    assessments of how these challenges affect not only readiness
    but retention of highly skilled personnel and what resources or
    assistance can we provide that will help you sustain your level
    of readiness and retention.
        General Luckey. So let me just take that first, if I may,
    very quickly.
        I will tell you the biggest thing that this committee could
    do to continue to support America's Army Reserve in this regard
    is to, if you will, be the influencers that can help me
    influence other influencers in America. As I have discussed
    with members of this committee before in a more informal
    context, part of our challenge is making sure we continue to
    message, as I said in my opening remarks, to the employers of
    America that they are strategic partners in the national
    security of the United States of America. And by allowing them,
    if you will, and encouraging them to understand how
    fundamentally important their support is to make sure that our
    soldiers--I would say sailors, airmen, and marines--all have an
    opportunity to be shared, if you will, between those employers
    and these teams is absolutely critical to us being able to
    continue, if you will, to take some pressure off our soldiers
    to be able to do both.
        So I would just--I really don't think this is about money
    so much. Fundamentally, it is about messaging and making sure
    our employers really understand how vital their support
    continues to be.
        Admiral McCollum. And, sir, just to complement General
    Luckey's words is the idea of partnerships and the idea of
    leveraging those relationships that these, in our case, sailors
    and airmen and marines, that they have, not only with their
    employers, but with friends of the military, and understanding
    those connection points and whatever constituency gathering,
    whatever activity that is in place, where we understand the
    heart and soul of what generates the capability of America's
    military power, which is our people, and all those programs
    that support how we take care of our people, whether it is when
    they get back home in the repatriation programs or how we
    support them when they are forward in giving the readiness,
    finding the readiness to be ready, to distract them from any
    problems they may have otherwise.
        General McMillian. Much the same answer, sir. Thank you for
    the question.
        Again, we are at 95 percent manning across the board,
    highest I have ever seen it, healthiest I have ever seen it,
    morale, leadership, esprit de corps off the top of the charts.
    Reserve marines want to be here and serve and go downrange and
    do good work for our country. The key to that is the public
    support for their employers. I think their employers are proud
    to have marines in their organizations. But a pat on the back
    goes a long way, and so the public support, as General Luckey
    and Admiral McCollum have touched upon, is huge for us and
    helps out with our retention and the serving.
        General Miller. Yes. For the Air Force Reserve, as I
    stated, the 72-hour response time is the tether that we are all
    on. So, with that, we have a great relationship at every wing
    level across all our 36 wings with the employees who are part
    of Guard and Reserve. So it is that expectation management
    between the reservist and the employer that we bring together
    around the table so there is no misunderstanding.
        A perfect example of that would be the airline pilot.
    General Goldfein last week got us together around the table
    with 70 airline executives from the majors to the regionals.
    And we sat around the table and said--we keep tugging on both--
    either--you know, we have the uniform arm, and they have the
    airline arm of these pilots, and we are pulling them. We are
    pulling them apart, basically.
        So we had to sit around the table and basically come to an
    agreement of, how we are going to use this one asset, this
    national asset that has now become a crisis for this country?
    So that is the perfect example of how we work together with
    industry. And we are beginning steps to do that to work our way
    through this.
        Mr. Carter. Well, I, for one, if you can get the
    information by congressional district of the employers that
    employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I am going to
    make the same request of the National Guard--our office will
    personally send them a letter commending them for their service
    to their country. So, if you can get me that information, I
    will put my people to work to do that.
        [The information follows:]
                         Employers That Employ Members

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The National Guard Bureau does not have a method of
    tracking or collecting comprehensive employer data for all 54 states
    and territories. However, Service members nominated several employers
    of the National Guard from Texas' 31st Congressional District for the
    2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award through the
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESRG) program. The nominees
    include: (a) ARCIL Inc. (Round Rock) (b) Sprint (Killeen) (c) Wilsonart
    International (Temple) (d) Real Green Pest & Lawn (Round Rock)
                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports
    250 Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service
    members live and/or work in Texas' 31st congressional district. The
    following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Company              Mailing Address         City, State, Zip
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ash Chiropractic         3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5  Georgetown, TX 78628
    Georgetown ISD           1313 Williams Dr         Georgetown, TX 78628
    Discount Tire            2720 E Whitestone Blvd   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    City of Round Rock       301 E Main St            Round Rock, TX 78664
    Firestone                100 E. Old Settlers      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Blvd
    Mattress One             1208 N. IH35 Suite 900   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Dell                     2401 Greenlawn Blvd      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Bldg 7
    Baylor Scott and White   2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Johnson Controls         1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Pacesetter K9 LLC        555 County Road 200      Liberty Hill, TX 78260
    Dell Inc                 7215 Alacia Dr           Leander, TX 78641
    DFPS                     503 Priest Dr            Killeen, TX 76549
    Dell Inc                 1 Dell Way               Round Rock, TX 78664
    TEK Systems/Emerson      1100 Louis Henna Blvd    Round Rock, TX 78681
    Baylor Scott & White     2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Amplify                  202 Walton Way Ste 200   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47
    states, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    that employ Marine Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily
    available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond
    to this question.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ
    Service members of any Reserve Components by congressional district.
    However, Employer Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a
    listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award via the attached
    listing. These employers in Texas have earned praise from their Service
    member employees for their support of our reserve component military
    members. Other interested members can obtain similar data.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and
    willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR
    works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we
    do not track employer information for each member of the Army Reserve.
    With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would
    potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all
    employers who provide employment support to America's Army Reserve
    Soldiers.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes
    outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards
    program. Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to
    build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members
    and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR presented 10,627 Patriot Awards
    to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Component employees and
    received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is
    the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for their
    support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in
    1996, the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250
    employers (small, large, and public) who represent the best of the best
    in employer support of Reserve Component service.
        This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon
    ceremony for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom
    Award:
              1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia,
            Georgia. Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough,
            Massachusetts. Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator's
            branch: Army National Guard
              4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland.
            Nominator's branch: Coast Guard Reserve
              8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana.
            Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
            of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator's branch: Marine Corps
            Reserve
              12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator's branch: Air
            National Guard
              13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator's branch:
            Army National Guard
              14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports
    250 Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service
    members live and/or work in Texas' 31st congressional district. The
    following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Company              Mailing Address         City, State, Zip
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ash Chiropractic         3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5  Georgetown, TX 78628
    Georgetown ISD           1313 Williams Dr         Georgetown, TX 78628
    Discount Tire            2720 E Whitestone Blvd   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    City of Round Rock       301 E Main St            Round Rock, TX 78664
    Firestone                100 E. Old Settlers      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Blvd
    Mattress One             1208 N. IH35 Suite 900   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Dell                     2401 Greenlawn Blvd      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Bldg 7
    Baylor Scott and White   2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Johnson Controls         1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Pacesetter K9 LLC        555 County Road 200      Liberty, Hill, TX
                                                       78260
    Dell Inc                 7215 Alacia Dr           Leander, TX 78641
    DFPS                     503 Priest Dr            Killeen, TX 76549
    Dell Inc                 1 Dell Way               Round Rock, TX 78664
    TEK Systems/Emerson      1100 Louis Henna Blvd    Round Rock, TX 78681
    Baylor Scott & White     2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Amplify                  202 Walton Way Ste 200   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47
    states, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    that employ Marine Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily
    available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond
    to this question.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ
    Service members of any Reserve Components by congressional district.
    However, Employer Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a
    listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award via the attached
    listing. These employers in Texas have earned praise from their Service
    member employees for their support of our reserve component military
    members. Other interested members can obtain similar data.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and
    willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR
    works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we
    do not track employer information for each member of the Army Reserve.
    With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would
    potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all
    employers who provide employment support to America's Army Reserve
    Soldiers.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes
    outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards
    program. Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to
    build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members
    and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR presented 10,627 Patriot Awards
    to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Component employees and
    received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is
    the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for their
    support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in
    1996, the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250
    employers (small, large, and public) who represent the best of the best
    in employer support of Reserve Component service.
        This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon
    ceremony for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom
    Award:

              1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia,
            Georgia. Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough,
            Massachusetts. Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator's
            branch: Army National Guard
              4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland.
            Nominator's branch: Coast Guard Reserve
              8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana.
            Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
            of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator's branch: Marine Corps
            Reserve
              12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator's branch: Air
            National Guard
              13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator's branch:
            Army National Guard
              14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard

        General Luckey. I appreciate that, sir.
        Ms. Granger. I can say the same thing. Thank you.
        When you are talking about messaging, if there is--I have a
    Reserve base, as you mentioned, thank you, in my district--but
    some way to make sure that we are telling communities how
    important it is to encourage this with employers. Any ideas,
    any places where they are doing it really well, if you would
    pass it on to all of us, then we will encourage that, because
    that partnership is just vital. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                         Remarks of Congressman Cuellar

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I don't have any questions except to say thank you for what
    you all do. We really, really appreciate it. We want to be
    supportive in any way.
        I do associate myself to the questions, to the comments
    also. I would like to get followup on that. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

                        PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for being here, and a very heartfelt thank
    you to all of your families for their service and sacrifice as
    well.
        With all the professional military education conducted at
    Maxwell Air Force Base, I am well aware of the emphasis that
    the services place on PME, and rightly so. The investments in
    education and career development are critical to the
    development of our next generation of military leaders.
        That being said, I am very concerned about possible
    disparities between Reserve and Active Duty servicemembers with
    regard to pay and benefits as it relates to PME. While a
    soldier on Active Duty receives full pay and credit toward
    retirement while attending PME courses, a reservist is often
    balancing, obviously, a civilian career and completing these
    courses by correspondence. Not only is the reservist not paid,
    in many cases, the reservist gets no credit toward their
    retirement.
        And so what needs to happen to fix this disparity,
    particularly as it relates toward retirement credit, and how
    quickly can we make this happen? And I will be quiet and let
    you answer. Thank you very much.
        General Luckey. So let me jump on that first, if I may,
    Congresswoman.
        So I will just tell you, as a soldier who went to the Army
    War College and, to your point, spent the better part of 2
    years doing it by sort of--some of it was virtual; some of it
    was paper; some of it was--but it ruined--I won't say it
    ruined. It consumed weekends for the Luckey family for a couple
    years. And then we had the summer sessions where I would go to
    Carlisle for 2 weeks.
        I will just tell you that I was completely compensated for
    the time that I spent at Carlisle by the Army, and I received a
    master's degree from the Army War College as part of the
    program. Candidly, while I got retirement points for, if you
    will, the coursework that I accomplished, I am not going to sit
    here and tell you that necessarily in some cases I felt that it
    was--I mean, some of the work was very difficult, frankly.
        But I will just tell you, on behalf of the Army, on behalf
    of America's Army Reserve, I don't think that there is a
    compensation issue or a credit issue as it pertains to
    retirement as it pertains to the Professional Military
    Education program of the Army.
        What I will tell you is it is a challenge. My guess is it
    is true for all the services. It is a challenge for Reserve
    soldiers to balance all the requirements of their lives. But
    the reality is I have fantastic soldiers who have support of
    their families and, by and large, support of their employers.
    We talked earlier. I didn't touch on this data point, but I
    think it is relevant. The authorized end strength of the United
    States Army Reserve, you know, is going back to 199,000, and
    right now, I am at 198,000 soldiers.
        So I guess what I would say is this is not a pressing
    concern for me. So I respect your question and I appreciate it,
    but this is not a pressing concern for America's Army Reserve.
        Admiral McCollum. Thank you, ma'am, for that question.
        I would say, for the Navy Reserve, it is very similar to
    what General Luckey just said. The Navy Reserve sailors are
    motivated, dedicated, and they are awesomely inspiring, and
    they do have this complexity of the family and civilian jobs.
    So it is a little bit different to master from just having one
    focus of their employment.
        Where the conversations generally go regarding AC/RC ends
    up in the benefits area. In the case, we do have an authority
    right now, the 12304 bravo, which is basically an authority to
    let a reservist deploy. So the benefits don't currently match.
    And I know that work is underway to address that. So that is
    where I hear more of the work and the questions.
        General McMillian. Great question, ma'am. Thank you for the
    question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is focused on
    building a fifth-generation Marine Corps, highly technical,
    highly advanced. I need to build a fifth-generation Reserve
    part of that to augment and reinforce. Along with that comes
    education. But I am book-ended by readiness. I have 38 training
    days to train our marines ready to go downrange, as you have
    heard me talk about, to be ready to go to combat.
        So I need to take full advantage--and this is my point--
    with online training and getting the pay and the benefits
    between drills, between those 28 days that I don't have them
    during the month, to bring them up to speed educationally. So
    we are working towards that, and we have great support in the
    Marine Corps.
        General Miller. Within the Air Force and the Air Force
    Reserve, we are moving more toward the virtual. And, with that,
    you know, our folks just achieve greatness. Many of them, if
    not all of them, have master's degrees on the officer side. On
    the enlisted side, those numbers are going up. So this young
    group coming in just achieve and overachieve, and they are not
    really concerned about getting compensated for that. They just
    do it. And the same for the Professional Military Education. It
    is just a requirement and an expectation that we have had, and
    we just do it.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you all.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ryan.

                ANTITERRORISM AND FORCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a question for General Miller, a couple I will try
    to squeeze in, and, hopefully, you can get to them. And I will
    make the committee aware that you are a graduate of a small
    unknown university in Columbus, Ohio, called the Ohio State
    University. And we are grateful for your service. So thank you
    very much.
        Two quick questions: One, last year, our committee
    identified in the report that many Reserve facilities do not
    meet antiterrorism and force protection requirements, and that
    these deficiencies result in traffic, congestion in surrounding
    roads. And these congested access points, as we saw recently in
    the U.K. with the terrorist attack, can be a major issue.
        The response from the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of Budget last year stated the requirements would be met in
    2022, which, in my estimation, is way too long to wait for
    those kinds of security measures.
        So can you comment on that?

                                    C-130JS

        And the other question is with regard to the C-130Js and,
    specifically, if we have enough with regard to specialty
    missions. I am concerned that those areas and those planes and
    the training necessary to deal with the specialty missions,
    that we are not where we need to be with that.
        General Miller. Regarding the security measures, thank you
    all for the additional appropriation in 2017 for FSRM. We
    brought in $65 million. You appropriated $65 million for
    additions. I just looked at the list. None of those include
    gates, the security around the installation. So I will go back
    and see. We do a facilities assessment every year at every
    base. So I will do a quick review and see where we are lacking
    in that and get back with you on that specifically.
        Regarding the C-130Js, the last recapitalization for the
    Air Force Reserve for Js was in 2007 at Keesler, and we
    recapitalized 20, partly for the weather mission there and then
    the operational mission there at Keesler. That is the last C-
    130J that the Air Force Reserve received, and there is none
    programmed in the POM for us. And that is a decision with the
    Air Force just due to limited funding; that is where we are on
    that program.
        The AMP 1 and AMP 2 on our H model fleet is critical to the
    longevity of that mission set.
        If there were funding that were set aside for the Js for
    the Air Force Reserve, then I would actually put that in the
    special missions at Youngstown and the firefighting unit at
    Peterson. That is where those J models would go, if
    recapitalized, and there would be 60 needed for that.
        But right now, it is not in the program, and there is just
    no room in the program, given where we need to go for the
    future fight.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                            Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I don't have a question, but in response to my colleague's
    opening remarks, Mr. Ryan, I would point out that, while Ohio
    State is an incredible athletic institution--the decor of my
    Washington office is patterned after your colors--in the
    National Fencing Championship round, it was Notre Dame-1, Ohio
    State-2.
        Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Granger. Thanks for your time, your attention to the
    committee's concerns. Please feel free at any time to remind us
    or talk to us more so we can serve you the very best because we
    respect what you do.
        This concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers
    thereto follow:]

              High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. The Alabama National Guard has about 1,330 High Mobility
    Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). Almost 60% of them are over 13
    years old. To say the least, the HMMWV Modernization Program has been
    very successful and has brought 124 much needed new vehicles to the
    Alabama National Guard and over 2,200 nationwide. Does your FY 2018
    Budget include funding to continue this program?
        Answer. Yes, the FY18 President's Budget included a requirement for
    $53M to continue modernizing HMMWVs. With Congress' support during the
    last four years, the ARNG has modernized over 2,788 Up-Armored HMMWVs
    and HMMWV Ambulances with the most modern operational capabilities and
    Soldier safety upgrades. The ARNG plans to maintain its readiness
    through the synchronization of all Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle
    modernization and recapitalization efforts in accordance with the
    Army's Light Tactical Vehicle Modernization Strategy. The ARNG HMMWV
    modernization improvements is the direct result of year-to-year
    Congressional Line-Items. To date this funding has been used to
    accelerate ARNG LTV modernization efforts which has greatly enhanced
    unit readiness for dual use and contingency operations.

                        Dual-Status Military Technicians

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. The FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act directed
    DoD to convert 20% of administrative, clerical, finance, and office
    service dual-status military technicians, and all non-dual status
    technicians to Title 5 federal civilian employees on 1 January 2016, to
    include Title 32 technicians. To date, our committee has included
    language in appropriations bills to state that no funds would be used
    to support this effort. Is this conversion something that you support?
    What impact would a 20% conversion of technicians to Title 5 federal
    civilians have on the National Guard Bureau? Also, is there a
    conversion percentage that you would consider acceptable for your
    organization?
        Answer. As the Chief National Guard Bureau I have an inherent Title
    10 responsibility to execute the law as it is written. That said, as
    previously discussed in my own testimony I favor a smaller conversion
    number than what is currently called for and would support
    congressional efforts to reduce the required percentage. A 20%
    conversion will have a negative impact. As I stated in previous
    testimony the smaller the conversion number the better when it comes to
    readiness of the National Guard. I believe, as I have testified that
    there is some number that can be converted with minimal impact to
    readiness; I don't believe that number is 20 percent.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
    Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and answers thereto follow:]

                     Professional Military Education (PME)

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. In light of the publication of Department of Defense
    Instruction 1215.17 in 2013 as well as the increasing use of virtual
    training for Professional Military Education (PME), does your service
    provide retirement credit for Reservists completing PME? If not, what
    steps would be required to provide credit to all reservists who
    completed PME since the publication of his DODI?
        Answer. Title 10 United States Code, Sec. 12732(a)(2) does not
    permit the awarding of retirement credit for Reserve Component Service
    members who complete training via distributed electronic methods. This
    is an issue the Department is examining as part of its review of
    Reserve Component duty status reform.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Graves and answers thereto follow:]

                       Dual Status Technicians Conversion

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has
    provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician
    positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this
    accurate? Were the Adjutants General or the Governors consulted when
    identifying the positions for conversion?
        Answer. (1) It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has
    provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician
    positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this
    accurate? Answer. Yes, to both the HASC and SASC at different times and
    at their requests. (2) Were the Adjutants General or the Governors
    consulted when identifying the positions for conversion? Answer. Yes to
    both entities. The Adjutants General and National Governor's Council
    were and continue to be heavily involved in the process. The Adjutant
    General's provided their best military advice in the Report to Congress
    directed by NDAA 2016.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Graves.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and answers thereto
    follow:]

                       Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. The Army intends to maintain a mixed fleet of 104,099
    tactical wheeled vehicles, including 50,000 HMMWVs and 49,099 JLTVs. At
    one point the Army planned to continue operating 100,000 HMMWVs, but
    that strategy has shifted to maintain a nearly even mix of HMMWVs and
    JLTVs.--Over the past several fiscal years, this Committee has added
    significant additional funding to modernize the HMMWV fleets of the
    Guard and reserve components.--Given that the HMMWV will remain half of
    Army's light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet beyond 2040, can you share
    the plan to maintain and modernize the readiness of the National Guard
    and Reserve HMMWVs? Do you feel that Army leadership is committed to
    funding this plan?--Please explain the Army's intentions for the nearly
    26,000 HMMWVs that are supposedly no longer required? Was there any
    discussion of repurposing these vehicles for the National Guard dual-
    purpose mission?
        Answer. Congressional support has enabled the Army National Guard
    (ARNG) to purchase 1,509 HMMWV Ambulances and modernize 1,279 Up-
    Armored HMMWVs since 2013. As such, the ARNG will replace our entire
    HMMWV Ambulance fleet by 2019. The Army's Light Tactical Wheeled
    Vehicle modernization and recapitalization efforts include the National
    Guard and Reserve. The ARNG supports the Army's HMMWV Modernization
    Strategy of improving all HMMWVs by recapitalizing existing assets. The
    Army's HMMWV Modernization Strategy incorporates JLTV deliveries, Up-
    Armor HMMWV modernization and Un-Armored HMMWV modernization, roles and
    missions. The Army has fully supported the ARNG's Light Tactical
    Vehicle modernization strategy with funding. The ARNG's Light Tactical
    Vehicle modernization strategy is aligned with the Army's overall
    strategy and also meets the ARNG objectives and requirements for dual-
    use Light Tactical Vehicles. The ARNG is assisting the Army in
    developing a plan for HMMWVs which fall outside the JLTV and Up-Armored
    HMMWV requirements. Although not finalized, ARNG Light Tactical Vehicle
    dual-use requirements are included in the way-ahead strategy.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
    Visclosky. Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and answers
    thereto follow:]

                           State Partnership Program

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. With Russia's increasing aggression, how do you plan to
    enhance the State Partnership Program? What more can the State
    Partnership Program in Ukraine and Hungary do to enhance the area of
    civil works/transportation infrastructure in those countries?
        Answer. The State Partnership Program began in Europe at the close
    of the Cold War with the purpose of establishing enduring relationships
    to reassure our allies, deter aggression, and help our partners provide
    more effectively for their own security. Currently, the program has
    partnerships with 12 former Soviet Bloc nations. The State Partnership
    Program is and will remain an important tool for Combatant Commanders
    advancing America's national security interests in Europe and around
    the globe. In addition to obtaining necessary funding through the
    Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process to execute a full slate of
    partnership activities in FY18, the National Guard will continue
    seeking innovative ways to leverage the unique skills of the Guard's
    Citizen-Soldiers and-Airmen as well as the strong relationships that
    Guard members have built over the years to meet emerging security
    challenges. The Commander, U.S. European Command, the lead U.S.
    Department of Defense command in both Ukraine and Hungary, will
    determine the projects undertaken by the State Partnership Program in
    those countries.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.]

                                               Thursday, June 15, 2017.

                 FY 2018 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET OVERVIEW

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, USMC, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
    DAVID NORQUIST, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Today, we will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2018
    budget request for the Department of Defense.
        As the incoming chair of the Defense Subcommittee, I said
    that the defense bill would be based on the needs of our
    military and the best military advice from our leaders in
    uniform. Unfortunately, after extensive conversations with our
    military leaders, I am concerned that the fiscal year 2018
    defense budget request is not enough to address the shortfalls
    and damage caused by years of underfunding. The budget caps
    have enlarged that problem and must be repealed.
        For many years, military leaders have said they would get
    the mission done no matter the level of funding they received.
    That is no longer possible, and it is our job to make sure our
    military has what it needs to face the many threats to our
    Nation.
        All Federal dollars are not the same. During a time when we
    face threats from Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and other
    terrorist groups, we must prioritize our defense funding first.
    Our adversaries are rapidly advancing their tactics and their
    capabilities. The fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill must
    ensure our capabilities remain more advanced and more lethal
    than our adversaries. The last thing we want to give our
    enemies is a fair fight.
        General Dunford, in 2012, your predecessor, General
    Dempsey, testified that we were living in the most dangerous
    era of his lifetime. That was true when he made the statement,
    and the world is so much more dangerous today.
        Unfortunately, I am concerned that the fiscal year budget
    request doesn't go far enough. Our senior military leaders tell
    us this is the minimal level needed to stop the deterioration
    of our military readiness.
        As you had said, Secretary Mattis, it will take years of
    increased funding to get us to where we need to be, and the
    budget request should be viewed as the first step for what is
    truly needed to rebuild our national defense.
        This fiscal year 2018 budget process is especially
    complicated, and we have a big job in front of us and little
    time to complete it. The world isn't standing still, and the
    threats of today and tomorrow are not waiting on our budget
    cycle. It is my hope we can find a bipartisan common ground to
    give our military the robust support that our service chiefs
    and combatant commanders tell us they desperately need. This is
    where our witnesses come in to help us clarify what we need to
    do.
        Before I introduce them, I would like to recognize our
    ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any opening remarks he would
    like to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

        Mr. Visclosky. The only thing I would say, Madam Chair, is
    thank you for holding the hearing and, gentlemen, for your
    service, for your testimony today, and I would commend the
    Secretary of Defense for his very good judgment in bringing
    aboard Mr. Norquist as Comptroller. Despite the fact that he
    graduated from the University of Michigan, I think he is
    eminently qualified for the position given his 6 years of
    experience as a member of our subcommittee staff, and I am very
    serious about that.
        Good luck to you, David.
        Mr. Norquist. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Granger. I call on Chairman Frelinghuysen.

                   Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
        I am going to go through my remarks because I think it is
    important to say a few things, but, first of all, I want to
    join on all the members and Chairwoman Granger in thanking you
    all for being here, especially those brothers in arms that have
    sat together at this table on a variety of earlier occasions.
        Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight
    duties of this committee. After all, the power of the purse
    lies in this building. It is the constitutional duty of
    Congress to make spending decisions on behalf of the people we
    represent at home.
        Secretary Mattis, we gather here this morning to review the
    budget of the Department of Defense, the posture of our Armed
    Forces, and to determine how this committee can help our
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines meet the many threats and
    challenges this very dangerous world has produced, because when
    it comes to the men and women in uniform, their missions are
    our missions, and we want to hear your clear priorities for
    making them more successful and safe.
        What is our strategy in Syria? What level of success are we
    having in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even as we have a policy to
    accelerate and to annihilate ISIS, we also recognize that
    threats are growing across the globe from Russia, China, Iran,
    North Korea, transnational jihadists, hackers, and
    cyberterrorists. Your needs are great, but the current
    resources available to you are not adequate.
        We share your opposition to the BCA, the Budget Control
    Act. We will work to lift its restrictions, but this hearing is
    all about an opportunity for you to tell us exactly what you
    need in the short term and long term.
        Mr. Secretary, I have questions also about the devolution
    of warfighting command authority from our Commander in Chief to
    subordinates both civilian and military. While we never want
    the President and the National Security Council to be involved
    in the minute details of operational decisions, we do have
    questions about how to strike a proper balance.
        Secretary Mattis, I hear the constant drumbeat of concern
    from field officers and enlisted personnel about the rules of
    engagement during visits to the Middle East, which all of us
    feel are important, and even from the perspective of visiting
    Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospital. Previously, they were too
    restrictive; now, I am hearing they are confusing.
        In another important area, I think I speak on behalf of all
    of my colleagues when I say we endorse the marriage of hard and
    soft power, military capability and diplomacy to ensure our
    national security. As we prepare the defense appropriations
    bill under Congresswoman Granger's leadership and a State,
    foreign operations bill, we will ask you to weigh in.
        Finally, the general accounting office recently identified
    five key challenges that significantly affect your Department's
    ability to accomplish its mission. These include: top of the
    list, rebuild readiness; secondly, mitigate threats to
    cyberspace and expand cyber capabilities; thirdly, control the
    escalating costs of certain weapons systems and, yes, of
    course, strategically managing your human capital; and, lastly,
    achieving greater efficiencies in defense business operations.
        We do not need a special report to tell us that we have a
    readiness problem--I am sure you will do that in your
    statements--or that the Department of Defense has acquisition
    challenges, but we do look forward to hearing your strategy to
    address these issues and their recommendations.
        And, with that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time,
    and I thank the panel for being here with us again. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Ranking Member Lowey.

                         Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I would like to thank Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky for holding this hearing.
        And I welcome sincerely Secretary Mattis and General
    Dunford and Under Secretary--your title now is Under Secretary
    of Defense--David Norquist. I know many of us sleep better at
    night in this very difficult world knowing that you are there
    making decisions. Thank you for appearing before us today.
        We do live in such a dangerous world in which the threats
    emanate from every corner of the globe, including North Korea's
    belligerence; ISIL's increasingly common attacks in the Middle
    East and Europe; Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Africa; Iran's
    destabilizing activities in the Middle East and state sponsor
    of terrorism; cyber attacks on U.S. interests at home and
    overseas; continued Russian aggression in the Ukraine, to name
    just a few.
        The Department of Defense's task to track the quickly
    changing global security landscape and ensure the defense of
    our Nation and our allies is both exceedingly challenging and
    costly.
        Secretary Mattis, your fiscal year 2018 budget requests
    $564.7 billion in the base budget and $63.9 billion in overseas
    contingency operations funding. The base budget request is $52
    billion above DOD's share of the fiscal year 2018 budget cap in
    current law. The President's corresponding proposal to cut
    nondefense discretionary funds to pay for it would outright
    cripple important investments needed here at home.
        While I am very pleased that your budget focuses on
    readiness and strengthening our military, I have serious
    concerns about how this dynamic world would impact nondefense
    discretionary funding, which is equally important and
    contributes to our national security.
        Quite simply, the President's budget request forsakes
    critical nondefense programs, many of which support our men and
    women in uniform, contribute to national security, and even
    enable our ability to maintain ready and able Armed Forces.
        For example, Major General Jeffrey Snow, the Commanding
    General of the United States Army Recruiting Command notes that
    only 3 in 10 recruits can meet the requirements to join the
    Army. That is an extraordinary statistic. The two things Major
    General Snow recommended are, and I quote, ``something as
    simple as what our kids are fed in schools,'' end quote, and
    the importance of not doing away with physical education
    programs. And yet this administration would roll back
    guidelines for healthy school meals and proposes to cut $400
    million from education and academic support initiatives,
    including physical education.
        Even retired General Stanley McChrystal has raised
    concerns, stating that public broadcasting, which this budget
    proposes to eliminate, makes us, quote, ``smarter, stronger,
    and, yes, safer.''
        General Mattis, you have said, and I quote, ``If you don't
    fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
    ammunition,'' yet the increases you request come at the expense
    of the 32-percent reduction in the international affairs
    budget, which would put American lives in danger, a fact
    underscored in a recent letter by 120--120--three- and four-
    star generals, and would abdicate our leadership in the world.
        This administration is heading down a dangerous path by
    proposing increases in defense spending, which I certainly
    support, while falling short of our obligations for education,
    healthcare, transportation, support for law enforcement, and
    first responders and more.
        Congress must reject President Trump's misguided budget
    request and instead pass appropriation bills that support
    national security and American families alike.
        And I just want to say in closing: I have been on this
    committee a long time, and I am proud to be on this committee
    because we have always worked constructively in a bipartisan
    way.
        So I am looking forward to this discussion. I look forward
    to your comments. And I do hope we can approach this budget and
    all the other essential parts of the budget sincerely and be
    successful in creating an appropriate balance.
        Thank you so much for appearing before us today.
        Ms. Granger. Chairman Emeritus Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman, I will forego.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        And I will do the same.
        Again, allow me to introduce our witnesses. Secretary of
    Defense Jim Mattis comes to the civilian leadership of the
    Department after a long and illustrious career in the Marine
    Corps in which he served in several senior command positions,
    including combat commands in Afghanistan and Iraq, before
    retiring with the rank of general in 2013.
        General Joseph Dunford is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff and is making his second appearance before us. Like
    Secretary Mattis, General Dunford is a Marine with a long and
    distinguished career and served as Commandant of the Marine
    Corps prior to becoming Chairman.
        Appearing with Secretary Mattis and General Dunford is
    David Norquist, who recently was sworn in as the new
    Comptroller of the Department of Defense.
        Mr. Norquist, thank you for being here today, also.
        Secretary Mattis we will begin with your opening statement,
    followed by General Dunford. Please summarize your statements
    so that we are able to get to our questions as quickly as
    possible.

                         Statement of Secretary Mattis

        Secretary Mattis. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Granger,
    Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the committee. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2018.
        And, Madam Chairman, I request that the committee accept my
    written statement for the record.
        I am joined today by Chairman Dunford and the Comptroller
    so that, hopefully, if there are detailed questions, we can
    actually answer them all right here in front of you today. I
    would like to give an opening statement, chairwoman, because I
    think I can address some of the issues that have been brought
    up already, and it should take only a few minutes.
        But this budget request does hold me accountable to the men
    and women of the Department of Defense. Every day, as you know,
    more than 2 million servicemembers, nearly a million civilians,
    do their duty, and in doing so, they honor previous generations
    of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed for our
    country, and it is my privilege to be back among them.
        We in the Department are keenly aware of the sacrifices
    made by the American people to fund our military. Many times in
    the past, we have had as a country to look reality in the eye
    and meet challenges with the help of congressional leadership
    building the most capable warfighting force in the world.
        There is no room for complacency in the Department of
    Defense, and we have no God-given right to victory on the
    battlefield. Each generation of Americans, from the Halls of
    Congress to the battlefield, earns victory through commitment
    and sacrifice. And, yet, for 4 years, the Department has been
    subjected to or threatened by automatic across-the-board cuts
    as a result of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so injurious
    to the military, it would never go into effect. But it did go
    into effect, and as forecast by then-Secretary of Defense
    Panetta the damage has been severe.
        In addition, during 9 of the last 10 years, Congress has
    enacted separate continuing resolutions to fund the Department
    of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new
    challenges. We need bipartisan support for this request, as
    noted by the chairwoman. In the past, by failing to pass a
    budget on time or to eliminate the threat of sequestration,
    Congress sidelined itself from its active constitutional
    oversight role.
        Continuing resolutions coupled with sequestrations blocked
    new programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry's
    initiatives, and placed troops at greater risk. Despite the
    tremendous efforts of this committee, Congress as a whole has
    met the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership.
        I retired from military service 3 months after
    sequestration took effect. Four years later, I have returned to
    the Department. I am shocked by what I have seen about our
    readiness to fight. While nothing can compare to the heartache
    caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in
    the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our
    military than sequestration. We have only sustained our ability
    to meet America's commitments for our security because our
    troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden, but our
    troops' stoic commitment cannot reduce the growing risk.
        It took us years to get into this situation, as the
    Chairwoman noted. It will require years of stable budgets and
    increased funding to get us out of it. I urge members of this
    committee and Congress to achieve these goals:
        First, fully fund our request, which requires an increase
    to the defense budget caps.
        Second, pass a fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner
    to avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution.
        And, third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration
    cuts to provide a stable budgetary planning horizon.
        Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because
    of four external factors that are impacting the Department at
    this time.
        The first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16
    years of war. When Congress approved the all-volunteer force in
    1973, our country never envisioned sending our military to war
    for more than a decade without pause or conscription. America's
    long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform
    and their families.
        And here I will note a few points on Afghanistan that were
    brought up during the opening remarks by the committee,
    recognizing there that our military posture is part of a larger
    regional context in South Asia. Our primary national interest
    and the international interest in Afghanistan is ensuring it
    does not become an ungoverned space from which attacks can
    again be launched against the United States, other nations, or
    the Afghan people. In this regard, our forces are conducting
    partnered counterterrorism operations, and we are supporting
    the NATO-led mission so, in the future, the Afghan people can
    defend themselves.
        This week, President Trump delegated to me the authority to
    manage troop numbers in Afghanistan. The delegation of this
    authority, consistent with the authority President Trump
    granted me 2 months ago for Iraq and Syria, does not at this
    time change the troop numbers for Afghanistan. Together in the
    interagency process with Secretary Tillerson's foreign policy
    guiding us as he implements the President's direction, we will
    define the way ahead, and I will set the U.S. military
    commitment consistent with the Commander in Chief's strategic
    direction and his foreign policy, as dictated by Secretary of
    State Tillerson. This ensures our Department can facilitate our
    missions and nimbly align the commitment of troops to the
    situation on the ground.
        Our overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same: to
    train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces so they can
    safeguard the Afghan people and terrorists find no haven in
    Afghanistan for attacking us or others. The revised Afghanistan
    strategy with a new approach will be presented to the President
    for his approval in the coming weeks.
        The second concurrent force acting on our Department is the
    worsening global security situation that was mentioned by all
    members of the committee in their opening remarks. And here we
    must look reality in the eye. Russia and China are seeking a
    veto authority over the economic, diplomatic, and security
    decisions of nations on their periphery. North Korea's reckless
    rhetoric and provocative actions continue, despite United
    Nations' censure and sanctions, while Iran remains the largest
    long-term challenge to Mideast stability. All the while,
    terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many
    regions while targeting us.
        The third force that we have to deal with is adversaries
    actively contesting America's capabilities. For decades, we
    enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating
    domain or realm. We could generally deploy our forces when we
    wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and employ them, operate
    them as we wanted. Every operating domain today, on the other
    hand, from outer space to air, sea, undersea, land, and
    cyberspace is contested.
        The fourth concurrent force that we must deal with is rapid
    technological change. Among the other forces noted thus far,
    technological change is one that necessitates new investment,
    innovative approaches, and new program starts that have been
    denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under
    continuing resolutions.
        Each of these four forces--16 years of war, the worsening
    security environment, contested operations in multiple domains,
    and the rapid pace of technological change--requires stable
    budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of
    our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms.
        I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as
    Secretary of Defense. The fundamental responsibility of our
    government is to defend the American people, providing for our
    security, and we cannot defend America and help others if our
    Nation is not both strong and solvent.
        So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the American
    public and the Congress to ensure we spend each dollar wisely.
    President Trump has nominated for Senate approval specific
    individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our
    Department's fiscal processes and ensure that we do so.
        The first step in restoring readiness is underway thanks to
    Congress' willingness to support the administration's request
    for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017
    to address vital warfighting shortfalls. Your support put more
    aircraft in the air, more ships at sea, and more troops to
    training in the field.
        However, we all recognize it will take a number of years of
    higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness, to
    strengthen the military, and President Trump has requested $639
    billion top line for the fiscal year 2018 budget.
        There are five priorities here. The first is to improve
    warfighter readiness, and that was begun in 2017, filling in
    the tradeoffs made during 16 years of war, 9 years of
    continuing resolutions, and Budget Control Act caps.
        The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality,
    as noted by the chairwoman, while preparing for future
    investment, driven then by the results of the defense strategy
    that we are working on now. Our fiscal year 2018 budget request
    ensures the Nation's current nuclear deterrent will be
    sustained and supports continuation of its much-needed
    modernization process.
        The third priority is reforming how the Department does
    business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every dollar,
    and we have begun implementation of a range of reform
    initiatives directed by the 2017 National Defense Authorization
    Act, and we are on track to enter into a full agencywide
    financial statement audit, as required by statute.
        I urge Congress to support the Department's request for
    authority to conduct a 2021 Base Realignment and Closure
    process. I recognize the careful deliberation that members must
    exercise in considering it, but BRAC has been one of the most
    successful and significant efficiency programs we have. We have
    forecast that a properly focused base closure effort could
    generate $2 billion or more annually, and over a 5-year period,
    that savings would be enough to buy 300 Apache attack
    helicopters or 120 Super Hornets.
        The fourth priority in the fiscal year 2018 budget is
    keeping faith with servicemembers and their families, since
    talented people remain our most valuable asset. But we must
    balance these requirements with those of investing for other
    readiness equipment modernization efforts to ensure that our
    military is the most capable warfighting force in the world and
    that we bring our folks home alive. Investment in military
    compensation is essential.
        Our fifth priority is support for overseas contingency
    operations. The 2018 budget requests $64.6 billion focusing on
    operations in locations you are well aware of. ISIS and other
    terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger,
    and I am encouraged, members of this committee, by the
    willingness of our allies and partners to help share the burden
    that we carry.
        Moving forward, the 2019 budget will be informed by the
    National Defense Strategy. I will then have the analytical
    rigor that I can recommend hard choices as we shape the program
    for the next 5 years. The Department will work with President
    Trump, the Congress, and this committee in particular, to
    ensure future budget requests are sustainable and provide the
    Commander in Chief with viable military options that support
    our security.
        In summation, I need the BCA caps lifted and a budget, not
    a continuing resolution, passed on time and elimination of
    future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable and
    adequate way ahead. For those who are concerned that we are not
    asking for sufficient dollars, please consider the following:
    For 2017, we asked for $30 billion. The Congress provided $21
    billion as a supplemental. Second, this fiscal year, we have
    requested the amounts I have noted already. This is a 5-percent
    growth over what national defense was funded for in 2017. This
    request is admittedly $52 billion above the Budget Control Act
    defense caps. We have underway at this time a National Security
    Strategy that will give me the analytical rigor to come back to
    you for the fiscal year 2019 to 2023 budget request when we
    want to build up our military to confront the situation that
    the chairman and I have laid out in our written statements.
        I am keenly aware that we have the support of this
    committee, and we have over many years, but I ask for your help
    to inform your fellow Members of Congress about the reality
    facing our military and the need for Congress as a whole to
    pass a defense budget on time.
        Thank you for your strong support over many years. I pledge
    to collaborate with you.
        And, ladies and gentlemen, Chairman Dunford can give some
    military aspects of this that might give more depth to some of
    the things I have just stated.
        [The written statement of Secretary Mattis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        General Dunford.

                          Statement of General Dunford

        General Dunford. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, it is an
    honor to join Secretary Mattis and Under Secretary Norquist in
    appearing before you today.
        I am honored to represent you men and women in uniform, and
    it is because of them I can state up front with confidence that
    we have the most capable U.S. military in the world. However,
    the competitive advantage that our military has long enjoyed is
    eroding, and a number of factors have contributed to that
    erosion, and we have discussed those in previous hearings.
        One is an extraordinarily high level of operational tempo
    since 9/11, which has accelerated the wear and tear of our
    weapons and equipment. Meanwhile, budget instability and Budget
    Control Act have forced the Department to operate with far
    fewer resources than necessary to meet the current strategy of
    record. As a consequence, we have prioritized near-term
    readiness at the expense of replacing aged equipment and
    capability development.
        We also maintain a force that consumes readiness as fast as
    we build it, and we lack sufficient capacity to meet current
    operational requirements while rebuilding and maintaining what
    when we describe as full-spectrum readiness. Of course, we are
    talking there of being able to respond to both Russia on one
    end and violent extremism on the other end and all the
    challenges that may fall between. The Secretary and the service
    chiefs have addressed that dynamic in their testimonies, and I
    fully concur with their assessments, but beyond current
    readiness, we are confronted with another significant challenge
    that I assess today to be near term. While we have been
    primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our
    adversaries and our potential adversaries have developed
    advanced capabilities and operational approaches. And these are
    specifically designed to limit our ability to project power,
    which we view as our source of strength of the U.S. military.
    They recognize that our ability to project power is, in fact,
    necessary to defend the homeland, advance our interests and
    meet our alliance commitments.
        And as Secretary Mattis mentioned, Russia, China and Iran
    field a wide range of cyberspace, aviation, maritime, and land
    capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability to
    deploy the force, employ the force, and sustain the force in
    combat. Russia and China have also modernized a nuclear arsenal
    while North Korea has been on a relentless path to field a
    nuclear-armed ICBM that can reach the United States.
        In just a few years, if we don't change the trajectory we
    are going to lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive
    advantage, and the consequences will be profound. It is going
    to affect our ability to deter a nuclear war, a conventional
    war, and our ability to respond if deterrence fails.
        Alternatively, we can maintain our competitive advantage
    with sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding. To that
    end, the fiscal year 2018 budget request is an essential step,
    and it builds on the fiscal year 2017 supplemental request, as
    the Secretary mentioned. However, this request alone is not
    going to fully restore our readiness or arrest the erosion of
    our competitive advantage. Doing that is going to require
    sustained investment beyond fiscal year 2018.
        As the Secretary mentioned, this took us several years to
    get into this situation we are in right now, and we assess it
    will take many years to get out of this situation. Specific
    recommendation for 2019 and beyond will be informed by the
    Secretary's forthcoming defense strategy, but we know right now
    that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent
    above inflation is necessary just to maintain the relative
    competitive advantage that we have today. That is not to build
    a force that we need tomorrow, but simply to maintain the force
    that we have today.
        As we ask for your support, we recognize the responsibility
    to maintain the trust of the American taxpayer, and we take
    this responsibility seriously and will continue to eliminate
    redundancies and achieve efficiencies where possible.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    this morning, and, Chairwoman, more importantly, thank you for
    all you and the committee do to make sure that, as you said,
    our young men and women never find themselves in a fair fight.
        And, with that, I am prepared to take your questions.
        [The written statement of General Dunford follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
        We will now proceed to questions observing our usual 5-
    minute rule, and watch your red light. I am going to forego my
    questions until the end, but just in response to your opening
    statements, we request that you reach out to Members that are
    not on this committee or the authorizing committee and make
    sure that they understand how very important this is and what
    your plan is that says we will rebuild to this at this time and
    then continue for years.
        And the question and answers, we have several members who
    are in either committee, subcommittee hearings that are hearing
    right now. So I am going to go to Ms. McCollum first because I
    know you have to leave. Mr. Calvert will be second.

                            Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Calvert and I
    will someday repay the kindness that this committee as shared
    with us.
        First, I want to thank you all for being here today and
    your service to our Nation. I have two questions I am going to
    submit for the record, but one I am going to just mention what
    it is because I am very concerned about what appears to be--
    well, not appears to be--it is a growing problem with pilots
    across our services reporting symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen
    deprivation. And I have had some briefings on it, but I want to
    learn how more this committee can be helpful on that, and then
    another question for the record on the transgender policy and
    the way that is unfolding.
        But I want to state however, Mr. Secretary, I find this
    budget to be completely out of balance with the needs of the
    American people. We do--we do need a strong national defense,
    but we also must ensure that the needs of the American people
    here at home are taken care of. The proposed increase for
    defense will come at the expense of domestic investments for
    all Americans, including our men and women in uniform, their
    families, our veterans, and these are services that they all
    depend on: lifesaving medical research, support for our first
    responders, educational opportunities for future generations,
    safe roads and bridges. So this is about making smart choices.
        The Pentagon is going to have to be tougher on cutting
    waste and controlling spending, and I was pleased to hear in
    your remarks that you are on top of doing just that. And I
    couldn't agree with you more that we need to participate with
    the armed services in doing a BRAC. We need to be doing that.
    So you have my full support and count on me to work with you
    with that.

                            STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

        But there is an example of how continued investment after
    15 years in Afghanistan has left us in a stalemate. Just let me
    lay out some statistics here: 2,000 Americans have lost their
    lives. Over 20,000 have been wounded. Last year alone--last
    year alone--5,000 Afghanistan troops were killed in action, and
    the President of Afghanistan said that there is over 11,000
    foreign fighters right now operating in country. Corruption
    continues to run rampant in Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains
    foremost a NARCO state, and the cost of our involvement, the
    U.S. involvement, is $700 billion. That is a staggering amount
    to spend on a war you said yourself at the time we are not
    winning, and that is from The Washington Post article on June
    13th.
        So, Mr. Secretary, now that President Trump has fully
    delegated all the authority for troop levels on to you, will
    you be sending more troops to Afghanistan in the calendar year?
    What do you consider success? And will U.S. troops be fighting
    in Afghanistan 15 years from now?
        Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Congresswoman, he has not delegated all
    authority to me. He maintains strategic oversight. He is an
    actively engaged and a very hard questioner about what the
    strategy is. He has delegated the details of forces that will
    be allocated to support what he approves finally as the
    strategy, but I assure you this is not a carte blanche for me
    to come up with numbers that are going into this in
    interagency, foreign policy-led effort.
        As far as what it is that we would be doing in order to
    bring this to a better conclusion, we have got to recognize
    that we tried to leave the Afghan forces before they were fully
    mature without the sufficient air support that would allow them
    to hold the high ground, to put it in military terms. So we are
    going to have to look at a more regional strategy, one that
    takes into account Afghanistan as part of South Asia, not look
    at it in isolation. It is going to have to be one that marries
    itself to reality and the current level of support that we
    could expect out of the leadership in the Afghan forces so that
    we don't add to their responsibility without preparing them for
    success, and if that means we have to keep advisors with them a
    little longer, then 9/11 taught us the cost of not paying
    attention to this problem. And we will do so.
        For right now, we also have to work hard on the
    countercorruption effort there in order to make this government
    responsive to the needs of its people, and in that regard, that
    is why the State Department is an equal partner with me as we
    put this strategy together. We are not looking at a purely
    military strategy, and it has got to be one that leads to a
    reconciliation. All wars come to an end. Our job is to end it
    as quickly as possible without losing the very mission that we
    recognized through several administrations was worth putting
    those young Americans on the line for.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                               BUDGET CONTROL ACT

        Good morning, Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, Mr.
    Norquist. Thank you for appearing before our committee. Thank
    you for your service to our Nation. Most of us, if not all of
    us, agree and understand that the base on defense must go up
    and maybe more than the $50 billion that you are asking for.
        However, I am going to have a bipartisan moment here--maybe
    the sobering couple of days that we have had here--but the
    funding on military cannot be obtained on the back of
    nondefense discretionary spending. I think all of us here in
    this room understand that. It is not going to work. We need a
    budget agreement. We need the administration, we need the
    Senate, the House to come to a workable number that we can
    agree to get rid of the sequestration and the Budget Control
    Act and come up with realistic numbers both on the
    discretionary side and the nondiscretionary side. And we need
    to talk about the entire budget, not just discretionary
    spending.
        So I hope in the coming days that we take this seriously,
    and that is not just the House and the Senate. That does
    include the administration. So I think we all need to be
    working together on that.

                               CIVILIAN WORKFORCE

        One issue, though, that we can do within the Department of
    Defense--and you, Mr. Secretary, mentioned reforms--is
    something I know I have been harping on, and some of my friends
    up here have heard this a number of times, but from 2001 to
    2014, the Active-Duty military has shrunk by 4 percent while
    the number of civilian defense employees has grown by 15
    percent. A recent study uncovered by The Washington Post found
    that there is approximately $125 billion in bureaucratic waste
    at the DOD.
        Now I know many of my colleagues and the service chiefs
    pointed out the importance of our civilian workforce,
    especially our maintenance people and civilians who work at the
    depots. I have got to point that out here. But this report
    found excess capacity in the bureaucratic overhead, desk jobs,
    held by civilians and certainly contractors.
        Secretary Mattis, I would like to give you both the mandate
    and the authority to conduct a reduction in force that would
    place more emphasis on performance and, as you mentioned, the
    word ``lethality.'' We want to keep the best and the brightest
    of our civilian workforce while realizing billions in savings
    that could be redirected back into the Department for
    readiness, procurement, and end strength. Can you share your
    thoughts on the size of the civilian workforce within the DOD,
    and what is the overarching plan to match capability with
    requirements? Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Congressman Calvert, we are on track
    right now to reduce our headquarters by 30 percent. That is
    where you find much of the specific jobs that you have
    highlighted here. I would add that I have met twice now with
    the authors of the report that found the $125 billion in waste,
    as they pointed out. I do not agree with everything in the
    report. I have got real concerns about logistics. I know it
    doesn't look sexy, but I would tell you that the strength of
    our forces in deploying around the world is heavily dependent
    on those logistics elements and just-in-time civilian practices
    may not work well on a battlefield where the enemy is trying to
    disrupt your timelines in terms of undercutting our warfighting
    capability.
        But that does not take away in my mind that I need to look
    carefully at each one of the wastes that they identified and
    address it. The best way to do this, I believe, is to get the
    right people into the Pentagon, and I am drawing people from
    industry, including those who saved programs, big programs that
    were in big problems, for industry, aircraft programs. This
    way, they come in with a background of how to very analytically
    weigh the quantitative and nonquantitative factors so that we
    can have a grounding, I would say, a grounding in what the
    fundamentals are that permit us to revolutionize our business
    practices.
        I have three priorities in the Department: Strengthen our
    military; strengthen our alliances so we are not carrying the
    full burden for our security; and to reform the business
    practices. And I will get these people in. They are being
    confirmed as we speak. It is ongoing. And once I have them
    there, I am going to fully empower them along the lines you are
    talking about.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Lowey.

                        INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Mattis, during testimony before the Senate Armed
    Services Committee in 2013, Senator Wicker asked you if you had
    observed that the international development budget is helpful
    to us in providing national defense for our country. You
    responded, and I quote, ``If you don't fund the State
    Department full then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.
    So I think it is a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put
    into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we
    have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome
    of an apparent American withdrawal from the international
    scene,'' end quote.
        As the ranking member of both the full House Appropriations
    Committee and the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I
    frankly am extremely concerned that the fiscal year 2018 budget
    requests drastic increases in defense spending at the expense
    of nondefense discretionary priorities, including foreign aid
    and international development programs.
        Mr. Secretary, do you stand by your statements about the
    importance of the foreign aid budget, and how will these
    drastic cuts to diplomacy programs impact future DOD
    expenditures?
        Secretary Mattis. Congresswoman, I believe America has two
    fundamental powers: the power of intimidation, and that is
    represented here before the committee today, America's awesome
    determination to defend ourselves; and the power of
    inspiration, which is heavily conveyed overseas by our
    Department of State. Well, they are the lead on it.
        I have not reviewed--just getting ready for these hearings
    consumed my time to understand budgets that are rather
    extensive. I have not reviewed where the cuts come to Secretary
    of State Tillerson's budget. So I do not want to speak offhand
    without having done my homework.
        But I would tell you that, as I read about those cuts, I
    called Secretary of State Tillerson. I meet with him weekly. We
    talk several times a day, and we agreed to put two of our top-
    level subordinates together. We are going to look at the
    priorities for where we need to engage in the world. This
    committee also gives me development funds, and we have married
    the two. We will set the priorities together so that we get the
    best possible use of the dollars allocated to each of the
    Departments working in concert. So that is my effort to
    reinforce on that and keep us together, and I am confident this
    is also what President Trump expects us to do. So that is my
    best response to you.
        I have not reviewed their budget in any detail, ma'am. So I
    just can't speak to where the cuts are coming.
        Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, my timer is not on.
        Ms. Granger. Out of respect, Mrs. Lowey, we don't put a
    timer on you.
        Mrs. Lowey. Oh, you are so kind. You know, Chairwoman
    Granger and I have worked together a long time, and there
    really is outstanding mutual respect.
        Well, then I will just take another minute.
        Ms. Granger. Okay.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Mrs. Lowey. Because there is another issue that I am
    passionately concerned about, and that is cyber security. I am
    so concerned about the growing cyber threats against the United
    States' interests and assets both at home and overseas. If you
    could share with us the primary risk faced by the Department of
    Defense in the cybersecurity realm. How does the budget request
    support offense of cyber operations? And along with its
    elevation to a full unified command, as specified in the fiscal
    year 2017 NDAA, would Cyber Command benefit from ending the
    dual-hat relationship with NSA? And what steps is the
    Department taking to attract and retain these skilled
    personnel? And I have been so concerned about, once an
    individual comes to your Department and has gone through
    extensive training, we hope that we will be able to keep them
    because this is such a challenge I am aware of from the private
    sector. So thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Just quickly, ma'am, I could not agree
    more about the growing threat. If we had been here 10 years
    ago, I would have yawned and said: I don't see the big problem.
        Right now, it is at $8 billion this year specifically
    targeted, and actually, there is a lot more going into this,
    because we are not counting in all the recruiting dollars on--
    this is just targeted on the cyber capability. I would tell you
    that growing from basically $3 billion to $8 billion in 5 years
    shows the priority we are placing on it.
        As far as the Cyber Command-NSA split, we intend to make
    this a split that actually gains more unity of effort from a
    broader constituency, too, from other elements that are also
    engaged in the countercyber threat.
        And, lastly, I just say that the attracting and keeping key
    people, the educated, trained people will be very challenging.
    We recognize it because they can be offered so much more money
    on the open market than they can be offered in government
    service. We will have to fight it probably with bonuses but
    also with a call to their patriotism, which at times is the
    most compelling, and we keep a lot of young people around based
    on the fact that we need them to defend the country. But it is
    going to be a challenge, and I did not hear one word you said
    on this issue that I take issue with. I agree with you 100
    percent. It is a priority effort.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
        And, unfortunately, I have to go to another hearing, too.
    So thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I know we rest better at night knowing that you are in
    charge of the policy. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Chairman Rogers.

                          STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

        Mr. Rogers. Amen to that last remark. We are assured with
    you in charge.
        Let me quickly and briefly take up the matter that Mr.
    Calvert mentioned and also Mrs. Lowey on the funding for the
    Department of State. We had Secretary Tillerson here yesterday,
    and he agreed with the same description of your relationship
    that you have mentioned here today, and that is great.
        But the proposed budget for State and foreign operations
    has rather draconian cuts. For example, economic assistance to
    Egypt is cut by a third; Ukraine by half; Pakistan by a third;
    Iraq by 14 percent; Afghanistan by 9 percent; and the like.
    That is economic assistance, not to mention the military each
    side. Those are rather severe, would you not agree?
        Secretary Mattis. I agree, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. What impact would those kinds of cuts have
    on your capability to do what you need to do in these various
    countries?
        Secretary Mattis. Well, in terms of a direct military
    impact, if I am kept funded, then, obviously, I can keep the
    military--the purely military--effort ongoing, and that
    includes the support for protection of our embassies, which is
    a constant priority for us.
        But I think that I would have to look--again, I am not
    trying to get out of answering the question, Congressman, but I
    would have to look in detail about what is the capability that
    they are losing, what is it, and then we would have to do an
    analysis of what that does.
        The concern I would have is sometimes these issues do not
    relate easily to a quantitative analysis, that there is
    nonquantitative aspects to our relationship with the world that
    are more difficult to come up with. They are easier to see,
    frankly, in the rearview mirror. That is when you see what has
    happened. But I just don't want to say something right now,
    sir, that I can't back up with some kind of homework that I
    have done already so I can give you some authoritative answers.
        Mr. Rogers. When you have time to reflect on that, we would
    like to hear from you.
        Secretary Mattis. Okay, sir.

                                BUDGETARY NUMBER

        Mr. Rogers. I have been dealing with these CRs and
    omnibuses now for many years. And we are headed straight into
    that rabbit patch again very quickly. I don't recollect a time
    later in the season that we have gone as far as we have this
    time. Here it is almost July 4th, and we are nowhere near
    coming up with a budgetary number that we can sit down and
    appropriate to on Appropriations Committee.
        So I want to encourage you to talk with the White House
    people, especially OMB, and see if we can negotiate a number
    that we can appropriate to here on this subcommittee and the
    other 11. Otherwise, we are headed straight into a CR, with all
    that contains, or an omnibus, where we don't get what we need
    to get in defense.
        So that is the dilemma that we are in, but it also is the
    dilemma that you are in. We need desperately a number that both
    sides have agreed to, and I am here to tell you that I think
    that is possible, but it does take some elbow work, and it
    takes some grease work, and it takes some effort.
        But on this subcommittee, we understand completely your
    need for help, and we are there to give it to you. But our
    hands are tied until we get that number that we can all work
    under. So let me encourage you to work your magic with the
    budgeteers at the OMB and other places.
        We appreciate your service, all of you. Thank you so much
    for dedicating your lives to our country. And we feel safe with
    you in the positions you are in.
        I yield.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                             NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
        I would just point out to the panel that my understanding
    is the deadline for the Department to have auditable results is
    the end of fiscal year 2017, which is fast approaching. I
    understand from the Under Secretary that that goal will
    absolutely be met, and I am counting on him.
        What I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, is, if we can follow
    up with your office, as you know, I have an intense interest on
    the Nuclear Posture Review, the modernization program, and I
    appreciate your very thoughtful conversation in February. Too
    often I think people have an instinctive response that we need
    a triad forever. You suggested that you want to take a very
    serious look as to what it should be going forward.
        I think when people think about the nuclear posture, they
    also think about nonproliferation, many of the programs being
    at the Department of Energy, but the third element, from my
    perspective, are those nonnuclear events or weapons that
    potentially trigger a nuclear event. Our country, others are
    working on hypersonic weapons. So we have unstable regimes that
    what will trigger their nuclear response, absent a nuclear
    attack of our own?
        And I would appreciate sitting down with whoever you think
    is appropriate from the Department so that I have a clearer
    understanding and perhaps the chair and others on the
    subcommittee, how the Department works through preventing that
    from happening to the best of our Nation's ability, where it is
    not toe to toe, somebody launches first, but there is some
    event, there is that new weapons system that is just kinetic,
    nonnuclear, that triggers that nuclear event. I think it is a
    very serious issue, and I would like to have that conversation.
        Secretary Mattis. I will find the right people to bring up,
    sir. I understand the nature of your question, though, and I
    would just say that I had not put those in my thinking into the
    Nuclear Posture Review. So let me reconsider the guidance I
    have given them. We are working, obviously, the triad: should
    it be there, which weapon system should constitute each leg,
    and the nonproliferation. I need to look at this myself. After
    I get my head wrapped around it right, I will assign some
    people to come up and brief you and get your thoughts on this.
        Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate it, because I do think you have
    been very thoughtful on this.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

        Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, and Mr. Norquist, it is
    good to have all three of you here. I really thank you for your
    service. And, quite frankly, it speaks well of the President
    that you all were nominated in your respective positions and
    got such strong bipartisan support when the Senate considered
    you. So I appreciate that.
        Second, I couldn't help but laugh, Mr. Secretary, when I
    read your now famous remark about your sleep habits. And I
    thought, well, all of us sleep a lot better right now if you
    happen to be an American thanks to you. So we are very grateful
    for that.
        I want to echo a little bit of what has been said up here
    several times, because I don't think it can be said often
    enough. When we look at the approps process, and I focus a lot
    on that, at the end of the day, there are only one or two
    outcomes this year. We are either going to have a continuing
    resolution or we are going to have a negotiated bipartisan
    agreement. And as you have made crystal clear, the latter is
    much preferable to the former. And so I really want to
    emphasize that where my colleagues are concerned and, quite
    frankly, associate myself with some of my Democratic
    colleagues' remarks: If we don't get to a good number in the
    nondefense area, we will inevitably end up doing something that
    nobody on either side of the aisle wants to do, and that is
    present you with the kind of dilemma that you have outlined in
    front of you.
        I think, at the end of this day, this committee will give
    you at least what you ask and probably more. But, again, if we
    don't get the process right, none of that will matter. You
    know, they can authorize everything all day long. Until we
    actually get the numbers where we can appropriate, things don't
    happen.
        I do have a question. I know you are in the last part of
    really working on the National Security Strategy, and we look
    forward with a great deal of anticipation to looking at that.
    But I am curious if you believe--and this may be a little out
    of your lane. If you don't want to comment on it, that is
    perfectly fine with me. But some of us up here have been
    concerned for a long time about the lack of a new Authorization
    for Use of Force. We are really operating off things that go
    back to 2001, 2002, 2003. We are fighting a different enemy in
    a different place than we envisioned at that time.
        Would it be helpful for Congress to explicitly have this
    sort of debate and come to these sorts of conclusions,
    obviously, with the guidance from the administration, input
    from the administration and experts, or is that just a waste of
    time?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, I don't believe it is a waste of
    time at all. The Chairman and I have talked at length about
    this in our private conversations, and the Congress making a
    statement like that would hearten our own troops. It would
    reassure our allies around the world. It would put America out
    front in terms of a united--or the consensus of the Congress
    that this is where you think we have to be committed.
        I believe it is much preferable to leaving it to be argued
    about in bits and pieces over specific issues or troop strength
    or something like this. And the Chairman, I could have him
    comment, too, but he believes it sends a real statement, sir.
        Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman.
        General Dunford. Congressman, that is exactly the
    conversation we had. I think it would send a loud and
    unmistakable message to our young men and women that are
    deployed that the people at home in the form of the Congress
    support what they are doing. And it is a consensus about what
    they are doing, and what they are doing is important.
        Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much for that because I feel
    exactly the same way. I think it is a constitutional issue as
    well. And I think it means a lot when people of your stature
    tell us that it matters to the men and women that we have put
    in harm's way to do difficult things for us.
        So, Madam Chairman, I would hope, while we all work hard,
    and I know we will, on getting the appropriate resources so
    that we have at least the administration's request and perhaps
    some more, that we also push our respective leadership on both
    sides of the aisle to stop avoiding a debate that needs to
    happen.
        You know, I have actually worked with my friend, Mr.
    McGovern from Massachusetts, we probably don't see eye to eye
    on the issue, but we certainly see eye to eye on the importance
    of a resolution and a congressional statement. So I think that
    is part of our job ahead of us, too. It is not just to give you
    the resources, which we certainly need to do, but to make sure
    that you have got the clear lines of authority and the
    unequivocal support of the American people as you go about
    carrying out the mission we have asked you to do.
        I am not going to take the rest of my time. I yield back.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. I certainly agree with you Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Ryan.

                             U.S. ROLE IN THE WORLD

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
        I want to make a couple of points, and then have a question
    with regard to North Korea. One is we just got back from a
    trip: We were in Bahrain. We were in Norway. We were in
    Germany. We were in Spain. And as a guy from Youngstown, Ohio,
    it always inspires me to see the footprint of the young men and
    women who are under your command, that they take their
    responsibilities so very seriously. They are so well trained.
        The point I want to make is that I don't think we do a good
    enough job of letting the American people know how important
    our role in the world is. When you are in the Persian Gulf,
    when you are in the Middle East, when you are in Europe, you
    are thinking about what we are doing in Eastern Europe with
    NATO, the American people just don't quite understand, I think,
    the prominence and the responsibilities that we carry. And part
    of that is losing the World War II generation, the people that
    were engaged in war and all the rest. So all of us--just to
    make a point because I think all of us need to think about, as
    we are having these discussions, how we communicate that to the
    average citizen that is in Gary, Indiana, or Youngstown, Ohio,
    how important it is for us to be engaged in the world, and you
    are on the front lines of that. So I wanted to make that point.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        Secondly, I would love for either Secretary Mattis or
    General Dunford to talk to us about North Korea generally. But,
    in particular, what does it look like should we have to make a
    decision in the next 12 to 18 months, if you look at the
    trajectory of where North Korea is going? We have got to come
    to some determination here about what we are going to do, and
    whether or not we are okay with them potentially getting the
    capabilities to be able to launch some attack, not just in U.S.
    interests, but potentially strike the United States.
        I think it would be instructive for the American people to
    know, kind of not giving away state secrets or getting
    classified, but just what that would look like if there is a
    back and forth between, whether it is the United States or an
    ally that we have in the region, and North Korea, what happens
    in South Korea, what happens in Seoul, what happens to Japan?
    Because we hear a lot: Well, just bomb them; just take it out,
    take out their capabilities.
        Can you just illustrate for us what that engagement looks
    like?
        Secretary Mattis. I can, Congressman Ryan. I would suggest
    that we will win. It will be a war more serious in terms of
    human suffering than anything we have seen since 1953. It will
    involve the massive shelling of an ally's capital, which is one
    of the most densely packed cities on Earth. It would be a war
    that fundamentally we don't want. And we would have our allies
    and us; we would win at great cost.
        This is why in one of the most--the highest priority
    efforts that President Trump has directed, he has brought--
    invited the President of China to Mar-a-Lago. There were only
    two issues brought up in Mar-a-Lago, and this was one of them.
    It was that high a priority.
        Secretary Tillerson has this as a priority. We are working
    through China to ensure that China understands that North Korea
    is today a strategic burden for them; it is not a strategic
    asset. And China has actually responded in some ways
    positively. You saw them vote last week for additional
    sanctions on North Korea, for example. And I think that we are
    exhausting all possible diplomatic efforts in this regard.
        Next week, Secretary Tillerson and I will meet with our
    opposite members from Beijing who are flying here to Washington
    over several issues, but this one will loom large. So it would
    be a serious--it would be a catastrophic war, especially for
    innocent people in some of our allied countries, to include
    Japan most likely, but it is also one that we are doing
    everything possible not to have happen and resolve this through
    diplomatic means.

                             ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

        Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Just, lastly, one point. When we were in Kuwait a few weeks
    back, we went to this small little tent where they had 3D
    printers, and the Marine Corps was printing parts for different
    things that they needed. I want to engage the Department in the
    future to make sure that you have the resources that you need.
    This could be a tremendous capability. But one of the aspects
    is they almost need like a depot for how to get these parts,
    get the kind of design, a design depot, to be able to download
    these parts in places like Kuwait to really, I think, save us a
    lot of money, Madam Chair. And I know we are putting money into
    one of President Obama's initiatives for manufacturing
    innovation institutes, one of which is additive manufacturing,
    a great capability where you don't have to order a thousand
    parts of this, that or the other; you can actually print one in
    the field. And this is a way for us to merge modern technology,
    to give the warfighter the capabilities that they need. So I
    just wanted to give you the heads-up. We are going to continue
    to work on that and I think save the taxpayer a heck of a lot
    of money in the process. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

                     STRATEGIC DECISIONS AND DEFENSE BUDGET

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you all for being here today. We have
    learned a lot, and we appreciate your service to our country
    and that of your families. So, please, pass that along as well.
        Secretary Mattis, throughout much of your military career,
    it was the National Security Strategy of our country to have
    the ability to fight and win two major conflicts
    simultaneously. And over time, that strategy has changed to a
    strategy of being able to win one significant conflict in one
    theater while having the ability to hold in another until
    additional resources could be brought to the fight.
        Accordingly, Congress has appropriated the necessary
    resources for force structure, procurement, and research and
    development to reach those strategic objectives. Today, with
    the rising threats all over the world, many of which we have
    already discussed here today, I am concerned that, should a
    conflict break out in one region, that our adversaries in other
    regions may use that as an opportunity to take aggressive
    military action.
        At the end of the day, with the President's budget we are
    discussing today, how capable will we be to simultaneously
    fight two major conflicts should that become necessary?
        Secretary Mattis. Implementing this budget, Congresswoman,
    will enable us to be better prepared for this. That is not to
    say strategic decisions wouldn't have to be made once engaged.
    And we do assume, however, that--we agree with your thesis
    that, in the event we are doing something in one place, the
    potential for somebody to take advantage of it is a given. So
    we are completely aligned with you on that.
        You can see us right now engaged in Afghanistan, not in a
    heavy way. The Afghan Army is carrying the bulk of the
    fighting, but it is still a significant draw on us. You see us
    engaged in the Middle East in the same way. And we are doing an
    awful lot of this by, with, and through allies, but your
    question go to the heart of, what if we have to do most of it?
    And this budget is designed to better prepare us, but it is
    going to take years to recover from all the damage, ma'am.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        General Dunford. Congresswoman, I would just add, as
    directed last year, we did a simultaneity drill in the
    Department so we could understand what really it would take to
    do two MCOs. We certainly wouldn't want to have that
    conversation in this venue. But we would be happy to share the
    details of that with you. We have done the analytic work
    necessary to really be able to talk about the capabilities and
    capacity implications of being able to fight in two places at
    once. And that will very much inform the Secretary's strategy
    review that is ongoing right now. We will bring that work into
    the Secretary's strategy review.

                          ARMY AVIATION AND READINESS

        Mrs. Roby. Well, I would like that. I think we could
    probably all benefit from having that information in front of
    us.
        Turning to readiness, specifically Army aviation. Of
    course, our military doesn't go many places without Army
    aviators. And my concern is that those aviation assets are
    being stretched pretty thin. Given the global high demand for
    Army aviation capabilities, I am interested in your thoughts as
    it relates to increasing readiness.
        It is my understanding that we have a shortage of pilots. I
    know we are short on Apache helicopters, and programs like the
    Light Utility Helicopter look to be underfunded. So what are
    your thoughts on increasing Army aviation readiness?
        Secretary Mattis. Since near the end of World War II, we
    have dominated the skies overhead, almost to the point that we
    could start taking it for granted, which would be a disaster if
    we did that. It takes a lot of commitment, sacrifice over many
    years. There is, for Army aviation alone, over $3 billion in
    investment. This is building more Black Hawks, Apaches,
    Chinooks, that sort of thing.
        The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Naval
    Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps are all working with
    private industry now because we are not creating enough pilots
    in this environment right now to serve either the commercial or
    security interests, service interests. So we are going to have
    to deal with this as a national level problem. And, you know,
    we have responded to this sort of thing in the past. We have to
    dust off the old thinking and find some new ideas in there. But
    we are working it right now. We just had the meeting with
    industry here last month with, again, General Goldfein, our
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force, leading it, but all the
    service chiefs are engaged.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I think I was next.
        Ms. Granger. Oh. Mr. Ruppersberger. Pardon me.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you very much. First, Secretary
    Mattis, or General Mattis, I respect you and worked with you as
    a General, General Dunford and also Mr. Norquist. You know, you
    have gotten a lot of accolades, and you deserve it because of
    who you are and you earned the position. We all talk about
    sleeping at night, but these are serious times for our country.
        I want to quote you, because I am going to make more of a
    statement, I think, to this committee and to our leadership on
    the committee. You have said that Congress has failed to show
    leadership when it comes to funding the Pentagon, and I agree
    with you on that comment. For years now, since sequestration
    has passed, we have had four-stars coming in and telling us how
    it makes it weaker and weaker. And, yet, we really have not
    done what we need to do to repeal it, both Democrats and
    Republicans.
        Times have changed since sequestration was passed; the
    world has gotten a lot more dangerous, as you have testified.
    By the way, when you are one of the last ones to ask questions,
    you know, a lot of these issues, North Korea and all, have come
    up. So I am going to maybe make a statement within my time.
        And I want to say this to our committee: A lot of us have
    worked together for years, and I respect each and every one of
    you on the Republican and Democratic side. But there comes a
    time when we have to do something, and that is this issue of
    sequestration. As dangerous as we are and when every single
    Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine talks about sequestration, and,
    yet, we have not repealed this at these very, very dangerous
    times. And I think we have to show some action. I think we
    can't be concerned about Republican or Democrat or whether we
    are going to break the Hastert rule. I mean, all of these
    things are just political, and yet we have an obligation on
    this committee, Defense Appropriations, to give you the
    resources. And if sequestration is still there because of
    idealistic political reasons, whatever that is, or we are not
    going to give this up if we don't get something else, that is
    wrong.
        So I am asking our leadership and each and every one of us
    on this committee to really sit down and work a strategy,
    Republican and Democratic strategy. Now, we are very upset
    about what happened yesterday. Maybe that is going to be an
    impetus for us to do something, because we haven't done it, and
    it is about time we do it.
        And my question was going to be, and you have already
    repeated it: Do you agree with what I said that we need to
    repeal sequestration?
        Secretary Mattis. I do. And I agree it is nonpartisan.
    Secretary Panetta was my boss a few years ago, and he was in a
    Democrat administration. He was a Democrat. And I don't see
    this as a partisan issue. This is an American issue.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Whether it is the Speaker or the leader,
    whatever that is, let's pull together this committee. We know
    each other, and we trust each other. I have respect for every
    single member on this committee, and I know we all feel this
    way. Let's just get it done. I am an Under Armour guy because
    of Baltimore, but there is the Nike phrase, ``Just Do It.'' And
    I think it is about time we really just sit down and take care
    of that strategy.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        The other issue I have--and we have talked North Korea, and
    I don't want you to repeat yourself--one thing that hasn't come
    up. I found the subject matter that hasn't come up, and that is
    the issue of hypersonic missiles. We know that Russia and China
    have developed hypersonic missiles, which are so fast that they
    could put, in my opinion, our ships, our aircraft carriers, all
    at risk. And I am not sure where the Navy is at that point, and
    if it is classified, I don't want to get into it. But I think
    this is something that has to be focused on and very quickly.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        You know, we talked about cyber. We are dealing with those
    issues and all the things that need to be done. But when our
    aircraft carriers, which are so awesome--look at how many
    people we have, look at how we use them, and yet they could be
    at risk. And I want to make sure that we look at the funding
    and the focus, and that you can report back to this committee
    where we are on our defense and hypersonic missiles.
        Secretary Mattis. Will do, Congressman. And coming into the
    job, I have been briefed by holdovers from the last
    administration and new people coming in now, and your view of
    the hypersonic threat, the need for defenses, but also to
    ensure we have hypersonic technology at cutting edge is agreed
    upon. There is no pushback on it that I found. We have got to
    move out--we will come back to you showing----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Most people don't know about the issue,
    but I would like this, at least personally for me, but I think
    the committee, too, wants to hear about hypersonic.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Carter.

                                COMBAT VEHICLES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thank all three of you for being here. You are very
    important to the future of our Nation and we appreciate the
    good work that you do. And I would like to associate myself
    with everyone who has discussed the challenges we have trying
    to put together what we need to do without a number that we
    need to work with. And anyway you could help us get that fixed
    is a great idea.
        My world is all about the guys on the ground. I represent
    Fort Hood. I have got kind of a combination question I would
    like to ask. First and foremost, Secretary Mattis, they are
    obviously investing very heavily in upgrading many of the
    combat vehicles. While these upgrades certainly represent
    increased speed, lethality, and protection, they cannot be
    characterized as significant leaps forward in capability. As
    you are aware, our competitors' combat vehicles are approaching
    parity with the Army. It seems readily apparent that we should
    prioritize investing heavily to speed up the development of the
    next generation of combat vehicles, yet funding levels for this
    effort has not increased over the last several years.

                            NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER

        Can you share with the committee your sense of our ground
    combat vehicles and what additional resources you need from
    this committee to adequately close the capability gap? And I
    will include with that that I would like to hear an assessment
    of where we are--of what are the training changes we have to
    make at the National Training Center to go to high-end
    warfighting versus the warfighting we have been engaged in for
    16 years almost.
        So where are we on readiness of our troops, training, and
    the vehicles that we are sending them to war in? And I would
    love to hear from both of you.
        Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. And we probably owe you a more
    detailed explanation of the program to get us where we need to
    go, because we are not there today is the bottom line. This is
    somewhat a result of the funding issues and the distraction of
    war and the combination of those factors. But we have programs
    we have put together. The Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle is
    being fielded now to the first Army and Marine units. It is a
    joint program to get full economies of scale to spend the money
    wisely. But it is a much broader issue, as you know, with
    different types of vehicles, from armored vehicles to transport
    vehicles, and the various levels--types of vehicles that we
    need to get.
        In terms of the training challenges, I will hit that and
    then turn the two questions to The Chairman. There, what we
    have to do is adapt to the changing character of war, and Army
    battalions in the field are now going to have assets that an
    Army battalion didn't have 10 years ago, for example,
    surveillance assets, drones. We also have an enemy drone
    problem, where we don't have the right defenses. Every Army
    battalion headquartered out there is probably going to come
    under cyber attack. That didn't happen 10, 20 years ago.
        So these new domains, these new technologies highlight the
    need to avoid a continuing resolution. As you know, under a
    continuing resolution, I can do zero about new starts to
    address the changing character of war. Let me turn over to the
    Chairman.
        General Dunford. Congressman, you bring up a really
    important point, and I alluded to it in my opening statement,
    and that is, I think it is fair to say that the majority of our
    investment--and if you look at the Army's investment in 2017,
    even in the supplemental--it was all to maintain the current
    capability we have. So we made marginal improvements in the
    capability protection system of the current tanks, for example,
    but we don't necessarily have as much money in modernizing our
    armored capability as we would want to have.
        And that really is, as the Secretary lays it out, I mean
    2018 hits readiness, to include for vehicles. And what we
    really need to start thinking about, 2019 and beyond, is
    tomorrow. And we have, for the last 7 or 8 years, one of the
    most significant challenges of the budget situation, we have
    discussed here today is we are always dealing with the current
    challenges, always dealing with today's readiness, always
    trying to get today's equipment up to speed.
        And now we are at the point where there is actually a
    distinction without a difference between procurement and
    current readiness because, in many cases, either units don't
    have the full complement of the vehicles they have or we are
    starting to field vehicles that don't have a competitive
    advantage or the competitive advantage, as you suggest, is
    reducing. So I think as we look to 2019 and beyond, you know
    modernizing our ground combat vehicles is something that
    probably hasn't moved at a pace satisfactory to us.
        With regard to training, though, what General Milley has
    identified as now a requirement, I think your word,
    Congressman, is all of his brigades will go through the
    National Training Center. That is exactly to address the
    dynamic that you spoke about to make sure that we are not only
    prepared for the current deployments in dealing with violent
    extremism, but we are full-spectrum ready and that the Army
    units at Fort Hood, the mechanized units at Fort Hood actually
    can conduct the full range of mission-essential tasks that
    those units have been assigned. And he won't certify those
    brigades as being ready unless they actually have done an NTC
    rotation. And in this budget in 2018, in the readiness piece,
    we are addressing increased numbers of NTC rotations to enhance
    the readiness problem you talked about.
        So I think we have a good-news story on maintenance and
    readiness. I think we have a good-news story on training. And I
    think the challenge that remains before us to address next year
    and years after is going to be the modernization challenge
    because I'm not satisfied that we are actually doing all we can
    to build the Army of tomorrow.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. From what little I have been able to
    figure out, I agree with that assessment and I am worried about
    it and concerned about it. And I want to make sure we all know
    that, when the smoke clears, it takes a man with a gun to stop
    a man with a gun. In fact, we learned that yesterday.
        So I wish you well. And I will be raising this issue
    constantly. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Ms. Kaptur.

                                INDUSTRIAL BASE

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Gentlemen, you give great example to the young generation
    of this country. I thank you for your patriotic service. I am
    going to read some questions that I will be submitting to the
    record, and then I will ask each of you two questions that I
    would like you to verbally respond to. I don't expect you to
    answer the first issues I am going to talk about.
        First of all, I have deep concerns about our industrial
    base issues, and your testimony does reference that to some
    extent. I would just like to state the importance of dual
    sourcing of certain technologies, such as small gas turbine
    engines. I have concern about that.
        Number two, stresses on our U.S. steel industry due to the
    severe dumping by China, South Korea and Russia.
        And, thirdly, real threats to our single-source domestic
    beryllium capability. I have a letter, actually, on that, Mr.
    Secretary, that I will give you.
        But thank you for mentioning the defense industrial base.
    Thanks for being aware of it and, in view of a lot of things
    that have happened with the global economy, why we need to pay
    attention to it.
        Number two, I place a very high priority on U.S. energy
    independence. We are about 90 percent of the way there. I
    appreciate what DOD has been doing, particularly Navy and
    Marine Corps, with significant leadership, both in installation
    and operational energy efficiency, to move us toward
    independence. And I will ask you, for the record, to summarize
    the Department's role in achieving DOD energy independence but
    also in terms of some of your technological investments, how
    you are helping America reach that broader goal of energy
    independence.
        My two questions are: General Dunford, three-quarters of a
    century after World War II, could you summarize for the
    American people, particularly the younger generation, the
    nature of the Russian threat and why the European Reassurance
    Initiative is so vital to liberty and affirmation of our
    Article 5 commitment.
        Secretary Mattis, the question I wish to ask you is: I
    really particularly gravitated to a sentence in your testimony
    having to do with the stresses on our troops and the prolonged
    wars in which we are involved. And I can't seem to put my
    finger on the sentence on that, but it was right at the
    beginning. Oh, here: ``Our country never envisioned sending our
    military to war for more than a decade without pause or
    conscription.'' The American people ought to reread that
    sentence.

                                HEALTH BENEFITS

        But my question really is, Mr. Secretary, the GAO released
    a study on May 16, reporting that of the 91,764 servicemembers
    who were separated for misconduct between 2011 and 2015, had
    later been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI, associated with that
    misconduct, GAO found many, many of them, at least 23 percent,
    were made ineligible for health benefits from the VA. I would
    like to just express to you that I have spent a long time
    trying to get DOD to discharge to care. I have failed in that,
    though it is getting a little bit better. And I would ask you
    if you could help us to review the separation policies of the
    U.S. military in all the branches to assure that servicemembers
    who need care will receive it. I will also place on the record
    from a 10-year study we have been conducting with the Ohio
    Guard and Case Western Reserve University and University of
    Michigan and University of Toledo, over 3,000 DNA samples from
    separated servicemembers who voluntarily offered their DNA.
        One of the most shocking findings of what we have been
    investigating has been that the most significant predictor of a
    servicemember contracting PTSD is not military service but
    violence experienced by that individual prior to military
    service which the military service complicates. That is a
    really important finding and one that should be paid attention
    to on enlistment. And I just thought I would place it on the
    record.
        So, General Dunford, if you could kindly respond on the
    Russia question and, Secretary Mattis, on the ability of your
    Department to discharge to care.
        General Dunford. Congressman, first, thanks.
        And on the Russia question, interesting, we rewrote our
    National Military Strategy last year, and we took some time to
    say, what is the source of strength of the United States? And
    not a surprise to the committee, we went back and we said:
    Since World War II, the strategic source of strength to the
    United States is the network of allies and partners that we
    have built up since World War II. In other words, the friends
    that we have that we can call upon for a wide range of common
    challenges is what is critical.
        What Russia really is going about doing each and every day
    is undermining the credibility of our alliance commitment to
    NATO and our ability to respond to NATO. That is what they are
    doing. That is the most insidious thing that Russia is doing.
    So why is it important that we have the European Reassurance
    Initiative?
        First of all, we had an expression in the past that virtual
    presence is actual absence. It has to be a physical
    manifestation of our commitment, and the European Reassurance
    Initiative, which this year is $4.8 billion, gives us three
    brigade combat teams on a continuous basis in Europe. It gives
    us additional preposition equipment.
        Most importantly, what it does is it assures our allies
    that we actually are committed, and it deters Russia because
    they know we have the ability to respond, and they also know
    that we are committed, which is the linkage between the
    European Reassurance Initiative and the challenge that we face
    from Russia.
        But in addition to what they do to undermine the
    credibility of our alliances, of course, Russia possesses the
    nuclear weapons in the thousands that can destroy our Nation.
    They also have significant cyber capabilities, and they have
    been using those on a routine basis against our networks, and
    we have seen that. So there is a full range of challenges. And
    I would just say that, in terms of capability as well as
    behavior, if you look at what Russia has done since the Crimea
    in the Ukraine and testing Georgia a few years ago, both their
    behavior and their capabilities would tell me that, of all the
    nations in the world that could pose an existential threat to
    our Nation and that could undermine the credibility of our
    alliances and the international order that we have had and
    enjoyed since World War II, it would be Russia.
        Ms. Granger. Before we go further in this--Ms. Kaptur, you
    used the entire 5 minutes for your question, and we have a hard
    stop at 11:50. So I am going to ask those on our panel today to
    answer that in writing or some meeting of Ms. Kaptur, because
    we have others that are waiting. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis, Chairman Dunford, Under Secretary
    Norquist, welcome, glad to have you here today. And we
    appreciate your service to our Nation and know that you will
    pass along that gratitude to the men and women who will work
    throughout the Department of Defense.
        I want to follow up on a question that my colleague, Mr.
    Ryan, had asked. If you go back to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
    first 3 days from March 19, 20, and 21 of 2003, 1,700 sorties
    were launched, including 504 cruise missile strikes.
        We all appreciate the candor that a war with North Korea
    would pose a severe threat to Seoul and, of course, to a lot of
    most South Korea. However, the concern is that this may be
    interpreted by North Korea to mean that we are going to allow
    them to continue to build weapons that are capable of dropping
    nuclear bombs here on the U.S. territory. If North Korea fails
    to curb the program and the President were to decide to strike,
    my question is, are we assembling the resources that we need to
    cripple the North Korean military in the first 72 hours?
        Secretary Mattis. Our intent, if we had an indicator and
    warning of war, would be to assemble those resources, sir.
        Mr. Aderholt. What do you need in order to do that to
    prevent just mass civilian casualties?
        Secretary Mattis. The best thing, sir, would be to have
    such a strong military and diplomatic front, including
    international, that we force Korea to divest of its nuclear
    program, a policy that both the United States and China share,
    by the way, of a denuclearized peninsula. So that is the most
    important thing, is to make certain we don't get to that point.
        Mr. Aderholt. But you have--currently, do you have the
    capabilities to assemble the resources that you would need to
    cripple North Korea within that first 72 hours?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, due to the nature of the threat, the
    dug-in nature of the artillery and missile--or our rocket
    positions within range of Seoul, there is probably an awful lot
    of damage that is going to be done no matter how much
    capability we bring to the theater.

                          CYBER ATTACKS ON POWER GRIDS

        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. A report was released recently that
    highlighted the potential for adversaries to conduct cyber
    attacks on power grids. The article referenced the attack on
    Ukraine's power grid back in December of 2016. I know this may
    be classified, but is this area of cybersecurity an area that
    you are looking at?
        Secretary Mattis. It is an active, very active, area of
    security we are looking at, sir, in conjunction with Homeland
    Security--Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
    Energy and the FBI. And it is active. It is ongoing. We keep a
    very close eye on it, including this week.
        Mr. Aderholt. Chairman Dunford, do you have any comments on
    either one of those issues?
        General Dunford. The only thing I would say, Congressman,
    is just go through the priorities and talk about what we do
    with regard to those challenges to our power grid and so forth.
    The number one priority we have in the Department is to defend
    our own DOD information technology network, and then we work in
    collaboration with the private and public sector to make sure
    that we share when there is a vulnerability and the solutions
    to those vulnerabilities.
        Then we play the away game, if you will, and prepare to
    deal with those threats that are outside the continental United
    States. So, when the Secretary spoke about the collaboration
    with the FBI and Homeland Security and so forth, the actual
    protection of the power grid in the United States is not
    something that we are responsible for but something we support.
        Again, when the United States CYBERCOM identifies
    vulnerabilities or solutions to address those vulnerabilities,
    there is a collaboration that takes place. But what we really
    focus on is our own network and then making sure we have cyber
    capabilities to take the fight to the enemy.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                     REGIONAL STRATEGY AND AERIAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I also want to say thank you to all three of you for your
    service. I also join my colleagues that we need to get to a
    number in a bipartisan way, because we have to find that
    balance between the defense and the nondefense spending, and I
    hope we can do this. Otherwise, if we going to CR, I think it
    is not good for anybody.
        I have two questions. Earlier you all had discussed the
    importance of a regional strategy and aerial resources to the
    maintaining of the high ground on the operations of
    Afghanistan.
        General Dunford, I know that, in February, you were in
    Azerbaijan meeting with your counterpart of this year, and I
    think we know it is a--Azerbaijan is an ally. I think we know
    the role that they played during the Afghanistan conflict
    there. Would you all give us--would you give me your thoughts
    on elevating maybe the facility that you have there in
    Azerbaijan or maybe some other stable regional ally there,
    because we know that the Middle East is complicated, and
    sometimes our ally provides complicated situations to us. That
    is question number one.

                       READINESS OF FLIGHT TRAINING UNITS

        Number two, in light of the discussion of readiness, can
    you also discuss the importance of maintenance in supporting
    force readiness? Specifically, the readiness of flight training
    units have suffered in Texas because of an incomplete approach
    to the engine maintenance, and how does your proposed budget
    attempt to fix this deficiency?
        General Dunford. Sure, Congressman, let me start with
    Azerbaijan. As you mentioned, I was there back in February and
    had the privilege of meeting with their leadership, to include
    the President, and to thank him for the support they provided
    in what we call a northern distribution network. We were able
    to reinforce and resupply our forces in Afghanistan as a result
    of the access that Azerbaijan provided to us.
        And I don't assess today that we need to increase that
    access. But we appreciate maintaining that access because it
    has been critical in allowing us to have global reach. And
    certainly our United States Transportation Command has a very
    close partnership with Azerbaijan, and they are very
    appreciative of the access and the support that we have. And we
    would like to maintain that relationship.
        With regard to readiness, you will see in the Secretary's
    budget a significant emphasis overall on readiness, a subset of
    which is the maintenance issue. But, Congressman, I would like
    to highlight for you an important point. Back in 2013, when we
    went through sequestration, we laid off a lot of engineers and
    a lot of artisans and a lot of people that are very critical to
    maintaining our aircraft. They are critical to the triage of
    aircraft and identifying what repairs need to be done and
    making sure in a very systematic way we get the right aircraft
    in the depot at the right time to turn it around with an
    acceptable timeline.
        We have not recovered from 2013, and many of the people
    that were laid off as a result of sequestration in 2013 never
    came back. So the challenge that we have with aviation
    maintenance--and it is across all the services--the challenge
    that we have in aviation maintenance can only be fixed--this is
    another argument for all of us collectively for having
    sustainable budgets, because we need to have sustainable
    budgets to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce. And
    when we talked about civilian workforce earlier, we are very
    reliant, as you know, in our depots, for a quality civilian
    force and the right people to work on our aircraft. And
    predictable budgets and a stable workforce are going to be
    critical for us to get out of this maintenance trough.
        In many cases, what you see is units that actually aren't
    able to man or unable to field the requisite number of aircraft
    for that particular unit, for--we call it Primary Aircraft
    Authorized. In some cases, they rate 12; they only have 6. They
    rate 20, and they only have 10. So the budget does address the
    maintenance issue. We are trying to recover from, really, what
    has happened over the last 3 to 4 years and appreciate your
    support and focus on that issue.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Womack.

                             CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        Mr. Womack. Thank you. I just got a couple of questions or
    give you an opportunity to expound just a little bit. As my
    friend Tom Cole said earlier in his testimony, we are rapidly
    moving to one of two outcomes in the fiscal year 2018 budget
    process and appropriations process. We are either going to have
    a bipartisan omnibus package of some type or we are going to
    end up with a CR. CR is disastrous.
        I want to give both of you an opportunity to--at the risk
    of sounding like I am piling on the sequester--give us a real
    idea of what this means if we are headed toward a potential
    continuing resolution with significant limitations on how we
    can fund the emerging needs that have been emerging now for a
    while at the Pentagon.
        Secretary Mattis. Thank you, Congressman.
        Just for an example, we cannot do the new starts. So why is
    that so critical today? Because the changing character of war,
    which this committee has articulated repeatedly this morning--
    cyber warfare, space issues, I can go on, counterdrone
    capability--we cannot start that. We cannot start new starts
    under the continuing resolution.
        We also block service growth. For example, we cannot enlist
    people in the United States Army, and they need more soldiers;
    we all recognize that. The world has changed. But if we don't
    know how we are going to pay them a year from now, the only way
    we could respond if we didn't have the money next year, if we
    brought more troops in, for example, if a CR comes into effect,
    is we have to take the money from operations and maintenance.
    Now the troops, you are paying them using the money that should
    have been fixing their gear.
        I think, too, just look at--what business would say, ``We
    are going to do short-term contracts, repeated contracts now
    that we are going to have to put a lot of time into''--you know
    how extensive government contracts are to prevent any fraud,
    waste or abuse--``and we are now going to do the same contract
    for a 3-month period or for a 6-month period''? We get nothing
    more out of it. We simply pay. We double, triple, quadruple the
    administrative costs that deliver no combat capability
    whatsoever. In other words, it did not only cost us adaptation;
    it actually reduces the result, the effect we can get from the
    dollars you give us. It goes into administrative air; it
    doesn't go into combat capability on the ground.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Womack. And it goes on and on and on, this impact of
    the sequester, and so what--and I am on the Budget Committee
    with other members of the Appropriations Committee. So what is
    the right number for 2018? That seems to be where we are hung
    out to dry right now in terms of getting a budget agreement out
    of the Budget Committee and onto the floor of the House.
        We certainly know it is not the sequester number, which I
    believe is 549 on the base. Is it 603? Is it 640 that HASC
    wants? Is it somewhere in between? Where is that number, so
    that people like me can have an informed idea of what is
    possible out of committee?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, I am going to give you a number: $52
    billion over the BCA defense cap. It is $574 billion in our
    base budget. It is $65 billion in our OCO. But there is also,
    if you were to go above that, I think our priorities are right
    in everything that we have given you, but I have reviewed the
    service secretaries unfunded priorities list, and I agree with
    the priorities they give if we go beyond the base budget
    numbers I have given you. In other words, that too is an area
    where the Congress can exercise its oversight and its purse
    strings, frankly.
        But, right now, the President's budget, which I am
    defending and I believe is the right step to fix, to reverse--
    start reversing the damage and get us on the right track as we
    get a strategy right, is 574 in the base, 65 in the OCO, and
    there is about $33 billion in the service unfunded priorities
    lists, sir.
        Mr. Womack. How impactful is sequester on your planners at
    the Pentagon, particularly for the FYDP, because when you do
    your FYDP, you have to look at what current law is, correct?
        Secretary Mattis. We do, sir. We have placeholders as we
    look further out because we all know that we cannot defend this
    country unless we withdraw from many of our commitments that we
    have learned over the years we need to protect our people and
    our interests. So, right now, it is paralyzing.
        Mr. Womack. One final thought before my time is up. Impact
    on the defense industrial base is also something we don't spend
    a lot of time talking about.
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, the industrial base cannot be
    expanded to bring us when we know we need more munitions, for
    example, if they don't know 3 months from now or 9 months from
    now that they are going to still get a contract for it. In
    other words, they can't do something that would put the company
    out of business just on a bet. And so you are highlighting all
    of our concerns, I will just tell you, sir.
        Mr. Womack. Yeah, before I yield back, I just want to say
    we have to fix the issue or else we are going to be right back
    where we were, and that is with a yearlong CR, and that would
    just be a disaster.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Let me clarify one thing.
        Mr. Womack, on the numbers that you gave, you also included
    military construction in that, right? So it is not just our
    bill; it is the MILCON?
        Secretary Mattis. Yes, ma'am. It is. It is in there, the
    MILCON.

                      Closing Remarks of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That finishes the
    question.
        I want you to just go away with understanding how much
    confidence we have in you. You have experience. You are in a
    position, and so we are--we have great confidence in what you
    say and what you stand for, but we also have great concerns
    about readiness. Are we ready--how much damage those cuts have
    done to us.
        We have a concern that we share with you, and that is a
    continuing resolution, and it is just deadly. It is a horrible
    situation. And we can't get to what you need with a continuing
    resolution. So any way you can reach out. You have such
    presence. People respect you. They look to you for the answers.
    They have to understand that. If you will reach out to those
    that are on the committees in both the House and the Senate
    that are on the committees, the four committees that make these
    decisions, it would make the possibilities much better.
        That concludes today's meeting. Thank you very much.
        [Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the
    answers thereto follow:]

                           Hypersonic Weapons Systems

                            witness: dunford, joseph
        Question. I have long been a supporter of offensive, hypersonic
    weapons systems. However, our efforts have remained at the research
    level rather than a true program. Our Combatant Commanders have
    expressed a need for this capability against enemy air defenses, and
    General Milley before this subcommittee also confirmed the need for
    this weapon. I don't believe the current budget justification documents
    create the program we need; I believe the range in the 2013 JROC
    document is too limited. A land-based system which launches from U.S.
    territory is needed. Could you please provide a budget outline which
    would support a limited, early operational capability as soon as
    possible, and would you consult with General Milley and the Army SMDC
    to see what that timeline could be?
        Answer. The Joint Staff supports hypersonic weapon system
    development and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
    recently revalidated the requirements for a Prompt Global Strike
    capability. The Joint Staff will continue to work with and support the
    Services to provide a limited or early operational capability within
    the FYDP, to include exploring basing options for new and existing
    systems.

                               Transgender Troops

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. I understand that the Army and Marine Corps have asked
    for up to a 2-year delay on implementation of the policies regarding
    transgender troops and the Transgender Training sessions required for
    all officers, non-commissioned officers, and civilians. While I
    understand concerns for fairness and related matter, I believe these
    policies may have been unnecessarily rushed by the previous
    Administration. Readiness must be your top priority. On a related
    matter, I also urge you to block any consideration of gender transition
    therapy requests by detainees at Guantanamo. I don't believe that this
    is a justifiable use of our taxpayer funds. Are you willing to strongly
    consider such a delay?
        Answer. The Marine Corps supports the Department of Defense Policy
    regarding Transgender Marines and associated training.

                              Space Launch System

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. Let's assume that the NASA fully covers the
    development costs of the Space Launch System, or SLS. In the event that
    other launch vehicles are behind schedule or have gone up dramatically
    in cost, does the SLS present an opportunity for the Department of
    Defense to launch some of our large national security payloads? B. If
    NASA creates a production model which allows SLS to be sold on a lower
    cost basis, are you willing to look at SLS as an occasional launch
    vehicle for national security payloads?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) does not have any current
    requirement for this large payload space lift capability. For the most
    common payload separation orbits, all variants of the SLS provide
    significantly (at least three times, and upwards of nine times) more
    capability than operationally required to meet current DoD
    requirements. Additionally, public law and National Space Policy
    dictate that the DoD must procure launch services from the commercial
    marketplace when practicable. The DoD does not have any current
    requirements that cannot be met with current launch services provided
    by commercial sources.

                                    Space X

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. What are the terms of the lawsuit settlement between
    the Department of Defense and SpaceX? (SpaceX sued the Air Force over
    an alleged lack of opportunity to compete). B. Were a specific number
    of sole-source launches provided to SpaceX as part of the settlement?
        Answer. The terms of the lawsuit settlement between the Department
    of Defense and SpaceX cannot be released due to the confidentiality
    order of the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 14-354 C, filed
    January 23, 2015.

                               Frigate Production

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. I believe the distributed lethality concept is more
    important than ever in locations which involve littoral waters, and
    that a hybrid ship order would provide stability to the shipyards and
    an opportunity to test new systems and components prior to full-blown
    Frigate production. Please provide your view on that possibility, and
    the likely budget needed.
        Answer. To allow adequate time to define Frigate (FFG(X))
    requirements, thoroughly evaluate design alternatives and mature the
    design, the Presidents Budget (PB) 2018 submission defers the first
    year of FFG(X) procurement to Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 with additional
    Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) being procured in FY 2018 and FY 2019. This
    approach keeps both LCS shipyards viable ahead of the pending FFG(X)
    competition, allowing the Navy to leverage past and current investments
    in our shipyard workforce and infrastructure. The Navy is already
    pursuing opportunities to forward fit and back fit some FFG(X)
    capabilities onto LCS to further increase the lethality and
    survivability of those platforms. Increased magazine protection and
    shock hardening of auxiliaries along with the addition of a lightweight
    tow, and space and weight for the Over-The-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-
    WS) are separately priced options in the Request for Proposal for the
    three FY 2017 LCS. As the Navy is currently in negotiations for the
    three FY 2017 LCS, details regarding the cost of those options cannot
    be provided in accordance with federal regulations. The Navy is also in
    source selection for OTH-WS which will provide added offensive
    capabilities to the LCS. The PB 2018 submission includes $8.4M to
    initiate ship engineering work to include design configuration and
    installation planning for the LCS platforms. The submission also
    identifies OTH-WS procurement ($42.3M) and in-service fleet support
    funding ($15.9M) through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for the
    weapon system.

                       FY 2019 to FY 2023 Funding Levels

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Secretary Mattis, you mentioned a Defense Strategy to
    determine Defense funding levels for FY 2019 to FY 2023. Do you have a
    timeframe on when those numbers will be available? Your report on those
    estimates will be important to this body if we consider repealing or
    lifting BCA Caps.
        Answer. The National Defense Strategy is ongoing and will direct
    resourcing requirements for the FY 2019-2023 Future Years Defense
    Program. Funding levels and resourcing decisions will be worked closely
    with the Office of Management and Budget in preparation for the FY 2019
    President's Budget Submission to Congress in February 2018.

                        European Reassurance Initiative

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Your FY 2018 budget request contains a 40 percent
    increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative. Does this
    funding pay for equipment, weapons, and systems software for our allied
    partners? If so, is there funding allocated for maintaining and
    servicing those items?
        Answer. The vast majority of the Department's FY 2018 European
    Reassurance Initiative request focused on increasing U.S. readiness and
    responsiveness through increased presence, expanded exercises, and
    prepositioning of wartime equipment and stocks. The United States
    prefers to use other programs and authorities, such as Foreign Military
    Sales and Foreign Military Financing, to provide Allies and partners
    with equipment, weapons, and systems software. This year, Congress
    added ERI funding to increase Ukraine's ability to defend its sovereign
    territory. ERI support to Ukraine will include assistance with command
    and control capabilities; counter-battery radars; training, equipping,
    and employment of forces; comprehensive logistics; and advisory
    efforts.

                                European Allies

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. I think that the European Reassurance Initiative is
    critically important to deter potential Russian aggression. There was a
    unit from the California National Guard here recently and they
    discussed some of the challenges in training their Ukrainian
    counterparts. These challenges ranged from the Ukrainian forces not
    having a formalized enlistment and training program, to not having the
    proper systems to account for personnel and to pay their Soldiers. So,
    I am interested in how the Department of Defense is assessing the
    capabilities of our European allies as we continue to rotate units into
    the European theater. Is there a one to two-page product on each of the
    allied partner forces that you can provide that gives us a snapshot of
    their capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, their overall level of
    readiness?
        Answer. The Department, both unilaterally and in conjunction with
    Allies, continuously assesses the capabilities, strengths, weaknesses,
    and overall readiness of our Allies. These assessments are often
    voluminous and contain classified information. The Department does not
    produce one- or two page unclassified summaries of these assessments,
    however my staff would be happy to provide a classified briefing on
    these matters at your convenience.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                             Overpressure Injuries

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about
    overpressure injuries and what actions are you taking to mitigate
    exposure to your personnel in the field and training environments? B.
    Who in your organization is responsible for this occupational hazard?
    C. It took roughly 40 years of personalized radiation measurement to
    fully understand the effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary
    first step to understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation?
    Why not deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to
    capture the data? D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of
    the gauge because it ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of
    TBI.'' How many of our men and women are using the gauges in the field
    or in training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? How many
    devices have been purchased and where are they today?
        Answer. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure
    injuries and what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your
    personnel in the field and training environments? Air Force leadership
    is concerned about the health and safety of all our Airmen and strives
    to institute appropriate engineering, administrative, or personal
    protective equipment controls where the evidence supports their
    effectiveness in preventing workplace injury and illness, regardless of
    the type of exposure encountered. B. Who in your organization is
    responsible for this occupational hazard? The Air Force Medical
    Service's Aerospace Medicine community is responsible for the medical
    aspects of the occupational health and safety program. They identify
    and measure workplace hazards and conduct associated medical
    surveillance of at-risk service members. Numerous medical and line
    responsibilities are enumerated within DoD Instruction 6490.11, DoD
    Policy Guidance for Management of mild Traumatic Brain Injury/
    Concussion in the Deployed Setting. Given the current science regarding
    overpressure, the only workplace exposures of this type which can be
    reliably monitored are noise exposures as part of our long-established
    hearing conservation program. C. It took roughly 40 years of
    personalized radiation measurement to fully understand the effects of
    exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to understanding
    dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not deploy blast
    overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the data? The
    current surveillance science regarding overpressure continues to
    evolve. However, other than that which is hearing related, surveillance
    mechanisms are insufficiently reliable to protect against the effects
    of blast exposures. The key performance element of any such monitoring
    device or test is its positive predictive value, the ability to
    associate exposures with outcomes in a reliable, predictable manner.
    Blast gauges are environmental sensors and have proven particularly
    deficient in this regard when tested in the field, particularly in
    their ability to correlate blast exposure with Traumatic Brain Injury.
    D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of the gauge because it
    ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.'' How many of our men
    and women are using the gauges in the field or in training? Do high-
    risk units have access to the devices? How many devices have been
    purchased and where are they today? Following unsuccessful field
    testing in the US Central Command theater of operations with various
    army units, there are no deployed units currently using these devices.
    The Air Force was not part of that study and currently fields no such
    devices on our deployed Airmen based upon the lack of evidence
    regarding their surveillance value based upon those earlier field
    studies. As the science and technology matures we will re-assess the
    fielding of these devices for our at-risk Airmen.
        Answer. Navy Medicine is dedicated to our mission of optimizing
    Sailors' and Marines' readiness, health, and keeping them on the job.
    Navy Medicine is actively engaged in research performed in partnership
    with other Department of Defense (DoD) entities. In addition, we are
    partnering with nongovernmental academic institutions and assessing
    clinical application of evolving scientific information to develop best
    practices and policy as part of Navy Medical Department TBI programing.
    Inquiries regarding acquisition and fielding of specific blast exposure
    sensors and other related technology is out of Navy Medicine's scope.
    A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure injuries
    and what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your personnel
    in the field and training environments? Navy and Marine Corps are aware
    of and acutely concerned with the risk of overpressure injuries in both
    training and field environments. Many of the acute risks of exposure to
    blast overpressure are known. While acute exposure standards do exist
    for overpressure injury protection for single events, a standard for
    repetitive exposure has not been established. As an emerging science,
    dose effect exposure impact and injury pattern research is active but
    insufficient at present for driving policy to mitigate exposure
    effects. Monitoring systems and threshold determination for multiple
    blast overpressure events to accumulate data in a manner similar to
    cumulative radiation dosimetry is under development as part of an
    effort funded by Military Operational Medicine Research Program. B. Who
    in your organization is responsible for this occupational hazard?
    Leaders at all levels are responsible for the health and safety of
    Sailors and Marines. Navy Medicine is invested in research to
    understand risks associated with overpressure exposure, as well as
    methods to identify and treat possible consequences of overexposure. It
    should be noted that overpressure exposure is currently considered an
    emerging occupational hazard, without current nationally recognized
    established exposure limits or standards, and is still in the research
    realm. The Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) is part of a multi-
    institutional effort to develop exposure standards to repetitive low
    intensity blast overpressure events. This effort involves research on
    the assessment of blast effects in DoD operational units (e.g.,
    Breachers, Artillery) and the use of animal models to develop an
    exposure standard algorithm. The effort is funded under the Defense
    Health Program. NMRC's collaborative effort is focused on the
    development of an exposure algorithm. The data from this effort will be
    shared with DoD operational planners to develop occupational standards
    and surveillance procedures. Navy Medicine is responsible for the
    medical readiness of Sailors and Marines, and as such, is actively
    engaged with the TBI community of interest, including ongoing
    collaborations with DoD, the other Services, Defense and Veterans Brain
    Injury Center (DVBIC), National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE),
    and numerous private research institutions. The collaborations keep
    Navy Medicine at the cutting edge of science to ensure policies and
    practices are current with regard to informing policy to reduce
    exposure to injury, establish appropriate screening and surveillance
    practices, and to guide interventions to mitigate effects of injuries.
    As has been stated, this is an area of emerging science, and thus,
    policies and practices are dynamic, with efforts to continually capture
    data to advance efficacy of mitigation strategies. C. It took roughly
    40 years of personalized radiation measurement to fully understand the
    effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to
    understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not
    deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the
    data? Accurate measurement of overpressure exposure is critical in
    protecting Sailors and Marines, and in understanding potential health
    consequences of exposure. There are several challenges associated with
    this, including understanding how different devices measure
    overpressure, how differences in measurement relate to actual
    physiological and brain exposure, and then what different levels of
    exposure mean for risk to brain integrity, as well as clinical
    consequences. Advances have been made in all of these areas. Despite
    this progress, the current state of science is inconclusive with regard
    to exposure to sub-concussive events and subsequent injury or symptoms,
    and there is a need for continued partnerships to advance the science.
    Efforts to accurately measure and understand overpressure exposure have
    shifted from wide-scale deployment which had limited utility for
    understanding effects and development of subsequent policy. In order to
    better understand overpressure phenomenon, current use of overpressure
    measurement is in focused, rigorously studied settings. This allows for
    capture and analysis of data in a systematic way which is contributing
    to ongoing advancement of understanding of exposure and subsequent
    policy and practice changes. Navy and Marine Corps are proactively
    involved in collaborative research including measurement of
    overpressure exposure in institutional review board controlled trials
    which will allow for systematic collection and analysis of data in
    specific environments and applications, which is necessary to answer
    the questions above. NMRC is aware of several efforts within the DoD
    medical research and development community to develop and refine blast
    sensor technology. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is conducting the
    Blast Load Assessment Sense and Test (BLAST) program which is
    developing technologies that quantify the physiological effects of
    blast loads on personnel in the field. The objective is to address
    military-specific blast overpressure induced injury as well as blunt
    force injury. D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of the
    gauge because it ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.''
    How many of our men and women are using the gauges in the field or in
    training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? How many
    devices have been purchased and where are they today? Navy Medicine
    doesn't manage distribution of blast sensor devices and is not in a
    position to respond to questions of distribution. However, it should be
    noted that there is, as of yet, no definitive evidence linking
    repetitive overpressure exposure to traumatic brain injury. The state
    of science is emerging, and Navy Medicine stands at the forefront of
    research to understand these relationships, and to adjust policy and
    practices as indicated to protect Sailors and Marines.
        Answer. A. The Service Chiefs are very concerned about the
    potential for blast overpressure (BOP) injuries and enforce established
    occupational health standards and safety procedures to protect
    personnel who use weapon systems in field and training environments. In
    parallel, the DoD and the Army have implemented policies to maximize
    the identification and screening for Service members exposed to BOP.
    Medical information collected as a result of policy is leveraged for
    immediate healthcare delivery, while exposure data is shared through
    Service or department-wide efforts to maximize understanding of BOP. B.
    DoD-level policies task operational commanders to oversee the safety of
    training events, and enforce policies and procedures that provide
    maximal surveillance, mitigation, and treatment of BOP-related
    injuries. The Army serves as the Executive Agent for coordinating all
    DoD blast injury research which bridges medical and operational
    commands. U.S. Army Medical Command (USA MEDCOM) has the lead on
    occupational health compliance, clinical care for injuries, and
    development of medical research on occupational hazards related to BOP.
    C. It is unclear at this time if direct parallels can be drawn between
    personalized radiation measurement and blast overpressure surveillance.
    The Army previously deployed a large-scale blast overpressure
    surveillance program during OEF deployments, which did not produce
    actionable information. The Army has since moved to a focused approach,
    involving research level data collection and surveillance from
    environmental sensors in training. This effort aims to: (1) optimize
    sensor technologies for surveillance in training environments, (2)
    understand the health effects of single and repetitive exposure to BOP,
    (3) establish evidence-based injury thresholds, and (4) provide
    immediate feedback to Leaders on BOP profiles in training. D. In 2012,
    the Army procured approximately 108,000 gauges for use in Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF). The data from this effort did not provide
    actionable information or insights into the impact of single or
    cumulative BOP. The Army's effort to understand low-level BOP shifted
    to a more tailored approach in the training environment. Within the
    current Army effort (Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT)), there
    are 1600 gauges in use on select training ranges: artillery, breacher,
    mortar, grenade, engineers, and shoulder fired weapons. These gauges
    are drawn from both existing inventory and purchase of newer designs.
    The gauges are available to ``high-risk units'' as commercial off the
    shelf (COTS) devices.

                          Blast Overpressure Exposure

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Scientific studies have linked repetitive blast
    overpressure exposure to structural changes in the brain, increased
    risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases. A. Why has this
    research not resulted in blast overpressure surveillance programs that
    provide actionable exposure data to protect and preserve our
    warfighters, particularly considering the signature injuries from Iraq
    and Afghanistan have been TBI and PTSD. B. Given the significant
    scientific evidence linking blast overpressure exposure and brain
    injury, how do you explain the hesitation to monitor to fully document
    exposures and take steps to reduce those exposures?
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD policy is designed to
    protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. However,
    advances in science in this area have shown that previously established
    standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national
    standards do not exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in
    collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure
    overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to effects of sub-
    concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer
    reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often
    developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There
    are active and robust efforts to translate knowledge from research into
    actionable equipment, practices, and interventions both on the field
    and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events''' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
        Answer. A. The DoD has surveillance programs to protect our
    warfighters from exposure to BOP which are based on prior research
    efforts and the current scientific understanding. In accordance with
    occupational health standards, the BOP programs are managed within the
    DoD Auditory community and coordinated with the TBI community as
    appropriate. The link between low-threshold repetitive blast
    overpressure (BOP) exposure to ``structural changes in the brain,
    increased risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,'' is
    currently debated in the medical and scientific communities (internal
    and external to the DoD) and remains a topic of research rather than
    settled science. B. The link between low-threshold repetitive blast
    overpressure (BOP) exposure to ``structural changes in the brain,
    increased risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,'' is
    currently debated in the medical and scientific communities (internal
    and external to the DoD) and remains a topic of research rather than
    settled science. The DoD has taken actions to improve our understanding
    of BOP through the analysis of retrospective and prospective human
    exposure data from the training and operational environment while
    simultaneously implementing policies to monitor, protect, screen,
    diagnose, document and treat not just diagnosed TBls, but also
    potentially concussive events. Through event-driven screening for
    exposures, and early medical evaluation and documentation, the Army is
    the lead for the DoD and is maximizing the identification and treatment
    of Service members with injuries.

                   Exposures in Training With Weapons Systems

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. DoD research studies have shown exposures in training
    with weapon systems that are routinely above currently established safe
    overpressure exposure limits. Monitoring revealed these exposures, and
    can help to identify and reduce repetitive exposures in the future. A.
    Why have the services failed to institute formal overpressure
    monitoring programs in areas where existing safety standards are
    routinely violated? B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild
    TBI impact unit readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and
    the overlap of mild TBI symptoms with those commonly experienced by
    servicemembers (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring
    essential to maintaining unit readiness? C. Marine Corps System Command
    has invested over $1 million in a Phase I and Phase II SBlR to develop
    a blast overpressure measurement system which was delivered in
    September 2016. Is this technology being used to monitor exposures for
    at risk personnel? If no, why not?
        Answer. A. The DoD uses a combination of environmental monitoring,
    in select higher risk training environments, with connections to active
    medical research protocols. The output of these efforts are improving
    environmental sensor capabilities and honing our understanding of BOP
    and the potential short-term or long-term clinical outcomes. The Army
    protects personnel by assessing health risks associated with the use of
    weapon systems prior to rollout and by implementing evidence based
    safety standards that are enforced by operational commanders. The Army
    no longer uses universal monitoring of blast overpressures (BOP)
    exposures in combat because this program did not produce actionable
    information. However, the Army does employ a targeted monitoring effort
    to protect personnel. B. The DoD maintains readiness through policy,
    education, and standardized clinical care to produce an educated force
    trained and prepared to recognize potential for risk and provide early
    recognition, treatment and tracking of concussive injuries to protect
    Service member health. The DoD is also funding research efforts with
    the goal of validating exposure thresholds. C. Since the development of
    the blast gauge, the Army, USSOCOM, DARPA and the USMC have all
    purchased and used blast gauges in varying capacities. The Army's
    Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT) program is primarily using the
    earlier generation 6 gauges. However, the DoD through Walter Reed Army
    Institute of Research is actively working to assess and improve the
    gauges including the generation 7.
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD policy is designed to
    protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. However,
    advances in science in this area have shown that previously established
    standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national
    standards do not exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in
    collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure
    overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to effects of sub-
    concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer
    reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often
    developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There
    are active and robust efforts to translate knowledge from research into
    actionable equipment, practices, and interventions both on the field
    and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events'' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
    C. Yes, the GEN 7 B3 sensor developed to measure blast overpressure in
    the Phase I and Phase II SMIR is currently being used by researchers
    for monitoring personnel exposures to blast. Current users include
    Naval Research Laboratory Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,
    Office of Naval Research and Special Operations Command. We are
    currently working with our Training and Education Command and Walter
    Reed to get the system sensors approved for use at the Weapons Training
    Schools. Anticipated deployment is late FY18.
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal
    overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety
    standards are routinely violated? Where standards exist, current DoD
    policy is designed to protect Sailors and Marines from known
    overpressure risks. However, advances in science in this area have
    shown that previously established standards may be inadequate, and as
    of yet, more refined national standards do not exist. The Navy
    continues to be engaged in collaborative research to improve capability
    to accurately measure overpressure, as well as increase knowledge
    related to effects of sub-concussive overpressure effects. Even in
    advance of publication in peer reviewed publications, DoD proactively
    acts on emerging data, often developing policies and practices to
    protect Sailors and Marines. There are active and robust efforts to
    translate knowledge from research into actionable equipment, practices,
    and interventions both on the field and in the medical realm. B.
    Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild TBI impact unit
    readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of
    mild TBI symptons with those commonly experienced by service members
    (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring essential to
    maintaining unit readiness? As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop aprotocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events'' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
    C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase
    I and Phase II SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system
    which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to
    monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? Defer to
    Marine Corps Systems Command.
        Answer. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal
    overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety
    standards are routinely violated? While operational guidelines exist
    for safe distancing from acute blast sources, we are not aware of
    existing overpressure standards from the Occupational Health and Safety
    Administration, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
    Hygienists, the American National Standards Institute, or other
    recognized certifying standards organization, that characterize and
    establish exposure limits for repetitive or sustained blast exposures.
    B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild TBI impact unit
    readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of
    mild T81 symptoms with those commonly experienced by servicemembers
    (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring essential to
    maintaining unit readiness? The current surveillance science regarding
    overpressure continues to evolve, but is currently not sufficiently
    reliable to protect against the effects of such exposures. The key
    performance element of any such monitoring device or test is its
    positive predictive value, the ability to associate exposures with
    outcomes in a reliable, predictable manner. The devices which are
    environmental sensors, have proven particularly deficient in this
    regard when tested in the field, particularly in their ability to
    correlate blast events to Traumatic Brain Injury. Until such time as
    better sensors are available, we will continue to maintain readiness
    through policy, education, and standardized clinical care to provide
    early recognition, treatment, and tracking of all concussive injuries.
    C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase
    I and Phase 11 SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system
    which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to
    monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? The Air Force
    has not procured any elements of the system for use within the Air
    Force. Though this is a Generation 7 gauge, its extremely low detection
    threshold results in high sensing variability, thus limiting its
    effectiveness as a reliable surveillance device.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
    Visclosky. Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and the answers
    thereto follow:]

                              Sea Hawk Helicopter

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. As you both know, the Sea Hawk Helicopter is the
    workhorse of the Navy as we have sustained a very high OPTEMPO for many
    years. The current Seahawk fleet of 555 aircraft is based on a five
    year old Force Structure Assessment that was updated in December 2016
    from 308 to 355 ships. If this plan is carried out, the Navy will need
    a corresponding increase in helicopters. Meanwhile the Service Life
    Extension program will ultimately take roughly 50 aircraft out of
    service each year. Procuring additional aircraft now will help address
    these needs as well as prevent a key production line from going cold.
    What are the Navy's plans for procurement of the Seahawk in the coming
    years?
        Answer. The Department is committed to building the capability and
    capacity in our Fleet, and Seahawk helicopters play a vital role in
    accomplishing these goals. The Navy operates nearly 600 MH-60
    helicopters around the world, and intends to modernize and sustain MH-
    60 inventory via planned Service Life Extension Program and/or Mid-Life
    Upgrade initiatives. These programs will ensure the capabilities of
    these aircraft remain relevant well into the future. Although the
    current fleet of Seahawks is fulfilling our needs, we need to consider
    airframe delivery schedules relative to future ship delivery timelines
    before committing to purchasing additional Seahawks. The decision to
    procure or recapitalize the current MH-60 in the face of increasing
    threats will be considered alongside all of our warfighting priorities.
    Thank you for your continued support of the Navy and in particular,
    Naval Aviation.

                                    Stryker

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. 203 Members of Congress and 10 Members of this
    Subcommittee wrote a letter to the Army earlier this year urging
    funding both for Stryker lethality and survivability upgrades. I was
    surprised to see no funding for either modernization programs in the
    President's FY18 Budget request. Given that we know that Strykers are
    critical to the 21st Century Army, what would the Army choose such a
    path? What is the impact on the industrial base?
        Answer. Although the Army has not specifically requested funding
    for Stryker lethality and survivability upgrades, the Army requested
    $97.6 million for Stryker modifications in Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18).
    This funding will support procurement of Stryker Training Aids;
    Devices; Simulators and Simulations (TADSS); Stryker Lethality
    hardware; fielding support (wholesale parts); and various Stryker
    fleet-wide modifications including addressing Command, Control,
    Communication,, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance (C41SR) obsolescence. The Army will field the 2nd
    Cavalry Regiment's 30 millimeter Strykers in 4th Quarter FY18 but has
    yet to determine the solution for the entire fleet. The Army is
    solidifying requirements for improving the lethality of the remaining
    eight Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and is scheduled to present options
    in October of this year to the Chief of Staff of the Army to determine
    lethality and survivability options moving forward. These options all
    include near-term lethality upgrades to the Stryker fleet. Although the
    Army's fourth Double V Hull (DVH) Stryker brigade is on the Chief of
    Staff of the Army's FY18 Unfunded Requirements List, the Army continues
    to modernize the DVH fleet. The DVH vehicles that have been procured
    beyond the current three DVH Brigades come equipped with the latest
    upgrades that include engine, suspension, and electrical network. These
    Strykers will go into the current DVH brigades to allow older DVH
    vehicles opportunity for these upgrades. The Army is aware of a
    potential impacts to the Stryker industrial base, and has developed
    options to mitigate any production gap between completion of DVH
    production and upgrades to current DVH Strykers.

                                   Munitions

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. I am concerned about our stockpiles of key munitions like
    the Hellfire. What else can we do to ensure that our munitions
    stockpiles are at a sufficient level? I also noticed that funding for
    THAAD looked a bit light. I would think that we would be ramping that
    up with the increasing ballistic threats from Iran and North Korea.
        Answer. The Army continues to place emphasis on ensuring critical
    munitions are being produced, stockpiled and positioned appropriately
    to support world-wide contingencies. For example, the HELLFIRE missile
    is currently being produced at its maximum rate of 6,000 missiles per
    year.
        Additionally, a $77M investment in the HELLFIRE production line in
    FY17 will increase capacity from 6,000 missiles in FY16 to 11,000
    missiles in FY19. The Army will see results from this investment but
    deliveries of HELLFIRE missiles take place approximately 24 months
    after they are put on contract. The Army is a user of the THAAD system,
    but procurement for THAAD interceptors is programmed by the Missile
    Defense Agency using Defense Wide Funds. The FY18 budget request
    procures 34 THAAD interceptors out of a potential maximum production
    capacity of 96.

                                      LCS

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. Could you please provide an update on the transition
    from the Littoral Combat Ship to the Frigate? B. What are the
    priorities for the development of the Frigate and how will it improve
    upon the current Littoral Combat Ship? C. Is the Navy still planning to
    down-select between the two current vendors in FY19 or has that been
    pushed to FY20? Given the vulnerability of the shipbuilding industrial
    base, what would be the benefits of keeping the contract split between
    the two vendors?
        Answer. A. The 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) validated the
    requirement for 52 Small Surface Combatants. To date, nine LCS have
    been commissioned into the Fleet and 19 are under contract (LCS 27 & 28
    were awarded in June 2017), with 11 of these 19 LCS in various stages
    of construction. A total of 30 LCS are planned to be procured. FY19 LCS
    quantities are under review and will be provided with the FY19 budget
    submission, following completion of the Defense Strategy Review. The
    Navy recognizes the critical nature of maintaining the shipbuilding
    industrial base while transitioning from LCS to Frigate and will weigh
    this factor in the FY19 budget submission. For FFG(X), the Navy will
    consider multiple proposed designs for a lethal, multi-mission ship
    capable of integrated strike group operations and operating
    independently in contested environments while incorporating Navy
    standard combat system elements. The Navy is evaluating capability and
    cost trade space associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request
    for Information from industry. Additionally, a competitive industry
    environment will contribute to maturing multiple designs during the
    Conceptual Design phase with an anticipated FY20 contract award for
    Detail Design and Construction. B. FFG(X) priorities for development
    include improved lethality and survivability beyond that of LCS and the
    previous Frigate baseline. The FFG(X) will include improved radar,
    combat systems, launchers, weapons, and electronic warfare, and add
    capability in the electromagnetic maneuver warfare area that LCS does
    not currently possess. These improvements will make the FFG(X) a blue-
    water capable, multi-mission ship capable of operating in contested
    environments with robust self-defense. LCS was designed to be a
    focused-mission ship with limited self-defense. FFG(X) will have the
    ability to protect itself and potentially others with improved air
    defense capability and shock-hardened systems for decreased
    vulnerability.The FFG(X) will be capable of simultaneous multi-mission
    execution in Surface Warfare (SLJW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW),
    Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW), and unmanned intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance. It will implement Navy standard
    combat system elements to achieve commonality, decreasing development
    risk while ensuring required capability, lowering life cycle costs, and
    streamlining sparing, training, and maintenance requirements. These
    improvements over LCS will enable FFG(X) to support Distributed
    Maritime Operations by extending the Fleet tactical grid with improved
    EMW, Electronic Warfare (EW), unmanned, and Command, Control,
    Communications, Computer, and Information (C4I) systems and provide
    relief for large surface combatants to conduct missions for which they
    are uniquely qualified. FFG(X) requirements will be refined and
    finalized based on industry feedback on the feasibility of meeting the
    desired performance levels and accommodating common Navy standard
    systems in the various ship designs in a cost effective manner. C. The
    Navy does not plan to down-select between the two current LCS
    shipbuilders, but instead will hold a full and open competition for the
    FFG(X) utilizing existing designs. The Navy is evaluating trade space
    associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request for Information
    from industry that maximizes capability at the appropriate cost.
    Additionally, a competitive industry environment will contribute to
    maturing multiple designs during the Conceptual Design phase with an
    anticipated FY20 contract award for Detail Design and Construction.

                            Army Fixed Wing Aircraft

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Can you please provide your thoughts on cost savings that
    can be achieved through the Army's replacement of the C12?
        Answer. The Army is in the process of replacing the legacy C-12
    fleet with a commercially available aircraft and expects to award a
    procurement contract in 3QFY18. With an estimated savings of
    approximately $100M in operation and sustainment costs over the life of
    the aircraft. These savings estimates are based on costs of similar,
    currently available, commercial aircraft.

                                     Cyber

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. With so much happening in the Cyber domain, I was hopeful
    That you could share your vision regarding DOD's increasing role in
    this fight and what additional resources may be required. How can we
    recruit and retain the type of cyber warriors we need for this fight?
        Answer. In addition to defending DoD's network, data, and weapons
    platforms, our cyberspace operations provide commanders with options
    across all domains to apply combined arms maneuver, create dilemmas for
    the enemy, complicate adversaries' strategic calculus, and ultimately
    gain the advantage on the battlefield for the Joint Force to win. The
    Army continues to grow its specialized fields and recruit much needed
    cyber skills, recently accessing 30 officers into the established Cyber
    branch. Both the Army's Cadet Command (USACC) and the US Military
    Academy (USMA) have been mentoring cadets to consider degrees in
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields for the
    last several years. As a result, the STEM degree average rose to 26% of
    FY17 new lieutenants commissioned through ROTC, from 15.5% in FY12.
    USMA conducts STEM outreach for diverse youth as part of its recruiting
    strategy, and its Cyber Research Center and Cyber Center of Excellence
    prepares cadets in the acquisition, use, management, and protection of
    information. The Army is also executing a direct commissioning pilot
    program into cyber specialties to uniquely skilled and experienced
    individuals who meet program requirements. On the enlisted side, many
    of our highest level enlistment and reenlistment incentives are
    dedicated to cyber and other information technology fields. The Army
    also offers a variety of compensation incentives to recruit quality
    civilian talent into the cyber workforce, including up to 25% of the
    annual rate of basic pay for newly appointed employees, a higher pay
    rate through the Superior Qualifications and Special Needs Pay-Setting
    Authority, and up to $60,000 to repay student loans for a highly
    qualified employee. The Army retention program retains sufficient
    numbers of retention-eligible Soldiers consistent with fluctuating end
    strength requirements. The Army developed Special Duty (SD) and
    Assignment Incentive Pay (AlP) incentives to focus on Soldiers serving
    in critical cyber work roles, which complement the professional
    development and training benefits that also enhance the ability to
    recruit and retain quality personnel. The Army offers its civilian
    cyber workforce similar opportunities for career growth and formal
    training, as well as retention and relocation incentives to retain high
    performing employees.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby.
    Questions submitted by Ms. McCollum and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                           Fighter Oxygen Deprivation

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Gentlemen, I want to ask you about what appears to be a
    growing problem in which pilots across our services are reporting
    symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. In the past few months,
    Senior Navy officials have reported a rising rate of psychological
    episodes experienced by F-18 pilots during flights. The Navy also
    halted the entire fleet of T-45 trainer jets because of pilots'
    breathing concerns. And then just last week the Air Force temporarily
    stopped flying F-35 fighter jets at Luke Air Force Base due to a number
    of incidents where pilots were reporting symptoms of hypoxia. It seems
    like we have a serious problem that is not unique to one fleet and
    extends across the services. Safety of flight is non-negotiable, and
    the increasing number of pilots suffering from oxygen deprivation is
    simply unacceptable. Gentlemen, how concerned are you about these
    reports and what is being done right now to ensure that our pilots are
    operating in a safe environment?
        Answer. The DOD and the Services are extremely concerned about
    aircrew safety related to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. This is the
    number one safety issue, with the utmost priority to fix. All available
    assets (e.g. laboratories, specialists and test facilities across DOD
    and Industry) and expertise (e.g., NASA, Industry and Academia) are
    being utilized to assess, isolate and correct root cause(s). As the
    scientific and engineering investigations work toward determining the
    root causes, the Services are concentrating on four major pillars of
    action: to alert, monitor, protect and prevent hypoxia and oxygen
    deprivation. Although aircraft oxygen systems vary in complexity, there
    are two major potential contributors to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation
    that are common: the oxygen system not providing sufficient oxygen to
    the aircrew and cockpit pressure fluctuations. There are multiple
    technical paths being pursued, to include aircraft system hardware re-
    designs and component improvements; maintenance and support process
    implementation and modification; interim operational limitations and
    modified flight procedures; aircrew and aircraft sensor integration;
    aircrew flight gear modifications; and aircrew awareness and training--
    to name a few. The department has deemed this a resources unconstrained
    approach and will continue to receive maximum attention and
    prioritization until the risks of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation are
    resolved.

                             DoD Transgender Policy

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Mr. Secretary, we are approaching the July 1st deadline
    for the Defense Department to implement the policy that lifted the ban
    on transgender personnel from serving in the military. Is the Pentagon
    considering delaying this decision and if this is the case, was this a
    decision that was made internally at the Pentagon or was this direction
    that came from the White House?
        Answer. STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON MILITARY SERVICE
    BY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS: The Department of Defense has received the
    Presidential Memorandum, dated August 25, 2017, entitled ``Military
    Service by Transgender Individuals.'' The Department will carry out the
    President's policy direction, in consultation with the Department of
    Homeland Security. As directed, we will develop a study and
    implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote
    military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for
    budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law. The soon
    arriving senior civilian leadership of DoD will play an important role
    in this effort. The implementation plan will address accessions of
    transgender individuals and transgender individuals currently serving
    in the United States military. Our focus must always be on what is best
    for the military's combat effectiveness leading to victory on the
    battlefield. To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving
    within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide
    advice and recommendations on the implementation of the President's
    direction. Panel members will bring mature experience, most notably in
    combat and deployed operations, and seasoned judgment to this task. The
    panel will assemble and thoroughly analyze all pertinent data,
    quantifiable and non-quantifiable. Further information on the panel
    will be forthcoming. Once the panel reports its recommendations and
    following my consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, I
    will provide my advice to the President concerning implementation of
    his policy direction. In the interim, current policy with respect to
    currently serving members will remain in place. I expect to issue
    interim guidance to the force concerning the President's direction,
    including any necessary interim adjustments to procedures, to ensure
    the continued combat readiness of the force until our final policy on
    this subject is issued.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. McCollum.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                                      F-35

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. For such an expensive aircraft, I'm concerned about
    our pilots having to self-limit their flying in this way. How long do
    we anticipate having this issue with the F-35? Are we concerned about
    adversaries exploiting this weakness by adjusting their tactics against
    the F-35? B. Do you anticipate further slippage in the F-35 schedule?
        Answer. A. The restriction on the weapons bay doors was removed in
    March 2016 as a result of further analysis, test, and requalification
    of the limiting component, which was the Remote Input/Output unit
    within the weapons bay. With this restriction lifted there are no
    concerns related to adversary exploitation. B. Since the flight
    restriction related to excessive weapons bay temperature was lifted in
    March 2016, the F-35 program does not anticipate any related schedule
    slippages. In a broader context, the F-35 program continues to make
    steady progress toward the completion of its System Development and
    Demonstration (SDD) phase and delivery of full Block 3F capability.
    Following the 2011 re-baseline, the program of record estimate for the
    end of developmental flight test was October 31, 2017. Since the time
    of this re-baseline, the F-35 Joint Program Office has recognized a 3
    to 4 month risk associated with this date, putting the end of SDD
    flight test in early CY 2018. The program is tracking to completion of
    SDD flight test in that timeframe. Delivery of full Block 3F capability
    remains on track as well; current estimates for delivery of full Block
    3F capability by variant are shown in the table below.

                        FULL BLOCK 3F CAPABILITY DELIVERY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2011 Post Nunn-McCurdy APB Dates             Current Estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Objective: August 2017.................  F-35A: October 2017 (w/o AIM-
                                              9X).
                                             November 2017 (w/AIM-9X).
                                             F-35B: November 2017 (1.3
                                              Mach).
                                             May 2018 (1.6 Mach).
    Threshold: February 2018...............  F-35C: January 2018 (1.3 Mach).
                                             February 2018 (1.6 Mach).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The delivery of full capability for all 3 variants falls within the
    2011 Acquisition Program Baseline dates with the exception of the B-
    model envelope between 1.3 and 1.6 Mach. This is due to the fact that
    only one B-model test aircraft (BF-3) has been properly instrumented
    for the testing needed to reach 1.6 Mach.

                               Weaponized Drones

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. Do you have adequate funding and authorizations to deal
    with emerging threats, such as weaponized drones? How can Congress
    support you better?
        Answer. The Department has adequate authorities to respond to
    emerging threats, such as weaponized drones, in zones of active
    conflict overseas. For instance, Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA)
    provided under section 806 (c) of Public Law 107-314, enables the
    Secretary or Deputy Secretary to waive certain laws, and, with certain
    limitations, permit the use of any funds available to the Secretary, in
    order to respond quickly to Urgent Operational Needs and to expedite
    delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. DoD authorities to counter
    potential (weaponized) drone threats in the homeland are constrained by
    provisions of Federal law. Congress--in the FY2017 NDAA--established
    section 130i of title 10, U.S. Code, which authorized the Secretary to
    mitigate threats posed by drones to the safety or security of
    facilities and assets related to three DoD mission areas, including
    nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and the national security space.
    DoD is seeking a modest expansion of this authority in the FY2018 NDAA
    to, in part, incrementally expand the covered missions detailed in the
    authority. The Department will continue to plan for and resource
    capabilities to counter weaponized small unmanned aircraft consistent
    with the risks these threats pose and their overall priority in future
    President's Budget requests.

                             Additive Manufacturing

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. How are we empowering our servicemembers to use
    additive manufacturing? Are you receiving sufficient funding? B. Is
    there work to include contractual requirements for the manufacturing
    base to provide MILSPECS for additive manufacturing parts when they
    cease carrying existing product lines?
        Answer. For several years the DoD Manufacturing Technology
    programs, under the collaborative umbrella of the Joint Defense
    Manufacturing Technology Panel, have been working to enhance standards
    for technical data packages (TDPs). A TDP is ``a technical description
    of an item adequate for supporting an acquisition strategy, production,
    engineering, and logistics support. The description defines the
    required design configuration and procedures to ensure adequacy of item
    performance. It consists of all applicable technical data such as
    drawings, associated lists, specifications, standards, performance
    requirements, quality assurance (QA) provisions, and packaging
    details.'' Citation needed. Although TDPs are applicable to all types
    of manufacturing (not just additive manufacturing), their widespread
    use would greatly enhance DoD's ability to make parts after the
    original manufacturer has ceased production. Regardless of whether
    parts are made additively or otherwise, each acquisition program office
    is responsible for deciding whether to include delivery of TDPs as part
    of the contract deliverables. While providing TDPs benefits DoD by
    providing information needed to make the parts indefinitely, industry's
    concerns include: (1) TDPs are often considered proprietary, and
    manufacturers may only agree to document and deliver the data at a
    significant expense to the DOD; (2) the packaging and delivery of TDPs
    may require special handling which adds further expense; and (3) there
    is a wide variance in the capabilities of the acquiring organizations
    to validate and store TDPs. Through the DoD-wide AM Business Model
    Wargame working group, the Department is working with industry to
    address the concerns with acquisition contract language related to
    technical data. The various efforts in this area hope to address both
    concerns of industry and the needs of the Department.

                             Translators and Visas

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. Can you comment on the impact of our translators to
    the safety of our military forces? B. Can you discuss how strengthening
    our ties with allied citizens in these regions and honoring our
    commitment to our translators preserves the safety of our forces? C. Do
    you recommend that we continue to authorize and appropriate Special
    Immigrant Visas?
        Answer. Translators provide a valuable service to our military
    forces serving overseas, particularly in areas of active combat. I
    agree that our translators should be well compensated for their service
    in order to promote continued support amongst our partners. The
    authorization and appropriation of Special Immigrant Visas however,
    needs to be weighed in the larger context of visa authorizations as
    determined by the State Department.

                                   INF Treaty

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. From your perspective as the senior military advisor
    are Russian treaty violations a risk to US Forces and commitments? Are
    we unduly constrained by treaties which only our nation is complying
    with, such as the INF Treaty? B. Do you find our defense unduly
    constrained by the INF Treaty given that we appear to be the only
    nation in compliance with this agreement? C. One additional area the
    General Dunford acknowledges as a risk to our strategic advantage are
    mounting global ballistic missile threats. I am aware that growth in
    missile defense capabilities for the United States have been paused
    while the administration conducts a Ballistic Missile Defense Review.
    Do you have an anticipated timeline for completion of the BMDR?
        Answer. Currently, we are able to satisfy our military requirements
    while remaining in compliance with the INF Treaty. However, any treaty
    violation that could allow Russia to unlawfully gain a military
    capability advantage poses a potential threat to U.S. forces. With
    respect to the INF Treaty, I believe the status quo, in which the
    United States remains in compliance with the Treaty and the Russians
    are in violation of it, is untenable. The INF Treaty is in our national
    security interest if all parties comply with their Treaty obligations.
    We will continue to engage Russia--directly and together with our
    allies--to urge Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance with
    its Treaty obligations, but our patience is not unlimited. Regarding
    missile defense, our goal is to complete the Ballistic Missile Defense
    Review in the October timeframe. However, I would like to assure you
    that our development of missile defense capabilities is not on hold
    during this process. The approximately $8 billion fiscal year 2018
    budget request for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) missile defense
    programs includes funding for completing construction of the Aegis
    Ashore site in Poland, continuing development of the redesigned kill
    vehicle, developing a long-range discriminating radar, beginning work
    on a new radar in Hawaii, and continuing funding for advanced
    discrimination sensor technology and space-based kill assessment
    programs. We also remain on track to complete the deployment of 8 more
    interceptors in Alaska by the end of this year, bringing the total to
    44, and we are moving forward with efforts to bolster our defenses
    against advanced cruise missiles.

                                Industrial Base

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. Is reliance on non-American-made products a risk to
    our national security? B. Could your share where you feel the
    Department will find its biggest challenges in the industrial base?
    What can Congress do to help you build up these lost industries? Is the
    solution more funding or more time?
        Answer. The Department understands there may be security concerns
    in some key technology and production areas that support maintaining
    our technical dominance. These security concerns might be associated
    with critical technology areas such as microelectronics, robotics,
    artificial intelligence, and virtual reality, or security-of-supply
    concerns resulting from foreign dependency on products from adversarial
    nations. However, reliance on non-American made products is necessary
    to take advantage of the cost and technology benefits offered by access
    to global suppliers and many of our non-American made products are
    provided by trusted allies. The Department continues to identify and
    address risks related to supply-chain disruption, counterfeit parts,
    sabotage, and theft of critical American defense technology. Our job is
    to create a balance that allows us to benefit from global markets
    without putting at risk our national security. The biggest industrial
    base challenge the Department is facing is to sustain a healthy and
    resilient industrial base. DoD is concerned about the viability of
    critical elements of the supply chain at the lower-tiers for defense-
    unique markets and heavily commercial markets where DoD has very
    limited participation. On July 21, the President signed an Executive
    Order requesting the Department, in coordination with Commerce, Labor,
    Energy, and Homeland Security, to provide a report assessing the
    products and materials essential to national security and the
    resiliency of the manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply
    chains to support national security needs. In the next months, we will
    be working with multiple government agencies and industry to do the
    required assessment and provide recommendations to mitigate identified
    issues. The solutions to mitigate industrial base risks involve both
    adequate funding and time to implement them. The Department thanks you
    for your continuous support to the programs and authorities that allow
    us to sustain an innovative and healthy defense industrial base.
    Programs like the Manufacturing Institutes, the Industrial Base
    Analysis and Sustainment Funds, Defense Production Act Title Ill, and
    ManTech are helping us to work with industry to identify and reduce
    supply-chain risks. We ask you to continue supporting sufficient and
    timely investments to sustain the industrial base.

                                AAFES and NEXCOM

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. A. What is the status of healthy, convenient food options
    for our servicemembers? Are you getting the support necessary from
    AAFES and NEXCOM to provide healthy choices for our servicemembers? B.
    What can we do to encourage a healthy style of eating that will support
    our servicemembers career and fitness needs? For example, would it help
    if every base has a Nutrition Coordinator to help unify the efforts of
    dining facilities and convenience food outlets elsewhere on base?
        Answer. A. Healthy, convenient food options continue to expand Army
    wide. Building on the success of the DoD Healthy Base Initiative, the
    Healthy Army Communities (HAC) program commenced as a coordinated Army-
    wide program to improve the health and wellness of the total Army
    community, including active duty, reservists, families, civilians and
    retirees. The program focuses on changing the environment to make the
    healthy choice easier while helping individuals change their behavior
    towards healthier lifestyles. This includes the reshaping of Army
    garrison communities to be healthier places to live, learn, eat, work,
    play and shop. AAFES is a very committed partner with HAC and has
    already begun identifying brand transition opportunities and contract
    timelines to consider brands with healthier offerings. AAFES also
    provides for healthier options through the ``Be Fit'' program of vetted
    healthy nutritional criteria that's highlighted in the Express
    locations with Healthy Only item end caps and new refrigerated island
    coolers featuring healthy only grab and go products. The program is
    more than just food, but also aligns with active wear and fitness
    equipment to promote overall health and wellness. Additionally, AAFES
    is actively participating in the development and implementation of the
    Military Nutritional Environment Assessment Tool (m-NEAT 2.0) and
    working with the DoD Food and Nutrition Subcommittee. B. We believe HAC
    and the newly launched Army Holistic Health and Fitness Initiative are
    the most effective way ahead to promote healthy eating, increased
    physical activity, improved sleep and the reduction of tobacco products
    in the total Army community. Stakeholders are in the process of
    coordinating and developing action plans with short and long-term
    initiatives. These plans will be used as a foundation for implementing
    both short and long-term improvements. In FY18, ten Army Installations
    will conduct Innovation Demonstrations that will highlight and measure
    many of the efforts and initiatives developed to encourage and promote
    health and wellness to the total community. These demonstrations will
    take full advantage of the many programs and support structures already
    in place to support the community and will increase education and
    awareness.
        Answer. A. Healthy food options are generally available to Sailors
    who, depending on their messing status, have a variety of choices for
    where they obtain their food. For the approximately 70% of Sailors who
    live off-base and receive a basic allowance for subsistence (and those
    who live on base but are authorized to mess separately) food options
    include the base or ships galley, the commissary, civilian grocery
    stores, NEXCOM mini-markets, and both on-base and off-base restaurants.
    Sailors provided subsistence in kind are entitled to take all of their
    meals at the galley, which always provides healthy options, but are
    free to use their income to purchase food at commercial establishments
    if they desire. NEXCOM supports healthy eating across the spectrum of
    food sales. The food and merchandising experts, with the guidance of
    the staff dietician, work to ensure a balance of eating options at each
    installation. As part of NEXCOM's ``A Better You Program,'' exercise
    and healthy lifestyle products and information are promoted, and
    healthy eating is addressed through: 1. Food Service--NEXCOM provides
    name-brand food service as a complement to government dining facilities
    (where available) and home eating. Food service contracts include a
    clause requiring food partners to post nutritional information on their
    food offerings. The Subway chain represents approximately 20% of
    NEXCOM's fast food portfolio and is widely recognized as an industry
    leading healthy brand, and each restaurant is encouraged to provide
    healthy menu options. As new or existing spaces become available, new
    partners that promote healthier eating are pursued. 2. Retail--NEXCOM
    has extended a Fresh Food Initiative to 87 locations such as minimarts
    and micromarkets, across CONUS and OCONUS. These locations feature a
    full assortment of grab-and-go healthy options such as whole and cut
    fruits, gourmet wraps, salads, sandwiches, vegetables and yogurt. B.
    Providing for the optimal nutritional fitness and well-being of Service
    members, without unreasonably infringing on their personal liberties,
    is a priority for the Navy. Optimized nutrition is a significant
    component of preventive health strategies with potentially significant
    pay back in maintaining mission readiness, long-term health, and well-
    being while reducing personnel losses, subsequent accessions and
    training, and direct health treatment costs. Sailor's food choices are
    affected by taste, price, convenience, and nutritional literacy. The
    Navy has several programs to improve nutritional literacy, including
    ``Go For Green'' food labeling in the galleys and the Navy Operational
    Fitness and Fueling Series (NOFFS). However, while Sailors are
    generally aware of the healthy food choice, they often choose less
    nutritious options because of taste, price or convenience. The proposed
    example of a Nutrition Coordinator on every base is likely to have a
    low return on investment because of the challenge posed by complex mix
    of appropriated, non-appropriated and off-base food options and the
    vastly different business imperatives they face.
        Answer. A. Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs' (M&RA)
    Business & Support Services Division (MR) encompasses the Marine Corps
    Exchange (MCX), Marine Marts, Vending, Tactical Field Exchanges and MWR
    Food Operations (clubs, food courts, snack bars, and restaurants).
    These are valued non-appropriated fund (NAF) entities that provide
    critical financial support to a myriad of MWR, and Family Readiness
    programs. These venues provide a variety of items geared towards the
    promotion of an active healthy lifestyle. Our MCX has increased the
    number of healthy grab-and-go offerings at Marine Marts, highlighting
    ``Better for You'' products including beverages, fresh fruits, yogurts,
    smoothies, boiled eggs, snack foods, sandwiches, salads, as well as,
    creatively packaged lunch kits designed as portion-controlled
    convenience offerings. Similarly, Marine Corps NAF food courts, snack
    bars and restaurants feature several healthier concepts such as
    Wheatfields, LifeJuice, Panera Bread, Chopz and Jamba Juice.
    Additionally, many Marine Corps clubs offer reduced portion sizes,
    expanded salad bars, and alternative sides such as fruit or steamed
    vegetables. B. The Marine Corps actively participates in several DoD-
    led programs to develop new ways to promote healthy lifestyles for
    Marines and their families, including: DoD's Total Force Fitness
    initiative, which is a framework for building and maintaining health,
    readiness and performance; Operation Live Well, a DoD wellness
    campaign, aimed to make healthy living an easy choice for service
    members, retirees, civilians and their families; and DoD's Nutrition
    Committee. We have also partnered with Cornell University, the National
    Association of Convenience Stores, and Pepsi & Coca-Cola to test new
    ways of promoting healthy consumption choices. A mandated education
    component by credentialed nutritional educators would assist in
    demystifying purported ``healthy'' items. Transforming available food
    options on the installations by nutritionally educated Marines who
    choose to spend their food dollars on healthy options, rather than on
    less healthy options.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Ryan.
    Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                       Domestic Small Gas Turbine Engines

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. What steps are the DoD taking to preserve a dual domestic
    source for procurement and maintenance of small gas turbine engines
    (the type used to power Harpoon and F-107 missiles)?
        Answer. Small gas turbine engines power the U.S. Navy Harpoon,
    Standoff Land-Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) and Tomahawk
    weapons. The Harpoon and SLAM-ER are powered by J402 engines, which
    Teledyne Technologies manufactures. Tomahawks are powered by F107 and
    F415 engines manufactured by Williams International. Both Teledyne
    Technologies and Williams International are domestic companies.
    Currently, these weapons are in production for the U.S. Navy or foreign
    military sales. Additionally, there are maintenance activities for
    sustainment that include tasks performed by these engine companies.
    Looking to the future, Williams International, Teledyne Technologies,
    and Florida Turbine Technologies (also a domestic company) are
    individually partnered with the Department of Defense under the
    Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) Consortium. This
    consortium aligns technology investments with projected requirements of
    future programs. The domestic industrial base for small gas turbines is
    assessed as healthy. This position is supported by participation of two
    domestic engine companies in production and maintenance activities of
    current weapon systems along with membership/involvement of three
    domestic sources in technology advancement of small gas turbines. This
    level of participation and interest is providing an innovative
    environment that includes competitive pressure.

                              U.S. Steel Industry

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. What are the DoD's concerns as related to our national
    security due to the stresses on our U.S. Steel Industry caused by
    severe dumping by China, South Korea and Russia?
        Answer. The Department's concerns related to our national security
    resulting from stresses caused by excess foreign production capacity on
    the U.S. Steel Industry are generally associated with potential adverse
    impacts and negative effects on the viability of U.S. steel producers.
    DoD needs a healthy U.S. steel industry, but military uses of steel
    represent approximately three percent of U.S. steel demand. Therefore,
    the Department believes that DoD programs will be able to acquire the
    steel necessary to meet national defense requirements.

                                   Beryllium

                             witness: mattis, james
        Question. What is the DoD doing to preserve our single source of
    domestic Beryllium?
        Answer. In 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) executed and
    successfully completed a 9-year beryllium domestic-production,
    capacity-development project. The project's purpose was to establish
    and preserve an assured supply of beryllium for U.S. defense
    requirements. The Department is undertaking a refreshed industrial base
    assessment of beryllium. The purposes of this assessment are to
    identify any new unmet U.S. defense requirements for beryllium, and if
    so, the potential need for further industrial base investment by the
    Department in related areas. We expect to complete this assessment
    during 2018.

                                 Russian Threat

                            witness: dunford, joseph
        Question. Please summarize the nature of the Russian threat.
        Answer. Russia presents the greatest array of military challenges
    and remains the only potential existential threat to the United States.
    They continue to invest in a full-range of capabilities designed to
    limit our ability to project power into Europe and meet our alliance
    commitments to NATO. These capabilities include long-range conventional
    strike, cyber, space, electronic warfare, ground force and undersea
    capabilities. Russia is also modernizing all elements of its nuclear
    triad. These modernization efforts must also be viewed in the context
    of their activities in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. Russia's
    operations, capability development, and asymmetric doctrinal and
    strategic approaches are designed to counter NATO and U.S. power
    projection capability, and undermine the credibility of the NATO
    alliance.

                                   Article 5

                            witness: dunford, joseph
        Question. Please state for the record, why are the European
    Reassurance Initiative and affirmation of our Article 5 commitment so
    critical to democracy?
        Answer. The North Atlantic Treaty is founded on the principles of
    democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. The Treaty reflects
    the commitment of all NATO Allies to safeguard the freedom, common
    heritage and civilization of their people, to promote stability and
    well-being in the North Atlantic area, and to unite their efforts for
    the preservation of peace and security and for collective defense.
    Article 5 is the foundation on which this commitment is based, and has
    ensured the security of the Euro-Atlantic area since 1949. The U.S.
    commitment to Article 5 not only reassures our NATO Allies that the
    U.S. will take action, in the event of an armed attack against one of
    more of them, to restore and maintain the security of the North
    Atlantic area; but it also serves to deter any potential aggressor from
    conducting an armed attack against any NATO nation, knowing the U.S.
    will respond, in accordance with Article 5. The 2014 Russian occupation
    and annexation of Crimea, and subsequent Russian backed and led
    fighting in the Donbass, has shown Russia's willingness to use force to
    achieve its objectives, and disregard for the sovereignty of
    independent nations. These Russian actions have led to concern and
    uncertainty in many of the democratic nations of Europe. The European
    Reassurance Initiative is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to
    democracy in Europe, reassures our democratic allies that we are
    committed to their sovereignty, and shows Russia that their efforts to
    undermine democracy in Europe will not be tolerated, and will be met
    with force if needed.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Wednesday, May 24, 2017.

                    NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU/RESERVE COMPONENTS

                                    WITNESS

    GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Granger--Panel 1

        Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
    order. This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on
    the posture of the National Guard and Reserve Components. This
    will be a two-panel hearing. Panel 1 recognizes the Chief of
    the National Guard Bureau. Panel 2 will recognize the Reserve
    Component Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force
    Reserves. I would encourage all members to stay for both
    panels.
        Our witness for panel 1 is General Joe Lengyel, Chief of
    the National Guard Bureau. We are pleased to welcome General
    Lengyel, a four-star sitting member of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff.
        Welcome, and welcome to the subcommittee hearing, your
    first time to testify as Chief. As Chief of the Guard Bureau,
    General Lengyel will address all joint Army and Air National
    Guard questions.
        General, we have known each other for a long time, and as
    Chairman, I value your knowledge and your experience in leading
    the National Guard. Given the challenges our Nation faces, we
    want to ensure that you have the resources and support to
    accomplish your mission. This subcommittee has provided the
    Guard with additional resources to the National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Account, an appropriation which has never
    been included in a President's budget request, additional
    funding for counterdrug operations, HMMWVs, helicopters, fixed-
    wing aircraft, and more.
        However, we are concerned this is not nearly enough when
    you take into account the funding is significantly less than
    the vast resources available to the Active Components. Our
    country stands for strength, and citizen soldiers are the
    background and the foundation of that strength. There are
    limited resources and significant needs. We should not make
    decisions in a vacuum. We will rely on your best military
    advice to guide these funding decisions. We look forward to
    your testimony and your insight. But, first, I would like to
    call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his
    comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. Well, I simply want to thank the Chairwoman
    for holding the hearing today and, General, for your service
    and your testimony. I look forward to it. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. General, please proceed with your testimony. A
    full written testimony will be placed in the record. Please
    feel free to summarize your oral statement so we can leave
    enough time to get to everyone's questions.

                      Summary Statement of General Lengyel

        General Lengyel. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very
    much.
        I think I say that to you and to Ranking Member Visclosky
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure
    for me to be here today, and I look forward to talking to you
    about the men and women of not only the Army National Guard but
    also the Air National Guard.
        In summary, the National Guard focuses on three things. It
    focuses on our warfighting mission, the homeland mission, and
    building partnerships. And thanks to the support from this
    committee, I can tell you that the National Guard that I have
    the honor to represent here today is the most ready it has ever
    been, I think, or the most capable National Guard it has ever
    been in our 380-year history.
        As I talk to you today, we have 18,000 men and women
    deployed in every combatant command around the globe. In
    addition to that, I have 4,000--you have 4,000 of your men and
    women working for homeland defense and Homeland Security
    missions here today. And we have made and continue to develop
    robust partnerships with not only our international partners
    through the State Partnership Program, which is about to go to
    79 partnerships when we formalize the relationship with
    Malaysia here in the near term--thanks to you and the funding
    that this committee has provided, that State Partnership
    Program has taken on a strategic impact that I think maybe,
    when we developed it, we didn't see that it was becoming.
        This committee provides the resources for us through NGREA,
    as you mentioned in your remarks, to maintain a force that is
    first ready for the war fight but used as a dual-nature force,
    as it is our job as the National Guard to be ready to provide
    those forces here in the homeland when the Governors and the
    States need us to do that. And never have we been more ready to
    do that, whether it is fires or floods or winter snowstorms or
    terrorists, such as bombs blown up in Boston, the National
    Guard is there, and we are trained, and we are ready because of
    the resources that this committee has chosen to give it.
        The relationship with our parent services, the Active Duty
    Air Force and the Active Duty Army, I have to tell you, has
    never been better. My relationship with General Milley and
    General Goldfein, who I understand testified yesterday, have
    committed to a Total Force that includes an operational use of
    the Reserve Component. And if I have one ask of this committee
    today, it is to maintain the Reserve Component, and, in my
    case, the National Guard, as an operational force. We have been
    driven to that because of the demands placed on our Department
    of Defense and the global nature of the threat.
        The services have had to rely more on the use of the Army
    National Guard and the Air National Guard than ever before, and
    because of that, they are willing to invest in us, invest in
    our leaders, invest in our training, and because of the
    resources this committee gives us, we have the equipment, the
    people, and the training to go there. Can we use more? Can we
    get better? Yes, we can. But I report to you today, and I thank
    this committee today for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General Lengyel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. I want to make our members
    aware that we will be using a timer for each member and that
    you have 5 minutes, including questions and responses, for the
    witness. A yellow light on your timer will appear when you have
    1 minute remaining. If time permits, we will have a second
    round of questions.
        I am going to ask a question to begin. General Lengyel,
    full-spectrum readiness training has been suppressed over the
    past 15 years due to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    In recent years, sequestration further squeezed the readiness
    dollars needed to resume such training. Could you describe the
    impact this has on military readiness now and in future years,
    and how does the fiscal year 2018 request begin to address
    those concerns?
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. I think you address the
    problem that the service Chiefs have talked about in terms of
    the ability to maintain full-spectrum readiness for their
    force, mostly because of the demand on that force and the
    limited funding to sustain things like flying hour programs,
    complex training scenario programs. But we are beginning to dig
    out of that and rebuild readiness inside the services and
    inside the National Guard.
        The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard have
    been used in an operational sense, which has allowed the
    services in some cases to maintain or rebuild their readiness.
        Sequestration clearly is going to limit every aspect, would
    limit every aspect of our ability to do that, should it come in
    the future. And I would tell you that predictable and
    dependable funding is probably the single most important factor
    that we in the National Guard need so that we can plan to
    recruit our people, so that we can plan to train our people,
    and so that we can maintain our equipment and recapitalize our
    equipment through the services as we normally do. So I think
    that clearly readiness is funding-related, and this budget
    begins to build some of that back, but it is going to take a
    long time before all of the things, the recapitalization and
    modernization of the force, are fully complete.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Visclosky.
        Mr. Visclosky. I will pass. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum.

                          FAMILY ASSISTANCE SPECIALIST

        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you. Good morning. I am
    going to touch on something, and then I have a question. So I
    am glad you are here today, in part because we are going to
    learn a lot more on how we can be a proactive partner in making
    sure that the Guard remains the successful part of our military
    force that it is.
        But I also want to take this opportunity to reinstate some
    concerns that I have with you about the family assistance
    specialists. It is still causing a lot of concern among my
    Guard members, family members, constituents which include the
    businesses that employ these Guard members and many, many other
    people in Minnesota and, I know, other States as well.
        As we talked about in my office, these specialists provide
    critical benefits and assistance. And in Minnesota alone, there
    were 1,700 cases handled by these folks. I understand there has
    been a new contract issued, but, folks, when someone's hourly
    wage increase for a job that they are doing is cut from $21 to
    11--to $14 an hour, it sends a message to the people who had
    been previously doing this job: You can work for less money, or
    your work is not valued.
        So we are going to be watching to see what happens with
    county veterans service offices in Minnesota's caseloads, what
    happens in our congressional office with caseloads now that the
    expertise isn't there. So I know you are going to be monitoring
    this, too, and change is always an option, and we need to maybe
    work with a new vendor or figure something out if this is a
    problem. Maybe it won't be, but we are a little alarmed.

                          ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

        What I would like to focus on is the five National Guard
    armored brigade combat teams. Currently, the operating tempo
    has been drastically increased so the number of training days
    for National Guard soldiers went from 60 to 90. That is an
    extra month, right, on average. So we know this increase in
    training days is important. But along with what we have
    happening with mobilization, deployments, it is putting more
    and more of a burden on the quality of life for soldiers, their
    units, and their families. So I am concerned and the Minnesota
    National Guard is concerned about long-term retention in these
    brigades. I know we want to make sure that we have a great
    readiness posture so everybody is able to perform their job
    successfully and come home safely.
        But can you tell me how you are going to be monitoring and
    some of the concerns that you might have with going from 39 to
    60 days on average?
        General Lengyel. Well, yes, ma'am. I can tell you that we
    are aware of this issue, and that is one of the things as the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau that I track closely, is I
    worry about the business model of the National Guard, which
    means our soldiers and airmen have a civilian life and a
    military life. And if I lose support from the soldier or airman
    to support both of those lives, if he is forced to make a
    choice or she is forced to make a choice, then I know which one
    they will pick, and most likely I will lose that soldier or
    that airman.
        So what we are trying to do, as you are aware is, yes, it
    is true that the armored brigade combat teams will require more
    training to be ready should the United States Army need them to
    fight in any of the various scenarios where they will be.
        I will tell you that some of this transformation has
    already happened in terms of the Army force generation model
    previously has been for several years now a graduated increase
    in the training requirements as the brigade progresses through
    its training cycle just before it is available to be deployed,
    and that is not new.
        What is new is that the United States Army has decided to
    increase the training available to the brigade combat teams. We
    are going to go from two combat training center rotations a
    year to four combat training centers a year. In my estimation,
    that is a good thing in that it is going to make this
    operational Army National Guard more valuable to the country,
    more valuable to the Army, and more ready so it can be ready
    quicker should it go out the door.
        To your point about how are we going to monitor them, well,
    I think that this is a leadership issue. This is something
    where we have to watch the people, personal engagement on my
    part, on the adjutant general's part, on the commander's part,
    with making sure that the schedules that we give these soldiers
    are predictable, that we let the employers know that you can
    count on these soldiers, and that these increased training
    times actually result in a deployment for the soldiers at the
    end. Otherwise, they won't be seen as a reason why--why should
    an employer endure the extended time away from their jobs if,
    at the end of that training period, they don't use them? So, as
    we are going through this now, the plan is for the Army to use
    these forces and deploy them.
        This is the first cycle of this, and some people have
    decided that they have to change. They can't support it, and
    they will change MOSes and go someplace else. I lived this in
    the Air National Guard myself as a guardsman in the mid-1990s,
    when we began to deploy regularly, and it definitely changes
    the paradigm. So there will be a change as this goes forward,
    and we are going to have to work with the employers and the
    members to the maximum extent possible so that we don't lose
    them.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Well, thank you for your answer,
    and I am taking it in the spirit in which I think you totally
    meant it, but I am going to put a cautionary tale on it. This
    just isn't about leadership to put up and to be quiet about it.
    This is also about leadership to see if we need to go back and
    review and figure out how these folks are not only trained but
    deployed in the future.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you. Chairman Emeritus Rogers.

                                  END STRENGTH

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Welcome, General, to these premises. Let me ask you, the
    Guard has a dual responsibility, one to the State of their
    location, the Governor, and, of course, then the combatant
    commands on the Federal level. The previous administration
    proposed cuts, continued cuts, to Guard end strength. But our
    2017 bill reversed those cuts to end strength and will add
    1,000 Army Guard troops above the 2016 level. Tell us how you
    are going to utilize that extra manpower.
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you. That is true, and we
    are happy to see that the reduction in end strength stopped for
    the Army National Guard. And because of the two missions we
    have, when force structure leaves our States, it is a double
    hit. It is a hit against the Federal mission, and it is a hit
    against the ability to do our homeland mission. So our plan is
    to take the additional manpower that we have. If you recall, we
    were on a glide path to 335,000 force structure inside the Army
    National Guard. It stopped at 342,000 last year, and we were
    able to grow it back 1,000 to 343,000 this year. Our intent is
    to take that additional manpower, and as I talked about on the
    five brigade combat teams, is we are going to place it against
    and increase the readiness of these high-demand, operationally
    deploying units that will make them more ready, be able to get
    ready quicker, and train as they go.
        One of the concerns, frankly, of the increased manpower is
    we got the people back, but we didn't get the increased full-
    time support back with it. We got the part-time soldiers back.
    We took the full-timers out all the way down to 335,000. We
    built the Army Guard back up to 343,000, but they were part-
    time billets and not full-time billets. And that hurts our
    ability to generate the force quickly and keep it ready and
    minimize the time it takes to get it ready to go out the door.

                              COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

        Mr. Rogers. In my State, and I suspect I speak for all
    States when I say this, we have got a tremendous, incredible
    drug problem. And in my area, the Guard has had a great program
    to eradicate marijuana in the remote hills of Appalachia, where
    it is apparently a very great climate for the growth of
    marijuana. But that Guard unit has just been tremendous. In
    joint support operations, they have eradicated 13 million
    marijuana plants. They have seized tons of marijuana, illegal
    weapons, and so forth, all to the tune of $25 billion.
        And we are seeing now across the country an effort
    apparently to make marijuana legal. But in the hills of
    Kentucky--and I have been on a couple of these missions where
    they fly into a very remote area of mountains, no homes or
    properties of any kind--mainly the marijuana is grown under
    high-tension electric wires right-of-way. Number one, you can't
    prove who owns it. And, number two, you can't get there with a
    helicopter because of the electric lines and the like. And the
    troopers have to rappel down a rope, cut the marijuana, put it
    in a big bag, put it over their shoulder, and they are picked
    up by the helicopter and carried 50 miles dangling 100 feet
    from below a helicopter. Very dangerous work but very
    productive. Do you see that continuing, and what can we do to
    help you see that?
        General Lengyel. Well, first, let me thank this committee
    for the $234 million we got in this year's appropriation for
    the Counterdrug Program. That Counterdrug Program, as you said,
    sir, is incredibly important, I believe, to leverage the skill
    sets that we have in the National Guard to facilitate and work
    with law enforcement to detect, disrupt, curtail illegal drug
    activities in every State.
        As you mentioned, the State of Kentucky has an issue with
    marijuana, and I think that, you know, as you look across the
    Nation, every State's program is tailored for the individual
    requirements that they have inside their State, and that is the
    way it should be. So, as we look at the disbursement of the
    $234 million, we have what is called the threat-based resource
    model, which has about 70 different factors. It allows each
    State to prioritize what is important to them such that when
    they come into the pool, their particular problem gets
    resourced, and then the States use those funds and develop
    their own plan, and in your case, sir, it is the eradication of
    marijuana inside Kentucky. And so I want to be able to continue
    to support that.
        I want to thank this committee for the continued funding of
    that program. Your funding of that program has enabled not only
    a robust liaison with law enforcement, but the schooling, the
    five additional schools that are funded have allowed us to
    build additional capacity to fight this drug issue, whether it
    is marijuana or opioids or heroin or synthetics. And we all
    know the significant toll that that has taken on our country
    across the Nation.
        Mr. Rogers. You mentioned opioids. My area was ground zero
    14 years ago at the outset of an OxyContin rage that raged
    across the country. But these marijuana growers frequently are
    the dealers in opioids, and it is a double whammy with the
    money that we put into the antimarijuana program because it
    does bring in additional breakers of the law.
        Well, we appreciate your service, sir.
        General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                                RUSSIA AGRESSION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for being here, and also we do
    appreciate your service and what you do in our hometowns and
    also what you are doing to fight the war with ISIS and the
    other issues we deal with.
        I come from local government, so many, many times with
    storms and hurricanes, the National Guard has been there. And I
    also want to get a little local, but I want to acknowledge the
    Adjutant General Linda Singh, who is doing a great job in
    Maryland, is heading that area.
        As you know, the National Guard also plays a critical role
    in deterring Russia's aggression. I was just in Estonia about 3
    weeks ago, and Maryland National Guard has about 500 members
    there right now that are working on the cyber capability and
    helping Estonia deal with the Russian aggression and Russian
    hacks and those types of things.
        And when we met, I think a couple months ago, you said it
    was critical that Russia must respect the frontline National
    Guard combat units as well as the full time. And do you believe
    at this point that Russia sees the National Guard units in a
    strength position? Where do you feel we are at this point? Are
    there additional capabilities that this committee needs to help
    fund to get you to that level? And then also if you have time--
    I think we do--I want to talk, if you can talk a little bit
    about that Maryland National Guard in Estonia and what their
    mission is and what they are doing, and what is their future
    there?
        General Lengyel. Congressman, I think when the Russians
    look across in Estonia or anywhere else in uniform and they see
    men and women in the Army, wearing an Army uniform, they see
    the United States Army. That is what I think they see. I think
    that is thanks in many ways to this committee. It is in thanks
    to 15 years or more now of continuous deployments, of
    integration of Army National Guard formations with Active
    Component formations, of a Total Force policy from General
    Milley and those on his staff that support this associate unit
    pilot program that is training our brigades with the Active
    Army brigades, aligning their formations so that we can train
    together and fight together.
        And I do think that everywhere I go--I was in the Sinai
    Peninsula this past week. I saw the swap out of an infantry
    brigade from Minnesota National Guard to the Massachusetts
    National Guard in the Sinai for the multinational force and
    observer mission, and I can tell you that they see no
    difference when they look across and they see, whether it is
    combat maneuver forces or whether it is combat support
    services, they are wearing the United States Army uniform. And
    there is one training standard for the Army, and the National
    Guard doesn't have a different one. The National Guard will
    train, will deploy, will be ready at the same training standard
    as the United States Army, and that is what I think Russia
    sees.
        And the second part of your question, Estonia, the State
    Partnership Program--and, again, thanks for the significant
    amounts of plus ups that you gave us for this year; I believe
    we got an additional $9 million added to the program from this
    committee--that enables the engagements we have. The cyber
    relationship with Estonia and their Cyber Center of Excellence
    over there, is a model for programs around the globe. That
    engagement since 1993, they were among the first three programs
    that started in the Baltics with us there. That ability to
    assure our allies of the United States' commitment to the
    region, that ability to train together with the forces in the
    region, have had a strategic impact on our ability to assure
    and strengthen the NATO alliance. And my thanks to Linda Singh,
    who has been a great supporter of that, the State Maryland, and
    everyone else who is part of that.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, Estonia is only 120 miles from
    Russia, and Putin is continuing to threaten it. And they had
    one of those severe attacks, and as a country, they only have
    close to a million people. They decided they were going to take
    on Russia. And with our help, the United States' help and
    working with them, they have become pretty sophisticated, I
    think, from all the countries in that region dealing with the
    Russian aggression and trying to counter the Russian attacks.
        General Lengyel. Absolutely.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert.

                    MODERNIZATION RECAPITALIZATION STRATEGY

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Good morning, General Lengyel. Thank you for appearing
    before the committee, and thank you for your dedicated service
    to our great Nation, especially on the eve of honoring those
    who sacrificed everything in the service of our country this
    coming Memorial Day.
        Readiness is the most dangerous limiting factor across all
    branches of our military, ranging from the timely training of
    personnel to aging aircraft. Congress, as you are aware, has
    appropriated additional funds for Army aircraft procurement,
    specifically for Black Hawk helicopters. In fiscal year 2017,
    Congress provided the Army National Guard with 15 additional
    Black Hawks. As you may know, my home State of California is
    one of the country's most active emergency response forces, and
    its primary workhorse for aerial support is the Black Hawk
    helicopter. California flies one of the oldest fleets of Black
    Hawks in the country. Sixty-five percent of them were built
    before 1990. In 2015, only 55 percent of the State's Black Hawk
    fleet was operational at any given time.
        Please explain to us your current modernization
    recapitalization strategy for allocating these aircraft and
    those projected in fiscal year 2018 and 2019. When do you
    expect the States to receive the first of those additional
    aircraft?
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you and to this committee
    for the funding for the 15 Black Hawks. I think that, as we do
    with all our dispersion of equipment and recapitalization and
    modernization decisions, we look across the enterprise and see
    where it best makes sense to recapitalize a fleet at the time.
    I am not exactly sure yet when those Black Hawks are going to
    get delivered. I think that will make a case to determine when
    we get them. We will look at things like readiness as a fleet,
    maintenance statistics of the fleet, the sustainment levels of
    the fleet, potential deployments and utilization of those for
    our three missions--war fight, homeland, and partnerships--and,
    at the time, work with the Army National Guard to determine
    where its best to deploy those additional 15 Black Hawks. That
    is how we look at every stationing of all equipment, sir, and I
    thank you for your support of getting those Black Hawks.
        Mr. Calvert. I hope in that process you think of good ole
    California.
        General Lengyel. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

                             COUNTERDRUG OPERATION

        Mr. Calvert. To carry on with Chairman Rogers' line of
    questioning, combating terrorism and protecting our national
    interests abroad is only a part of the Guard's expansive
    mission. Protecting the homeland through the counterdrug
    operation is a vital mission I know that you take very
    seriously. In my area and throughout the United States, what
    are you seeing from these drug cartels, and do you see any
    association or collaboration between cartels and terrorist
    organizations?
        General Lengyel. So, sir, I think the consensus is that
    they are one in the same. I think that the money from the drug
    cartels is part and parcel to terrorist organizations. And
    counterterrorist organizations, countertransnational criminal
    organizations are all networked and aligned and work against
    the security of the United States.
        Mr. Calvert. Do you see any collaboration outside of
    organizations in South America, or are there organizations
    outside of South America involved in the drug activities?
        General Lengyel. It is a global network, no question. It is
    not limited to South America. The funding streams, part of the
    things that the National Guard provides is counterthreat
    finance analysis. We train people who do these kinds of
    analysis in great detail, and it is clear that funding streams
    in these networks are not geographically limited. They are
    global in their nature. No question.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Cuellar.

                    NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, again, thank you for your service.
        A couple things. There are some of us who pushed for two
    items. One was the million dollars more to the National Guard
    State Partnership Program, from 8 to 9. I would like to get
    your thoughts, what you are looking at doing with that extra
    money. And the other item was the, I think, fiscal year for the
    Counterdrug Program was 192, and some of us pushed it to $234
    million. So I would like to get your quick thoughts on those,
    and then I would like to ask you a question about Operation
    Phalanx.
        General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I mentioned the
    State Partnership Program and thanks to your funding, it is an
    incredible tool, strategic tools, for the Department of
    Defense, for the country, for our States. And the $234 million,
    my only worry is we got it so late in the year, I am worried
    that getting the money this late will be difficult for us to
    execute some of it because, as you know, we have the posture in
    the SPP, troops and people to go, and events, and work with
    host-nation countries, and some of these things take time to
    develop.
        Mr. Cuellar. And we understand.
        General Lengyel. But, clearly, we can spend every bit of
    money you give us for the State Partnership Program, given the
    lead time to spend it. And the same thing for the Counterdrug
    Program. There is no shortage of requirements or asks from law
    enforcement agencies for what we do across the program. So
    absolutely thank you for the----

                               OPERATION PHALANX

        Mr. Cuellar. If you want to just share with the committee
    and ourselves later on what your plans are, I would like to do
    that. I know the last time we were with Chairman Rogers and Mr.
    Womack, we went down to South America, and there are some
    partnerships out there. Chile has one with Texas, and you have
    other States also. Do you all have anything with Mexico? I know
    we have been trying to do something with Mexico. If we can help
    you, it would only make sense that our largest neighbor, at
    least to the south, is one. So if we can help you on that, let
    me just say that. We can follow up.
        I do want to ask you about Operation Phalanx. I know that
    Chairman Carter and Governor Abbott and I have been working on
    it. As you know, when you have Border Patrol, and they are
    doing night operations, the Air Marine, with all due respect,
    they do it during the day. They don't want to go out at
    nighttime. But you still have Border Patrol that are going out
    there, and you got to have something at nighttime, and
    unfortunately, some of our Air Marine folks, and we can address
    this later, but they don't go after 5 o'clock. And now they are
    trying to move away from the border, trying to set up--like
    they have a base in Laredo. They want to move to San Antonio.
    They want to be away from the border, which is
    counterintuitive. But the National Guard has done a heck of a
    job.
        We added some money, the leadership of John Carter and
    other folks, we added some money for Operation Phalanx, but
    what happened was that the Homeland Secretary, the previous
    Homeland Secretary, even though the money was there, they never
    asked. Then they send this little letter that really didn't
    mean anything. It was a feel-good letter. Then we contacted the
    new Secretary of Homeland, and his people are not familiar with
    it. You are familiar with it. We would ask you to get a hold of
    the new Secretary's office, and I believe the money is there.
    And whatever you all can do, because we got to give our men and
    women of the Border Patrol support at nighttime. It is unfair
    that they are out there in the night and there is no aerial
    support for them. So I would like to--I got about a minute and
    a half, but if you can finish on that thought, some of us,
    including Governor Abbott and ourselves, are big supporters of
    this.
        General Lengyel. Sir, I thank you for the $19 million for
    Operation Phalanx. I have already spoken to Secretary Kelly. I
    went to his office, and I met with him, and I told him about my
    recent trip to the Southwest border, McAllen was one place I
    went, and also in Nogales in Arizona, at the request of Senator
    McCain, to see the Southwest border. And I saw firsthand the
    need, the requirement, for additional air support to the folks
    who are on the border, the Customs and Border Protection agents
    who are there. I rode in an Army National Guard helicopter at
    night flying as part of the Counterdrug Program, with a Customs
    and Border Protection agent in the helicopter, and I must share
    with the committee it was not much different than what you see
    on TV for taking down a spot in Afghanistan. There weren't
    bullets and things flying along, but there were escorters.
    There were people running. There were police officers trying to
    apprehend them. And it is absolutely useful. So I commit to go
    back to Secretary Kelly, and I already have, and provided his
    staff a briefing on the capability we can provide.
        Mr. Cuellar. I know John Carter and other folks are
    interested, but if you can keep us informed, we really would
    appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
        My time is up. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Womack.

                               FULL-TIME MANNING

        Mr. Womack. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to
    General Lengyel for his leadership and the work of our National
    Guard both on the Army and the Air side. Great questions coming
    from my colleagues today, talking about things like Border
    Patrol, security, counterdrug, operational tempo, Black Hawks,
    and those kinds of things.
        I am going to open a line of questioning about what I
    consider to be the single biggest issue facing our Guard today,
    and that is in relation to full-time manning. It is not a sexy
    subject. But it is a critical subject if we are going to
    continue to utilize our National Guard, as we should, as an
    operational force. As an example--and you correct me if I am
    wrong--when we were doing the drawdown on end strength, the
    Army Guard was scheduled to go to a number, and we were on the
    glide path to get to that number. And proportionately, full-
    time manning was cut based on that number. And then when this
    Congress gives money back to the Guard for end strength and we
    increase that end strength, not increased was the proportionate
    loss of the full-time manning. That is insane that we would
    allow this to happen.
        So my question for you, General Lengyel is, how has this
    happened, and what is this doing to impact the readiness of a
    critical operational force for our military and our National
    Guard? Take all the time you need.
        General Lengyel. All right, sir. Thank you very much for
    that question. And so our business model in the National Guard
    is different. And I am a protector of that business model. I
    don't want to look like the United States Army. I do not want
    to look like the United States Air Force. We need to remain a
    preponderantly part-time force. That is the value in it for
    this country and for what we do.
        The United States Air National Guard is about 35 percent
    full-time. In its 100,000 people, 105,000, it is about 35
    percent full-time. In the Army National Guard, 343,000 people,
    we are about 16 percent full-time. What that full-time force
    does, and the only reason we have them and the only reason I am
    here before you today is to make ready for the United States
    Army and United States Air Force and the Governors in our
    States, is to make ready that force, to be ready, to be manned,
    to be trained, to be equipped, so that we can do the missions.
    That is why we have full-time people in the Army National
    Guard.
        So you need to understand why they were gone. Money--I
    understand why they are gone, why we took them. We had
    incredible bills to pay. In our budgets, that is where all our
    money is. Our money is in that small chunk of change, $16
    billion in the Army Guard. Two-thirds of that is people. Most
    of that is people. Same thing for the Air National Guard. So
    that is why it went. We had bills to pay and sequestrations and
    drawdowns and budgets. But what this force does is it prepares
    the force so that, when they come to drill for the 39 days or
    the 45 days or the 60 days, they have the structure to do the
    collective training they need to do to do their wartime
    tasking. They make sure that the equipment that they need to
    train on, the tanks and the Bradleys, that they work, that the
    aircraft are flyable, so that when the people come in, they can
    fly not only together, but they can fly in collective training,
    and they can do the kinds of training that the Army needs them
    to do. Same thing for the Air Force side. So the full-time
    support piece is what enables us to make the Army National
    Guard ready quicker. They come in and they prepare for a
    military unit training assembly for people to come in for a
    drill, and they put them together for 3 and 4 days at a time so
    that they can do some more training. They build the
    battlefield. They build the command post. They build everything
    so the soldiers come in, they get out of their pickup truck,
    they walk into the field, and they train. So, without the full-
    time support, then they waste time. They have to come in. They
    have to build the battlefield. They have to train. They have to
    fix the equipment so they can fly it. It is incredibly
    important.
        I am not looking for huge numbers of--by the way, I am
    looking at my staff, NGB, where do we have full-time people
    right now so that, if I could, I could put some back out into
    the fields so that they can help make the operational force
    more ready. And I would tell you that I think if we are going
    to be ready quicker, stay an operational force, we are going to
    have to slowly increase the percentage of full-time support in
    the Army National Guard.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan.

                     RESERVE COMPONENT BENEFITS PARITY ACT

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Let me associate myself with all of my colleagues' remarks.
    Since I have been here, I agree they have got some great
    questions.
        First, thank you. Obviously, Ohio is a huge part of the
    team and has deployed and will continue to deploy around the
    globe. And we know that post-9/11 use of the Guard has been a
    big part of our plan. One of the things I am concerned with is
    making sure that we are providing the benefits that match the
    service our National Guard are providing. And I understand
    there are significant differences in the benefits provided to
    our National Guard based upon minor administrative coding
    orders, and I will give you an example. I have cosponsored the
    bipartisan Reserve Component Benefits Parity Act designed to
    ensure National Guard who are activated in administrative
    codes, such as 12304(a) and 12304(b) of title 10, U.S. Code,
    are treated in the same manner as other Active Duty orders for
    determining veterans' benefits. This issue and many like it
    were documented in the October 1, 2014, Reserve Force's policy
    board memorandum, and yet we are still struggling to make sure
    that our National Guard and Reserve get the correct benefits
    that they have earned.
        So what have we done to focus on educating our National
    Guard and Reserve on the differences administrative coding can
    make in veteran benefits? And how is your leadership making
    every effort to correctly reflect the importance of military
    service of our National Guard and Reserve by using the
    appropriate coding so their service counts toward their earned
    benefits?
        General Lengyel. Sir, I think this is one of the more
    important issues that we need to fix going forward, is the
    parity of benefits for service. I am thankful for the Parity
    Act. I completely think it is the right thing to do. 12304
    bravo was a flexible mobilization authority given to the
    service Secretaries which has enabled access, mobilization of
    the force. However, when they created it, funding numbers being
    what they were, they didn't attach all the entitlements that go
    with it. So the soldiers who are in the Sinai who I just spoke
    to, they want this fixed.
        Mr. Ryan. How are we coming with it? We are getting calls
    on this, and this is obviously a pocketbook issue for so many?
    Are we making some progress on this?
        General Lengyel. The awareness that thing has got is we
    have got to fix it here. We have got to find the resources to
    put against it so that there is no difference so that they are
    entitled to healthcare beyond 180 days when they come back, so
    that they are entitled to post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits,
    so that they have access to early retirement as per other
    mobilization authorities.
        So what my soldiers are doing, what the soldiers from the
    States are doing, is they are changing their mobilization
    authority to voluntary status, which doesn't give them the
    protections of the dwell periods that we talked about earlier
    with Congresswoman McCollum; that is, they are voluntarily
    giving up their rights to serve their employers and their
    families and give themselves their dwell period as citizens so
    that they can get the health benefits and retirement benefits
    that they deserve. So I ask for your continued support here. It
    is an important issue that needs to be fixed.
        I think that the commission that was established a couple
    years ago, MCRMC commission--I am sorry; I can't spit out that
    acronym for you, exactly what it is--retirement benefits and
    duty status reform, OSD is actually working on behalf of all of
    the Reserve Components, not just National Guard, to streamline
    and make right the entitlements that go with pay and duty
    status, like service equals like pay in benefits. So I do
    sense, inside the Department at least, there is a push to make
    that happen and a push to make the reform. There will be a bill
    with it to do it, but it is the right thing to do.

                               OPIATE DRUG ISSUE

        Mr. Ryan. Well, we need you to continue to push us, and we
    will push you and hopefully make some progress. Real quick
    because I only have 30-some seconds, I know the chairman
    brought up earlier the opiate drug issue. Are you starting to
    make a distinction in prioritization of opiates versus
    marijuana because the problem is so big? Are you prioritizing
    how you are deploying your resources, I guess I should say?
        General Lengyel. So, because of the rise and the
    devastating effects of the opiate piece, it has taken on a more
    important role in the threat-based resource model. That team
    has come together, which is adjutant generals from the States,
    its academic institutions who study this. It is subject-matter
    experts who come together. There used to be 20 variables per
    State, because, as I said earlier, every State has a unique and
    distinct environment that threatens their State. So we need a
    model that is flexible so that each State can articulate it.
    And so the opioid issue has risen inside that threat-based
    resource model, and we will apply the right authority to it.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Carter.

                            ASSOCIATED UNITS PROGRAM

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        General Lengyel, I welcome a fellow Texan.
        I want to thank my friend, Mr. Cuellar, for raising the
    issue on the border, and I associate myself with all the
    conversation we have had today.
        General, our Associated Pilot Program, high-demand National
    Guard units see more training days in combat training center
    rotations as part of the Army Associated Units Pilot Program.
    We talked about that a little bit. The Army requires training
    together to increase the readiness across all three components,
    keep up the demand for soldiers around the world. Can you
    provide the committee with an assessment of the Associated
    Pilots Program to date and if you feel like you are meeting the
    accomplishments that you are seeking to meet? And are there any
    additional funding requirements that you feel like we should
    know about as we go forward?
        And I am reading a book called ``Fast Tanks and Heavy
    Bombers'' that General Milley gave me. And I would venture to
    say that the National Guard trains more than the regular Army
    did. Today, we train more than the regular Army did during this
    period of time between World War I and World War II, and that
    is an amazing change in the Guard's requirements. Would you
    tell us a little bit about that, sir?
        General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
        I am thankful for the Commission and their recommendations
    that came up with the Associated Units Program. It is a test,
    and I am thankful that General Milley has embraced it. And by
    all counts so far, I am willing to say that, from every
    indication I have, it is a success. It has been embraced by the
    Army. It has been embraced by the Army National Guard. It has
    resulted in people swapping unit patches and becoming part of
    each other's uniform. It is a fundamental cultural change of
    integrating the Air National Guard into the United States Army,
    and I think only good things will come from it.
        Time will tell. We will look at the end of this, and we
    will determine, has our readiness increased? I will tell you
    what is increasing: the trust in each other, the ability and
    the awareness of the commanders, the sharing of resources and
    training, the utilization of our force. Everything has gotten
    better since we have become this operational force, and I
    believe the Army Unit Pilot Program, the Associated Units, is
    nothing but good. That is incredible.
        With respect to how we train, I couldn't be more impressed.
    I spent the last 5 years of my life learning about the Army and
    the Army National Guard and how we train. It is an amazing
    undertaking to train a brigade combat team. It is logistically
    complex. To amass the forces and equipment and training that
    you need in the right places where you can actually use them
    and train on them, it takes an immense amount of coordination,
    and, quite frankly, it is expensive.
        Where we save the money is the 27 brigades that we have in
    the Army National Guard save you a little money when they are
    not training. We cost the same when you use us. We cost the
    same when you train us, but when you are not using us, we save
    some money. So it is my job, I think--you don't want 27
    brigades in the Army National Guard at C-1. That is not where
    you save money because it will spoil that readiness before you
    use it. So we want to meter that readiness. We want to make
    them ready faster. General Milley needs us inside of 60 days,
    inside of 90 days, if something happens in North Korea.
        We have to look hard at our business models. We have to
    look hard at the mobilization process. How do we mobilize? How
    can we mobilize faster? I think that is what we are trying to
    do in the Army National Guard Service, is make that force ready
    quicker, and be ready to participate as part of the Army as
    fast as they need us.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. We are very proud of you.
        General Lengyel. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mrs. Roby.

                           CURRENT OPERATIONAL TEMPO

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you, sir, for
    being here. It is great to see you again. I have a few
    questions but first a few comments.
        As you know, the Site Survey Team is in Montgomery right
    now with the 187th Fighter Wing and at Dannelly Field for the
    future fielding of the F-35. And as a long supporter of the F-
    35 program, it is exciting to see how much progress the program
    has made, and I would be remiss if I didn't take the
    opportunity to say to you that, if there are any questions from
    the Guard for the community or for any Member of the Alabama
    delegation, we continue to make ourselves available to you. The
    Alabama delegation, of course, in the community and our State
    is so excited about this possibility.
        In your testimony, you highlight the numerous deployments
    that the Guard has performed since 9/11 and the fact that the
    operational tempo today remains very high. And so I want to
    thank you and all members of the National Guard for your
    selfless service in protecting the Nation in these challenging
    times and the sacrifice of your families.
        I am concerned, however, and have recently had some
    conversations with friends of mine who served about how
    sustainable current operational tempo is and what has been
    brought to my attention as it relates to dwell time. We have
    placed a huge burden on our Guard families and not to mention
    their employers. And the question I have, are we placing too
    much on the Guard to constantly be an operational partner? And
    I have heard the comments of my colleagues in here, and I
    listened to you as well. But when my phone rings and it is a
    member of the Guard who has served both in the Active, for many
    years in the Active Component, and now as a pilot in the Guard,
    and what is being communicated to me is that there is concern
    by those who continue to serve their country hearing these
    rumors about a decrease in the dwell time from 5-to-1 to 4-to-
    1, and then is that a slippery slope? So I just really wanted
    you to take an opportunity to address these concerns that I
    have heard and I am sure others have as well.
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am, the concerns are real. I think
    you probably heard from the fellow Joint Chiefs yesterday that
    the threats that the country is facing is absolutely going to
    require the continued operational use of the National Guard.
        One of the things that you are seeing in Alabama,
    particularly in the 135 arena, KC-135 arena, so, because all of
    these issues that we are dealing with are far away, they
    require a lot of air refueling capability. For the past 15
    years, the Air Force has had the good fortune to have, you
    know, pretty much a downturn in the airlines cycle in which
    they had pilots available and willing to work who were either
    waiting or not engaged in an airline job. And so the
    volunteerism of people who were able to deploy beyond normal
    mobilized deployment was high. And so what has happened now is
    the availability that the airline industry is booming. They
    have a large draw on our pilot force who are now fully engaged
    in a civilian job, and so that volunteerism is beginning to be
    harder to get.
        You have to keep in mind what our units are funded to do.
    So there are areas that are being stressed on the utilization,
    and I would tell you that KC-135s are one of them. Writ large
    across the force, we are using, as I mentioned in my remarks
    opening statement, 18,000 men and women deployed right now
    today. If you go back 10 years ago, we had 70,000 men and women
    deployed today, and an average of that for over 10 years. So I
    characterize the sustainability of our force, the utilization
    of our force right now, as a normal walk, maybe a brisk walk.
    Whereas, 10 years ago, 2005, with 100,000 people deployed plus
    50,000 during Hurricane Katrina, that was a full-out sprint,
    and that would not have been sustainable. Overall, writ large
    across the force, we can sustain what we are doing today, but
    we have to be careful and look at specific threatened areas
    like KC-135s and work to do that, and maybe associations can
    help. Maybe we can put additional Active pilots in there, and
    they can take on some of those flying responsibilities.
        Mrs. Roby. I certainly don't claim to have the solution,
    and that is why I wanted to just bring it to your attention and
    continue to have this conversation. These men and women are
    there because they want to be there and because they love their
    country, and I know we all recognize that, but I do appreciate
    your commitment to them, and I would like to continue to have
    this conversation with you down the road.
        General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                              COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
        A couple of statements. First of all, General, there is a
    series of questions for the record on the Tactical Wheeled
    Vehicle Strategy for the Guard and certainly attaching
    importance to that program. I will be interested in the Guard's
    response.
        I would join with a number of my colleagues who have
    mentioned the Counterdrug Program, very important in our State,
    particularly important in my congressional district, and I do
    appreciate the Guard's work with the local communities.
        Also, it has been talked about, the partnership act. I
    think it is a very enriching program for the Guard, for our
    country, for the other countries we are involved with. I am
    very proud again that our State now has two such partnerships.
    I was interested in the exchange you had with Mr. Ryan, and I
    will be interested in the Guard following up on his question.
    Some years ago, I asked in a different fashion the same
    question. Some years ago, the Guard said they were working on
    it. So I would hope that some progress is being made.

                    HOMELAND SECURITY AND NATIONAL DISASTERS

        For the questions I have, there has been mention of the
    Guard's responsibility for homeland security, for responses to
    national disasters. You just mentioned Katrina. As far as
    equipment in the Guard, as far as training of the Guard, when
    you do have a hurricane--it could be in Florida; it can be a
    tornado in a Midwestern State, wildfire--are there enough
    training dollars? Are there particular types of training
    programs that we should be attuned to that may not be fully
    funded? Are there types of equipment for some of these natural
    disasters that Guard units across the country may not have
    adequate resources for? We are always thinking of overseas
    deployment, homeland protection, but if there is that natural
    disaster, is there something we are missing here as far as the
    needs that you and the Guard have?
        General Lengyel. Sir, I thank you. You know, I think one
    thing I would point out is thanks for NGREA money that we get
    that allows us to buy some of the equipment that we use
    specifically for the homeland, communications stuff, engineer
    stuff, modernize our aviation fleet with things that help us do
    our homeland mission. A lot of that is done for and used by the
    NGREA account.
        The money that we get in the Counterdrug Program to have
    the schools and to train our servicemembers to be value-added,
    for that helps us. And I consider the counterdrug a huge part
    of the Homeland Security mission and support mission that we
    do.
        I don't have a specific additional ask for you. I would
    tell you that we are looking right now at our cyber training
    requirements. Although I will say, for the most part, our cyber
    training schools are on track, the money that this committee
    gives us--I think we had $12 million this year for the Army
    National Guard to fund the positions that allow us to build and
    grow out our cyber network--we wouldn't be able to do that
    without the money. Although the training is validated by the
    Army, it is not yet funded, is straight in our baseline budget.
    So, without the funding that we get from this committee, we
    wouldn't be able to complete those kinds of training things. So
    I will give you a more direct list, but those are the things
    that come to mind as I sit here right now.
        Mr. Visclosky. I mean, as far as natural disasters, there
    is nothing that comes to mind that we are missing as far as
    resources?
        Okay, thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. General Lengyel, thank you for your time and
    your attention to this concern.
        This will conclude panel one.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army National Guard (ARNG) has identified several domestic
    operations equipment priorities. The ARNG requires $4.1 billion to
    modernize its Black Hawk inventory A models to M models and $100
    million for HMMWV modernization. Equipping needs for disaster response
    include Hydraulic Excavators, High Mobility Engineer Excavators, and
    Heavy Scrapers ($117.5 million), nine additional Disaster Incident
    Response Emergency Communications Terminal systems ($13.5 million), and
    CBRN detection and protection equipment for ARNG first responders ($1.2
    million). The Air National Guard (ANG) domestic operations equipment
    needs include personal protective equipment, such as modernized EOD
    bomb suits ($3 million) and Emergency Responder Personal Protective
    Gear Decontaminators for ANG Fire and Emergency Services flights ($1.8
    million). Aircraft modernization priorities include KC-135 Fuel Off-
    Load Hoses ($0.3 million), HH-60 Firefighting and Search and Rescue
    modernization ($1.7 million), and RPA Sense and Avoid systems for MQ-9
    Launch and Recovery elements ($25 million).
                               RESERVE COMPONENTS

                                   WITNESSES

    LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY, CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE
    VICE ADMIRAL LUKE MCCOLLUM, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL REX MCMILLIAN, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARYANNE MILLER, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Granger--Panel 2

        Ms. Granger. We will now move to panel two: The Army, Navy,
    Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves. I would encourage all
    members to please stay for this panel. We are going to break
    for just 3 minutes to change panels.
        General Lengyel. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Granger. If you will be seated, please.
        Our second panel this morning consists of leaders of the
    Reserve Components: Lieutenant General Charles Luckey, Chief of
    the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Luke McCollum, Chief of the Navy
    Reserve; Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, Commander, Marine
    Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, Chief of
    the Air Force Reserve.
        We are pleased to welcome these four very distinguished
    general officers as witnesses today, and the subcommittee
    thanks each of you for your service.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks for the first panel,
    this country relies now, perhaps more than ever, upon the
    service of your soldiers, sailors, and airmen to ensure mission
    success. The committee commends the Reserve Components for
    their dedication to service and to our Nation. We look forward
    to your testimony and your insight, but first, I would like to
    call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his
    comments.
        Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I appreciate again that you are
    holding this hearing, and appreciate the panel before us for
    your testimony and your service, and I look forward to hearing
    it. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        General, please proceed with your testimony. Your full
    written testimony will be placed in the record. Please
    summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time to
    get to everyone's questions.

                      Summary Statement of General Luckey

        General Luckey. Chairwoman Granger, Vice Chairman
    Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, I will keep
    my remarks brief, as the chairwoman just requested. I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
    morning. It is an awesome opportunity and an honor for me to
    represent the 200,000 soldiers of America's Army Reserve, who
    are serving today across 20 time zones and around the globe. On
    behalf of them, their families, the employers of America, and
    the Department of Army civilians who support us, I want to
    thank each of you for your unwavering support and commitment to
    this team.
        As I noted in my posture statement, which has been filed
    with the committee, as the leader of this team, I am well
    attuned to the persistent presence of the asymmetric threat of
    terrorism and radical groups, as well as the emerging and
    compelling challenges presented by near-peer competitors,
    potential adversaries with the capability, propensity, and
    willingness to contest American power in all domains. We have
    not faced these conditions for over a quarter of a century. And
    the Army Reserve must take action, along with the rest of our
    Army, to meet the new and evolving threats.
        In this environment, an operational reality where the
    lethality and complexity of the battlespace presents new
    challenges to our Army, America's Army Reserve's practice of
    building rotational readiness and units over time will no
    longer be sufficient. We must prepare some units for full-
    spectrum operational environment immediately. This includes
    making ready significant portions of our team able to go fast,
    in some cases in days or weeks, in order to immediately
    complement and augment the Active Component formations who rely
    on America's Army Reserve to fight and win on the battlefield
    for the first round downrange.
        In this new threat paradigm, some 300 units of action or
    approximately 30,000 soldiers, need to be able to deploy in
    harm's way in less than 90 days, many in less than 30. I refer
    to this force as Ready Force X. It is a fast-deploying set of
    capabilities, which I will be happy to discuss with the
    committee in more detail. We need to deliver these units for
    the mobility, survivability, connectivity, and lethality needed
    to win on the modern battlefield.
        As always, consistent and predictable funding for essential
    training, equipment, and modernization is crucial to our
    success. The degree of funding which the committee has afforded
    us in the past and continues to is of tremendous benefit to
    America's Army Reserve. It is a superb tool, which in
    accordance with your guidance, enables me to procure certain
    high-priority capabilities that can be used for both combat
    operations and, as appropriate, domestic response operations. I
    thank you for your continued support in this regard.
        Let there be no doubt that my team's number one priority is
    readiness. In fact, as I testified today, America's Army
    Reserve has just completed the largest crew-served weapons
    gunnery operation in its history, Operation Cold Steel,
    conducted up at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. There, we rapidly
    accelerated the training qualification of our master gunners,
    of our vehicle crew evaluators, and individual soldiers, while
    reinvigorating the Noncommissioned Officers Corps of America's
    Army Reserve, which, as you all well know, is the first line,
    if you will, the core role in our Army of training and leading
    our soldiers when the lead hits the air. This is money and time
    well spent and much needed as we move into the future, and I
    appreciate this committee's support in that regard.
        As for the future, America's Army Reserve is uniquely
    postured and empowered to leverage the wide-ranging reservoir
    of professional talent to understand, develop, and exploit
    emerging commercial markets and cutting-edge technologies by
    partnering with private industry in order to stay on pace in a
    very dynamic world. Working closely with Defense Innovation
    Experimental Unit here in Washington, D.C., and spread around
    the country, as well as Military District 5 over at National
    Defense University and other partners, we are well on the way
    to strengthening linkages between the private sector and
    America's Army.
        I want to reiterate the message I shared with the American
    people in closing. I shared this with them on the Army
    Reserve's 109th birthday last month in Times Square, joining
    that stage, if you will, with the Army's noncommissioned
    officer of the year, who, by the way, happens to be an Army
    Reserve soldier from the Golden State of California: My team
    relies, as I told the American people, on our families, on the
    commitment to support them, and the persistent willingness of
    America's employers to share their finest talent with us, and
    working the delicate balance between being ready enough to be
    relevant, but not so ready that my soldiers can't maintain good
    rewarding civilian employment. As I reach out to the influences
    across America and around the globe, I ask them and press them
    to act and to encourage their communities, cities, campuses,
    congressional districts, and the employers located therein, to
    see themselves as full partners in national security, sharing
    America's best talent with us, America's Army Reserve, as we
    support and defend the Constitution of the United States of
    America.
        Distinguished members, your Army Reserve has always met the
    challenges of the time. With the committee's help, we will
    continue to provide the capabilities and readiness, live the
    example, and exude the ethos that the people of the United
    States expect and deserve. We will remain your premier team of
    skilled professionals, serving the Nation's both soldiers and
    engaged civilians around the globe. That is just who we are.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General Luckey follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you.

                     Summary Statement of Admiral McCollum

        Admiral McCollum. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky, and certainly the distinguished members of
    the subcommittee. It is a distinct honor to be here this
    morning to talk to you about the state of the Navy Reserve and
    talk to you about the Navy's fiscal year 2018 budget request
    and, probably more importantly, to report on the dedicated men
    and women of our Reserve Force.
        The Navy Reserve is the busiest it has ever been, and as an
    integrated force with the Active Component, we are experiencing
    competition in the maritime environment. This environment, it
    is fast-paced, it is complex, it is ambiguous, and, at times,
    uncertain. And the demand signal for the Reserve support has
    now exceeded over 79,000 individual mobilizations around the
    globe. And as you may know, these individuals, our sailors have
    left their civilian jobs, sometimes up to a year, and their
    families as well.
        In addition to these mobilizations that I referenced, we
    have about 20 percent of the force that is engaged day to day
    performing what we call operational support. The Navy Reserve
    works out of 123 operational support centers, and these support
    centers are across the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Guam. And
    the force structure is the result of the Navy's imperative to
    optimize interoperability and operational effectiveness of the
    Navy.
        We spread our units around the country, beyond our fleet
    concentration areas, and this has allowed the Navy to retain
    valuable human capital and provides reservists a convenient
    place to train while remaining close to their businesses and
    their homes. One highly successful example of this strategy is
    the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth, Texas,
    and this facility alone is a model for inter-service
    cooperation and community support that achieves the readiness
    that I am referring to. This installation holds 40 Tenant
    Commands, encompassing nearly 10,000 personnel across all four
    services. This is just one example of how the Navy Reserve is
    operating around the country in each of your districts.
        The fiscal year 2018 budget request is focused on restoring
    balance and wholeness and laying the foundation for future
    investments. This is both in our equipment and our people. And
    as an integrated force, the Navy knows that its heartbeat is
    its people. And this investment addresses Reserve personnel
    wholeness in areas such as unmanned aircraft, cyber shipyard
    maintenance, and tactical operations.
        While our Navy Reserve continues to execute at extremely
    high levels, our hardware, specifically our aging aircraft
    fleet, is facing some obsolescence challenges and rapidly
    approaching the end of its designed service life. Sixteen years
    of hard use has accelerated this effort. Accordingly, aircraft
    recapitalization remains the Navy Reserve's top equipping
    priority. The fiscal year 2018 budget request allows us to
    restore wholeness in aviation maintenance accounts and sets a
    solid foundation for next and future years' investments. And to
    continue restoring the wholeness of our force, we need stable,
    predictable funding mechanisms that allow us to plan
    effectively and react to contingencies.
        Additionally, your increased support for flexible funding
    authority for the NGREA is needed. Providing us this authority
    as well as flexible funding methods enables the Navy Reserve to
    provide operational support where and when needed, and that
    will maximize the total effectiveness of the Total Force.
        While the challenges ahead of us are significant, I could
    not be more proud of our Navy Reserve force. Every time I set
    foot in one of our operational reserve centers around the
    country, I come away, as you can imagine, very impressed with
    the dedication and the commitment of these sailors. And the
    pride that they take combining their civilian skill sets with
    their professional competence in military operations, I must
    admit, is very inspiring.
        So, on behalf of the Navy and the Navy Reserve, I thank the
    members of the committee for your support, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The written statement of Admiral McCollum follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you.

                     Summary Statement of General McMillian

        General McMillian. Chairman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
    on behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your
    Marine Corps Reserve. I am honored to be here with my fellow
    Reserve Component chiefs, and with me here today is my force
    sergeant major, Sergeant Major Kimble.
        I have been at the helm of the Marine Forces Reserve for a
    year and a half, and I am pleased to inform you that your
    Marine Corps Reserve is thriving. On average, we are 95 percent
    manning, and our leadership, morale, and personnel health of
    the force is at unprecedented levels. I am continually
    impressed by the professionalism, competence, dedication, and
    motivation of our Reserve Marines. Like their Active Duty
    brothers and sisters, they serve selflessly to protect our
    Nation while at the same time balancing their civilian careers
    and their families. The strength of Marine Forces Reserve is
    the talent, skill, and discipline of our individual Marines and
    sailors.
        I am motivated by the most common question that I receive
    from your Reserve Marines, which is, when do we get to deploy?
    They maintain the same mindset as the Active Component Marine
    Corps. We are ready to fight tonight, and we are ready to
    respond to any mission.
        My primary focus remains being combat-ready and having
    Reserve Marines and units capable of moving, shooting, and
    communicating across the battlefield. Reserve Marines are
    viewed the same and are expected to respond the same as our
    Active Duty counterparts on a moment's notice. We are
    integrated with the Active Component as part of the Total
    Force. We are expected to be a force that is fully
    complementary, seamless, and an equal teammate to the Active
    Component. We are manned, trained, and equipped to support
    Marine Corps operational requirements across the full range of
    military operations. We are 39,000 strong, formed into major
    commands that comprise the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, and we
    are unofficially known as the Fourth Marine Expeditionary
    Force. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps has said, we are
    one Marine Corps, a Total Force Marine Corps.
        To seamlessly integrate with the Active Component, Marine
    Forces Reserve must maintain equipment parity. Shortfalls in
    equipment modernization result in less interoperability with
    the Active Component, which slows the pace of operations and
    increases risk to your Marines and risk to mission
    accomplishment. Marine Forces Reserve continues to see
    shortfalls in modernization, like our most pressing shortfall,
    the KC-130J, which is used for tactical assault support, air-
    to-air, and ground refueling, and combat logistics support. It
    is the major end item which facilitates moving to and across
    the battlefield. We should not send our Marines to a fight with
    legacy equipment. Transition to modern equipment requires
    budget resources.
        NGREA, as you are all familiar with, is a complement to the
    Presidential budget. And while we greatly appreciate NGREA,
    greater spending flexibility, combined with a more
    representative funding proportion that is more aligned with our
    historical percentage, would significantly contribute to the
    ability of Marine Forces Reserve to modernize legacy equipment,
    transition to new systems, improve our readiness, and better
    support our young marines.
        We owe it to our Nation's most precious assets, the young
    men and women in uniform, to send them into combat with the
    most modern equipment available. With the continued support of
    Congress, Marine Forces Reserve will continue to serve as a
    crucial operational and tactical shock-absorber to the Active
    Component.
        In conclusion, I want to leave this distinguished body with
    two final thoughts: Number one, I want to personally thank you
    for passing the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill.
    Having a predictable and consistent budget in the future will
    significantly improve readiness across the services. And,
    number two, we need a flexible NGREA that complements the
    budget to assist your Marine Corps Reserve in funding major end
    items, as defined by law.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The written statement of General McMillian follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        General Miller. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
    honored to have with me this morning Command Chief Master
    Sergeant Ericka Kelly. Together, we represent America's 69,000
    Reserve citizen airmen, providing operational capability and
    surge capacity, ensuring airspace and cyber dominance around
    the globe.
        Twenty-six years of continuous global operations and
    decreased budgets have stressed our force, which is always in
    demand. Last year, we were the fourth largest major command
    contributor to combat operations, filling over 10,000 air
    expeditionary and volunteer taskings across the U.S. and in 30
    foreign countries. Our airmen deliver critical capabilities to
    the fight every day, through global vigilance, global reach,
    and global power.
        Your Air Force Reserve operates with 16,000 fewer airmen
    and 220 fewer aircraft than we did in Desert Storm. The stress
    of our size, the steady state operations tempo, and our funding
    shortfalls keep us challenged, yet we remain a lethal combat-
    ready force, composed of amazing and resilient airmen and
    families.
        The concerns which weigh most in our day-to-day operations
    are insufficient manpower for both full-time support and
    critical skills, training availability and funding, weapon
    system sustainment, and concurrent fielding of aircraft and
    equipment. We continue to make incremental steps in the
    readiness needed for today's fight, while posturing for the
    complex future threats and the many challenges.
        Although the fiscal year 2018 President's budget request is
    a good beginning, to ensure that we deliver the most ready,
    capable, and lethal force, a long-term effort is needed. This
    balance of readiness today and the needs of tomorrow is
    difficult without predictable, sustainable funding through the
    outyears.
        The fiscal year 2018 President's budget request continues
    our efforts to build readiness and capability by adding 800
    positions across our rated space, cyber, and our ISR missions.
    The budget request, with the additional overseas contingency
    operation support, begins to fund weapon system sustainment
    closer to the required levels, ensuring that we can produce the
    exercise, training, and combat sorties needed to sustain the
    best Air Force in the world. Modernization and recapitalization
    are essential to maintaining our combat edge. With continued
    congressional support for the National Guard and Reserve
    equipment appropriation, we can smartly invest in weapon
    systems, which will increase our capability and recapitalize
    systems that will minimize risk against our emerging threats.
        And I thank you for the fiscal year 2017 NGREA funding of
    $105 million, which provided all-weather targeting pods for the
    F-16, enabled KC-135 defensive systems, updated digital
    displays for platforms, such as the A-10, and afforded personal
    recovery equipment for our Pave Hawk helicopters. This funding
    helps ensure that we maintain that lethal edge to dominate and
    to survive in all spectrums of the conflict.
        Delivering combat air power to the joint force is our
    mission. To best execute this requirement, we must develop a
    concurrent fielding and investment strategy to ensure
    operational parity with the Active Component. This ensures
    synchronized use of manpower, equipment, and training resources
    in a fiscally constrained environment.
        Over the past few decades, we have successfully adjusted to
    an operational Reserve. Portions of our force are stressed, but
    our Reserve citizen airmen are resilient, engaged, and honored
    to serve. We require your support for sufficient resources to
    meet full-spectrum readiness, increase end strength to support
    integrated operations, and an increased budget to buy back the
    readiness deficit and modernize weapon systems. A stable,
    predictable budget will ensure Air Force Reserve is combat-
    ready at all times.
        Thank you again for your support and this amazing
    opportunity to represent our airmen, and I look forward to your
    questions. Thank you.
        [The written statement of General Maryanne Miller follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for
    your testimony and for describing the service and the sacrifice
    and the needs of those that you represent here today.
        We will be using a timer this morning. We are going to
    reduce the time for you to ask and answer questions to 3
    minutes, because of the size of the panel and the number of
    members who are here, and we have a hard end time at 12
    o'clock. That will include questions and responses. If time
    permits, we would have a second round, but I doubt that will
    happen.
        I am going to call on Ms. McCollum first.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am going to submit for the record a question on Lodging-
    in-Kind, and what we can do to have, especially in the Army
    Reserve, our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the
    training that they perform.
        [The information follows:]

                                Lodging-in-Kind

                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Navy provides lodging, at no cost to members, for Navy
    Reservists who travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient
    Department of Defense (DOD) quarters are used whenever available. When
    DoD accommodations are not available, commercial berthing is provided
    at no personal expense to Navy Reserve personnel meeting eligibility
    requirements. When Navy Reservists are on travel orders (e.g., Inactive
    Duty Training Travel (IDTT), Annual Training (AT), Active Duty Training
    (ADT), and Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW)) to a location outside
    the vicinity of their drill site, they may receive lodging and per-diem
    pursuant to Joint Travel Regulations.
                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. For eligible, unaccompanied personnel, the Army National
    Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG) provides lodging-in-kind to
    members traveling over 50 miles for inactive duty training. The ARNG
    and ANG fund lodging in kind out of operations and maintenance
    accounts.
                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. The Marine Corps has used Inactive Duty Training (IDT)
    travel reimbursement to offset certain critically-short military
    occupational specialties and/or military billets. This is a targeted
    program that addresses the need of the Service to offset costs for
    Marines who have to travel to locations that are more than 150 miles
    from the Home Training Center (HTC). We expanded the program to fill
    critically-short leadership billets over the past year. There aren't
    any other programs that specifically target travel costs. As
    highlighted during the Reserve Component Duty Status reform process,
    Reserve Marines receive double the amount of basic pay for two drill
    periods performed in one day than if they were in one day of pay
    status. This differential can be seen as a means to lower out-of-pocket
    expenses. Due to the relatively small number of HTCs geographically,
    Marine Corps Reservists often have to travel long distances to attend
    training.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Air Force provides lodging, at no cost to members, for
    Reservists who travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient
    Department of Defense (DoD) quarters are used whenever available. Air
    Force also provides reimbursement for travel expenses up to $300 per
    drill weekend provided the reservist was assigned to a unit or position
    that was affected by a Defense Base Realignment or closure or if the
    individual is in a critical AFSC and there is a documented shortfall in
    the organization for that grade/skill level.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve,
    our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that
    they perform?
        Answer. Regarding Lodging-in-Kind, we have addressed it internally
    by funding this program with $26 million per year average through FY22.
    Regarding the related issue of Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) travel
    outside the local commuting area, currently, the Joint Travel
    Regulations cap reimbursement for IDT-T expenses (e.g. plane tickets,
    rental cars, and lodging) at $300 per round trip for select Reserve
    Component members assigned to a unit or position that was affected by a
    Defense Base Realignment or closure or in a skill designated as
    critically short. Over 25% of claims submitted by Service Members to
    the Army Reserve are above the $300 limit.

        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. But I do have a question. I
    think it affects all of you. I commend people who decide to
    continue in the Reserves after their discharge. Sometimes it is
    a very heavy family discussion about whether or not people are
    going to stay in the Reserves. And so people who do that do it
    with their eyes wide open about what a deployment could really
    be meaning for them.
        So, when they come home, they come home as a citizen too.
    And this is a question I had had with General Luckey, but I
    want to pose this to all of you. In many, many cases, soldiers
    and airmen are deployed with as little as 30 days' notice, and
    that can put a lot of strain on the family. So, because they
    have been planning their lives moving forward, they don't have
    the same protection in their civilian jobs that sometimes--and
    I commend our businesses in Minnesota for what they do for our
    National Guard--but they have personal money invested. They are
    getting ready to close on homes. They might have paid tuition
    forward.
        What are we doing? What can we do to help you? What is your
    team doing to ensure that families of these soldiers and
    airmen, when they are given this short notice, that they don't
    find themselves in financial harm or with unexpected
    consequences with their employment when they come back home?
    Thank you.
        General Luckey. To the extent that the question was
    initially directed to me, I will respond first.
        Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. I figured you would take one for
    the team.
        General Luckey. So, as you well know, and I think we have
    discussed this before, part of the focus from a priority-of-
    work perspective, if you will, of America's Army Reserve is to
    make sure that we are tracking, if you will, or witting of
    which families and which units are most likely to be forced to
    do exactly what you just said, Congresswoman, which is move
    very quickly.
        This past weekend, I spent the better part of 2 days in
    Oklahoma City at what we call Family Programs University. It is
    an Army Reserve program to essentially bring in volunteers,
    family program coordinators, and family program facilitators
    from units, particularly those units that are most likely to be
    called to go first.
        So I can't give you a complete comprehensive answer as it
    pertains necessarily to units located in eastern Minnesota.
    What I can tell you is the focus and the energy, if you will,
    of our efforts to make sure we have good quality engaged
    outreach, if you will, to families is particularly seized with
    the problem you have just articulated. So I want you to know
    that I am paying very close attention to that.
        Admiral McCollum. Thanks for that question. Just an
    additional thing I would add onto it. The greatest return on
    investment to the American taxpayer in the military for a
    transitioning military individual is if we can retain them into
    the Reserve Component. We don't have to train them; we can take
    advantage of the time they spent on Active Duty.
        So it certainly behooves us to maximize and create an
    environment that allows that reservist to thrive, thrive with
    their families, thrive with their civilian employers. And the
    way I would answer that question is predictability. Create a
    predictable environment with funding that we don't have a
    sustained period of long continuing resolutions, and that that
    predictability allows the reservist, with confidence, that they
    know that they can plan; there is going to be funding and
    funding available for the training to get ready to meet those
    commitments.
        Ms. Granger. Anyone else?
        You are welcome to respond.
        General McMillian. Ma'am, as you know, the Marine Corps is
    a force in readiness. We have to be ready to fight tonight. The
    Commandant depends very much on his Reserve Component to be
    ready on a moment's notice.
        The biggest thing that we do is express that out to our
    Marines and their families at every opportunity, to be prepared
    mentally, to be prepared physically, to know their MOS, to not
    waste 1 minute of their training time. We have 38 training days
    with them a year in order to prepare them to go downrange into
    combat. They have to be ready to fight tonight.
        We have a lot of history or examples throughout our history
    of having to get out the door very quickly, inside of 30 days,
    45 days, and directly into combat. Their families know that;
    they are prepared for it. They are leaning forward. We ask them
    to reach out to their employers to make sure that they are
    aware of the commitment that they have to the United States
    Marine Corps and to the United States for the defense of this
    Nation.
        General Miller. And for the Air Force Reserve, our response
    time is 72 hours. So, for those longer term deployments, at the
    Air Force, we have done an amazing job over the last 26 years
    of getting that battle rhythm of reservists deploying
    downrange. And we will give them 180 days' notice to 270 days'
    notice, and that is good. But every reservist knows they are on
    a 72-hour hook, and our systems support that. Our wing
    commanders support that. The Yellow Ribbon Program supports
    that, and we are structured to support that.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Womack.

                               STATE OF READINESS

        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And thanks to the distinguished panel that is gathered in
    front of us. Because of the short timeframe, I will go to one
    question. Before I do, I want to take just a moment of personal
    privilege in welcoming the great admiral over here, Mr.
    McCollum, who before he took this particular job was working at
    a small five-and-dime in northwest Arkansas that I represent
    and the proud parent I might also add of a young son who is
    making his rounds in the Arkansas General Assembly and doing
    remarkable work, and we are really, really proud of him.
        I wanted to ask the panel if they would just take a moment
    and tell us what their top one or two issues are right now. And
    I will take out of those answers funding, because we know
    funding is the answer to a whole lot of problems that everybody
    has. So we will just leave that off to the side. I don't know
    if it is OPTEMPO. I don't know if it is modernization. I don't
    know if it is medical fitness. But in the Reserves, you have
    got a different set of issues that affect you. And so just go
    from Army down the line and give me the top two. What should
    this committee understand to be your top couple of issues?
        General Luckey. So thank you for the question. Very simply,
    two things: one, being able to generate the formations that I
    need to generate in the timelines required to support the
    warfighter, primarily focusing on two different theaters of
    operation, so the Pacific and Europe, and being able to
    generate, as I said in my opening remarks, capabilities on the
    orders of 10,000, 15,000 soldiers in less than 45 days up to
    33,000 soldiers in about 90 days. So the units, if you will,
    incorporate those capabilities, and the soldiers in those units
    have to be at a very high degree of state of readiness.
        So my challenge, first of all, is to be able to identify
    those requirements, make sure that each one of those formations
    has the training, the equipment, the modernization, and the, if
    you will, mission command architecture to operate in a
    completely interoperable efficacious fashion with Active
    Component formations very quickly.
        Inside that, I would say the number two thing is
    deployability of the individual soldiers, making sure that I am
    affording every soldier the opportunity to get everything that
    they need done so that they are completely in a deployable
    status at the time that somebody needs them to go do a job. So
    that is a persistent ongoing challenge for us, but we are
    getting after it.
        Admiral McCollum. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    So you won't allow us to use the word ``budget,'' but may I
    just use the word what the budget does for us. It creates
    wholeness. Creating wholeness creates the ability to generate
    readiness. And at its core, the U.S. Navy is an integrated
    force and the Navy Reserve, as a component of that, relies on
    the help of Congress to give us the ability to be whole, to fix
    our, what I would say, divots are in our readiness accounts,
    our maintenance accounts. And by doing that, the second thing
    it does then is it then generates readiness to deploy when and
    where the American public chooses us to go.
        General McMillian. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    I will tell you what keeps me awake at night is readiness of
    the force, the Reserve Forces, to fight tonight and be able to
    get out the door and seamlessly augment and reinforce the
    Active Component in a fistfight.
        The things that we need to do is investment in our future,
    modernization of our equipment, and then the maintenance of our
    legacy equipment, those two things and, specifically,
    transition of the KC-130T and the AH-1Z attack helicopter for
    the Marine Corps Reserves.
        General Miller. The two things I think that are most
    important for the Air Force Reserve are the critical skills
    manning, particularly our pilot shortage and our cyber
    professionals. On the cyber side, industry is just pulling
    them. We can attract them, and we can train them, but we don't
    keep them that long. So your Reserve and Guard are the capacity
    that can keep them in uniform, which is great.
        The other piece is weapon system sustainment and making
    sure that is--that is vital to our readiness.
        Mr. Womack. Thanks for the extra time.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                             CYBER PROTECTION TEAMS

        Mr. Ruppersberger. First, General, thank you for meeting
    with me yesterday.
        I want to get into cyber. When we met yesterday, you
    mentioned you were on track to provide 10 cyber protection
    teams for the Army Reserve. Those soldiers who are in cyber-
    related positions require specific skills, as we know. What
    challenges could you face with attempting to fill these cyber
    positions?

                          MODERNIZATION OF READY FORCE

        And let me ask you another readiness question. Then I will
    stop. The National Guard Reserve equipment account we know is
    critical to Army Reserve Force readiness. Can you explain how
    this account and the funds in it will be used to enhance the
    modernization of your ready force and what concerns you have
    with equipment currently on hand and modernization levels in
    the Army Reserve?
        General Luckey. So, sir, if I may answer the second
    question first, very briefly.
        So, in the main, the money that has been given to us by the
    committee--and, again, thank you for that--basically along the
    lines I articulated here earlier this morning. So it is about
    mobility. So some of this is platforms, if you will. A
    significant portion of the investment portfolio is going to go
    against mission command systems. As I think I have explained to
    some members before, one of my concerns is making sure that
    every one of my platforms is completely interlocked, if you
    will, from a network perspective, in terms of communications,
    architecture, and Blue Force Tracker, to make sure that all of
    my formations are completely interoperable from a
    communications command-and-control perspective. So the priority
    is really focusing on lethality, mobility, and that net of C2,
    command and control, structure.
        Circling back to the issue about the cyber specifically, as
    I think I have mentioned before, from a build perspective, we
    are in a very good place. So you are correct, Congressman. So
    10 cyber protection teams over time building out, we are on a
    good glide path for that. In fact, what I would say is--and I
    touched on it a little bit in my opening remarks--part of what
    we are doing in America's Army Reserve is looking at those
    places in America where there is rapidly evolving, if you will,
    digital capabilities, technologies--so cyber, artificial
    intelligence, all sorts of, if you will, exploding capabilities
    in the private sector--making sure that the Army Reserve is
    posturing force structure to be able to retain and in some
    cases actually assess those capabilities into the Army Reserve,
    to make that a much more integrated part, if you will, of the
    Army's linkage, the warfighter's linkage, Department of
    Defense's linkage to the emerging private sectors.
        I think I mentioned to you I have gone out to see private
    industry in many locations. We are investing capabilities and
    we are moving folks, if you will, or billets, opportunities to
    create structure into those rapidly developing parts of
    commercial America. So I think we are in a very good place.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Anybody else?
        General McMillian. Yes, sir, I will just dive in on that.
    We are building out in the Marine Corps Reserves two cyber
    protection teams from our marines who have gotten out, gotten
    into the civilian work sector, learned that skill set, and now
    finding out that we are trying to stand up two teams, one on
    the West Coast, one on the East Coast: one at the 1st Marine
    Expeditionary Force in San Diego; the other one at the 2nd
    Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune.
        What drives these Marines to come back into the Reserves to
    join cyber protection teams is that they are closer to the
    fight. They want to be with those tactical deploying units that
    have the potential to go downrange and do work wherever the
    country may need them. So they are excited about getting their
    boots dirty and deploying downrange with tactical units. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Carter.

                  READINESS AND RETENTION OF SKILLED PERSONNEL

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I am going to address this question to the whole panel.
    General Luckey and I had a conversation yesterday.
        Thank you for coming by. I really appreciate that
    conversation.
        But as citizen lawyers and members of the Armed Forces
    Reserve, people are often called upon to face the challenge in
    the workforce, because people miss work due to their
    deployments. Please provide the subcommittee with your
    assessments of how these challenges affect not only readiness
    but retention of highly skilled personnel and what resources or
    assistance can we provide that will help you sustain your level
    of readiness and retention.
        General Luckey. So let me just take that first, if I may,
    very quickly.
        I will tell you the biggest thing that this committee could
    do to continue to support America's Army Reserve in this regard
    is to, if you will, be the influencers that can help me
    influence other influencers in America. As I have discussed
    with members of this committee before in a more informal
    context, part of our challenge is making sure we continue to
    message, as I said in my opening remarks, to the employers of
    America that they are strategic partners in the national
    security of the United States of America. And by allowing them,
    if you will, and encouraging them to understand how
    fundamentally important their support is to make sure that our
    soldiers--I would say sailors, airmen, and marines--all have an
    opportunity to be shared, if you will, between those employers
    and these teams is absolutely critical to us being able to
    continue, if you will, to take some pressure off our soldiers
    to be able to do both.
        So I would just--I really don't think this is about money
    so much. Fundamentally, it is about messaging and making sure
    our employers really understand how vital their support
    continues to be.
        Admiral McCollum. And, sir, just to complement General
    Luckey's words is the idea of partnerships and the idea of
    leveraging those relationships that these, in our case, sailors
    and airmen and marines, that they have, not only with their
    employers, but with friends of the military, and understanding
    those connection points and whatever constituency gathering,
    whatever activity that is in place, where we understand the
    heart and soul of what generates the capability of America's
    military power, which is our people, and all those programs
    that support how we take care of our people, whether it is when
    they get back home in the repatriation programs or how we
    support them when they are forward in giving the readiness,
    finding the readiness to be ready, to distract them from any
    problems they may have otherwise.
        General McMillian. Much the same answer, sir. Thank you for
    the question.
        Again, we are at 95 percent manning across the board,
    highest I have ever seen it, healthiest I have ever seen it,
    morale, leadership, esprit de corps off the top of the charts.
    Reserve marines want to be here and serve and go downrange and
    do good work for our country. The key to that is the public
    support for their employers. I think their employers are proud
    to have marines in their organizations. But a pat on the back
    goes a long way, and so the public support, as General Luckey
    and Admiral McCollum have touched upon, is huge for us and
    helps out with our retention and the serving.
        General Miller. Yes. For the Air Force Reserve, as I
    stated, the 72-hour response time is the tether that we are all
    on. So, with that, we have a great relationship at every wing
    level across all our 36 wings with the employees who are part
    of Guard and Reserve. So it is that expectation management
    between the reservist and the employer that we bring together
    around the table so there is no misunderstanding.
        A perfect example of that would be the airline pilot.
    General Goldfein last week got us together around the table
    with 70 airline executives from the majors to the regionals.
    And we sat around the table and said--we keep tugging on both--
    either--you know, we have the uniform arm, and they have the
    airline arm of these pilots, and we are pulling them. We are
    pulling them apart, basically.
        So we had to sit around the table and basically come to an
    agreement of, how we are going to use this one asset, this
    national asset that has now become a crisis for this country?
    So that is the perfect example of how we work together with
    industry. And we are beginning steps to do that to work our way
    through this.
        Mr. Carter. Well, I, for one, if you can get the
    information by congressional district of the employers that
    employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I am going to
    make the same request of the National Guard--our office will
    personally send them a letter commending them for their service
    to their country. So, if you can get me that information, I
    will put my people to work to do that.
        [The information follows:]
                         Employers That Employ Members

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The National Guard Bureau does not have a method of
    tracking or collecting comprehensive employer data for all 54 states
    and territories. However, Service members nominated several employers
    of the National Guard from Texas' 31st Congressional District for the
    2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award through the
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESRG) program. The nominees
    include: (a) ARCIL Inc. (Round Rock) (b) Sprint (Killeen) (c) Wilsonart
    International (Temple) (d) Real Green Pest & Lawn (Round Rock)
                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports
    250 Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service
    members live and/or work in Texas' 31st congressional district. The
    following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Company              Mailing Address         City, State, Zip
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ash Chiropractic         3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5  Georgetown, TX 78628
    Georgetown ISD           1313 Williams Dr         Georgetown, TX 78628
    Discount Tire            2720 E Whitestone Blvd   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    City of Round Rock       301 E Main St            Round Rock, TX 78664
    Firestone                100 E. Old Settlers      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Blvd
    Mattress One             1208 N. IH35 Suite 900   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Dell                     2401 Greenlawn Blvd      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Bldg 7
    Baylor Scott and White   2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Johnson Controls         1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Pacesetter K9 LLC        555 County Road 200      Liberty Hill, TX 78260
    Dell Inc                 7215 Alacia Dr           Leander, TX 78641
    DFPS                     503 Priest Dr            Killeen, TX 76549
    Dell Inc                 1 Dell Way               Round Rock, TX 78664
    TEK Systems/Emerson      1100 Louis Henna Blvd    Round Rock, TX 78681
    Baylor Scott & White     2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Amplify                  202 Walton Way Ste 200   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47
    states, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    that employ Marine Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily
    available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond
    to this question.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ
    Service members of any Reserve Components by congressional district.
    However, Employer Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a
    listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award via the attached
    listing. These employers in Texas have earned praise from their Service
    member employees for their support of our reserve component military
    members. Other interested members can obtain similar data.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and
    willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR
    works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we
    do not track employer information for each member of the Army Reserve.
    With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would
    potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all
    employers who provide employment support to America's Army Reserve
    Soldiers.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes
    outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards
    program. Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to
    build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members
    and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR presented 10,627 Patriot Awards
    to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Component employees and
    received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is
    the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for their
    support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in
    1996, the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250
    employers (small, large, and public) who represent the best of the best
    in employer support of Reserve Component service.
        This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon
    ceremony for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom
    Award:
              1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia,
            Georgia. Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough,
            Massachusetts. Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator's
            branch: Army National Guard
              4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland.
            Nominator's branch: Coast Guard Reserve
              8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana.
            Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
            of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator's branch: Marine Corps
            Reserve
              12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator's branch: Air
            National Guard
              13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator's branch:
            Army National Guard
              14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
                           witness: mccollum, luke m.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports
    250 Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service
    members live and/or work in Texas' 31st congressional district. The
    following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Company              Mailing Address         City, State, Zip
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ash Chiropractic         3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5  Georgetown, TX 78628
    Georgetown ISD           1313 Williams Dr         Georgetown, TX 78628
    Discount Tire            2720 E Whitestone Blvd   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    City of Round Rock       301 E Main St            Round Rock, TX 78664
    Firestone                100 E. Old Settlers      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Blvd
    Mattress One             1208 N. IH35 Suite 900   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Dell                     2401 Greenlawn Blvd      Round Rock, TX 78664
                              Bldg 7
    Baylor Scott and White   2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Johnson Controls         1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100   Round Rock, TX 78664
    Pacesetter K9 LLC        555 County Road 200      Liberty, Hill, TX
                                                       78260
    Dell Inc                 7215 Alacia Dr           Leander, TX 78641
    DFPS                     503 Priest Dr            Killeen, TX 76549
    Dell Inc                 1 Dell Way               Round Rock, TX 78664
    TEK Systems/Emerson      1100 Louis Henna Blvd    Round Rock, TX 78681
    Baylor Scott & White     2401 S 31st St           Temple, TX 76508
    Amplify                  202 Walton Way Ste 200   Cedar Park, TX 78613
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           witness: mcmillian, rex c.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47
    states, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    that employ Marine Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily
    available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond
    to this question.
                           witness: miller, maryanne
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ
    Service members of any Reserve Components by congressional district.
    However, Employer Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a
    listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award via the attached
    listing. These employers in Texas have earned praise from their Service
    member employees for their support of our reserve component military
    members. Other interested members can obtain similar data.
                          witness: luckey, charles d.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and
    willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR
    works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we
    do not track employer information for each member of the Army Reserve.
    With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would
    potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all
    employers who provide employment support to America's Army Reserve
    Soldiers.
        Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of
    the employers that employ members of any of the Reserve Components--I
    am going to make the same request of the National Guard--our office
    will personally send them a letter commending them for their service to
    their country?
        Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes
    outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards
    program. Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the
    Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to
    build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members
    and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR presented 10,627 Patriot Awards
    to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Component employees and
    received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is
    the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for their
    support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in
    1996, the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250
    employers (small, large, and public) who represent the best of the best
    in employer support of Reserve Component service.
        This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon
    ceremony for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom
    Award:

              1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia,
            Georgia. Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough,
            Massachusetts. Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator's
            branch: Army National Guard
              4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland.
            Nominator's branch: Coast Guard Reserve
              8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana.
            Nominator's branch: Air Force Reserve
              9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard
              10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming.
            Nominator's branch: Army National Guard
              11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District
            of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator's branch: Marine Corps
            Reserve
              12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator's branch: Air
            National Guard
              13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator's branch:
            Army National Guard
              14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas.
            Nominator's branch: Army Reserve
              15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina.
            Nominator's branch: Air National Guard

        General Luckey. I appreciate that, sir.
        Ms. Granger. I can say the same thing. Thank you.
        When you are talking about messaging, if there is--I have a
    Reserve base, as you mentioned, thank you, in my district--but
    some way to make sure that we are telling communities how
    important it is to encourage this with employers. Any ideas,
    any places where they are doing it really well, if you would
    pass it on to all of us, then we will encourage that, because
    that partnership is just vital. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                         Remarks of Congressman Cuellar

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I don't have any questions except to say thank you for what
    you all do. We really, really appreciate it. We want to be
    supportive in any way.
        I do associate myself to the questions, to the comments
    also. I would like to get followup on that. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

                        PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for being here, and a very heartfelt thank
    you to all of your families for their service and sacrifice as
    well.
        With all the professional military education conducted at
    Maxwell Air Force Base, I am well aware of the emphasis that
    the services place on PME, and rightly so. The investments in
    education and career development are critical to the
    development of our next generation of military leaders.
        That being said, I am very concerned about possible
    disparities between Reserve and Active Duty servicemembers with
    regard to pay and benefits as it relates to PME. While a
    soldier on Active Duty receives full pay and credit toward
    retirement while attending PME courses, a reservist is often
    balancing, obviously, a civilian career and completing these
    courses by correspondence. Not only is the reservist not paid,
    in many cases, the reservist gets no credit toward their
    retirement.
        And so what needs to happen to fix this disparity,
    particularly as it relates toward retirement credit, and how
    quickly can we make this happen? And I will be quiet and let
    you answer. Thank you very much.
        General Luckey. So let me jump on that first, if I may,
    Congresswoman.
        So I will just tell you, as a soldier who went to the Army
    War College and, to your point, spent the better part of 2
    years doing it by sort of--some of it was virtual; some of it
    was paper; some of it was--but it ruined--I won't say it
    ruined. It consumed weekends for the Luckey family for a couple
    years. And then we had the summer sessions where I would go to
    Carlisle for 2 weeks.
        I will just tell you that I was completely compensated for
    the time that I spent at Carlisle by the Army, and I received a
    master's degree from the Army War College as part of the
    program. Candidly, while I got retirement points for, if you
    will, the coursework that I accomplished, I am not going to sit
    here and tell you that necessarily in some cases I felt that it
    was--I mean, some of the work was very difficult, frankly.
        But I will just tell you, on behalf of the Army, on behalf
    of America's Army Reserve, I don't think that there is a
    compensation issue or a credit issue as it pertains to
    retirement as it pertains to the Professional Military
    Education program of the Army.
        What I will tell you is it is a challenge. My guess is it
    is true for all the services. It is a challenge for Reserve
    soldiers to balance all the requirements of their lives. But
    the reality is I have fantastic soldiers who have support of
    their families and, by and large, support of their employers.
    We talked earlier. I didn't touch on this data point, but I
    think it is relevant. The authorized end strength of the United
    States Army Reserve, you know, is going back to 199,000, and
    right now, I am at 198,000 soldiers.
        So I guess what I would say is this is not a pressing
    concern for me. So I respect your question and I appreciate it,
    but this is not a pressing concern for America's Army Reserve.
        Admiral McCollum. Thank you, ma'am, for that question.
        I would say, for the Navy Reserve, it is very similar to
    what General Luckey just said. The Navy Reserve sailors are
    motivated, dedicated, and they are awesomely inspiring, and
    they do have this complexity of the family and civilian jobs.
    So it is a little bit different to master from just having one
    focus of their employment.
        Where the conversations generally go regarding AC/RC ends
    up in the benefits area. In the case, we do have an authority
    right now, the 12304 bravo, which is basically an authority to
    let a reservist deploy. So the benefits don't currently match.
    And I know that work is underway to address that. So that is
    where I hear more of the work and the questions.
        General McMillian. Great question, ma'am. Thank you for the
    question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is focused on
    building a fifth-generation Marine Corps, highly technical,
    highly advanced. I need to build a fifth-generation Reserve
    part of that to augment and reinforce. Along with that comes
    education. But I am book-ended by readiness. I have 38 training
    days to train our marines ready to go downrange, as you have
    heard me talk about, to be ready to go to combat.
        So I need to take full advantage--and this is my point--
    with online training and getting the pay and the benefits
    between drills, between those 28 days that I don't have them
    during the month, to bring them up to speed educationally. So
    we are working towards that, and we have great support in the
    Marine Corps.
        General Miller. Within the Air Force and the Air Force
    Reserve, we are moving more toward the virtual. And, with that,
    you know, our folks just achieve greatness. Many of them, if
    not all of them, have master's degrees on the officer side. On
    the enlisted side, those numbers are going up. So this young
    group coming in just achieve and overachieve, and they are not
    really concerned about getting compensated for that. They just
    do it. And the same for the Professional Military Education. It
    is just a requirement and an expectation that we have had, and
    we just do it.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you all.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Ryan.

                ANTITERRORISM AND FORCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a question for General Miller, a couple I will try
    to squeeze in, and, hopefully, you can get to them. And I will
    make the committee aware that you are a graduate of a small
    unknown university in Columbus, Ohio, called the Ohio State
    University. And we are grateful for your service. So thank you
    very much.
        Two quick questions: One, last year, our committee
    identified in the report that many Reserve facilities do not
    meet antiterrorism and force protection requirements, and that
    these deficiencies result in traffic, congestion in surrounding
    roads. And these congested access points, as we saw recently in
    the U.K. with the terrorist attack, can be a major issue.
        The response from the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of Budget last year stated the requirements would be met in
    2022, which, in my estimation, is way too long to wait for
    those kinds of security measures.
        So can you comment on that?

                                    C-130JS

        And the other question is with regard to the C-130Js and,
    specifically, if we have enough with regard to specialty
    missions. I am concerned that those areas and those planes and
    the training necessary to deal with the specialty missions,
    that we are not where we need to be with that.
        General Miller. Regarding the security measures, thank you
    all for the additional appropriation in 2017 for FSRM. We
    brought in $65 million. You appropriated $65 million for
    additions. I just looked at the list. None of those include
    gates, the security around the installation. So I will go back
    and see. We do a facilities assessment every year at every
    base. So I will do a quick review and see where we are lacking
    in that and get back with you on that specifically.
        Regarding the C-130Js, the last recapitalization for the
    Air Force Reserve for Js was in 2007 at Keesler, and we
    recapitalized 20, partly for the weather mission there and then
    the operational mission there at Keesler. That is the last C-
    130J that the Air Force Reserve received, and there is none
    programmed in the POM for us. And that is a decision with the
    Air Force just due to limited funding; that is where we are on
    that program.
        The AMP 1 and AMP 2 on our H model fleet is critical to the
    longevity of that mission set.
        If there were funding that were set aside for the Js for
    the Air Force Reserve, then I would actually put that in the
    special missions at Youngstown and the firefighting unit at
    Peterson. That is where those J models would go, if
    recapitalized, and there would be 60 needed for that.
        But right now, it is not in the program, and there is just
    no room in the program, given where we need to go for the
    future fight.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                            Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I don't have a question, but in response to my colleague's
    opening remarks, Mr. Ryan, I would point out that, while Ohio
    State is an incredible athletic institution--the decor of my
    Washington office is patterned after your colors--in the
    National Fencing Championship round, it was Notre Dame-1, Ohio
    State-2.
        Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Granger. Thanks for your time, your attention to the
    committee's concerns. Please feel free at any time to remind us
    or talk to us more so we can serve you the very best because we
    respect what you do.
        This concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers
    thereto follow:]

              High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)

        Question. The Alabama National Guard has about 1,330 High Mobility
    Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). Almost 60% of them are over 13
    years old. To say the least, the HMMWV Modernization Program has been
    very successful and has brought 124 much needed new vehicles to the
    Alabama National Guard and over 2,200 nationwide. Does your FY 2018
    Budget include funding to continue this program?
        Answer. Yes, the FY18 President's Budget included a requirement for
    $53M to continue modernizing HMMWVs. With Congress' support during the
    last four years, the ARNG has modernized over 2,788 Up-Armored HMMWVs
    and HMMWV Ambulances with the most modern operational capabilities and
    Soldier safety upgrades. The ARNG plans to maintain its readiness
    through the synchronization of all Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle
    modernization and recapitalization efforts in accordance with the
    Army's Light Tactical Vehicle Modernization Strategy. The ARNG HMMWV
    modernization improvements is the direct result of year-to-year
    Congressional Line-Items. To date this funding has been used to
    accelerate ARNG LTV modernization efforts which has greatly enhanced
    unit readiness for dual use and contingency operations.

                        Dual-Status Military Technicians

        Question. The FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act directed
    DoD to convert 20% of administrative, clerical, finance, and office
    service dual-status military technicians, and all non-dual status
    technicians to Title 5 federal civilian employees on 1 January 2016, to
    include Title 32 technicians. To date, our committee has included
    language in appropriations bills to state that no funds would be used
    to support this effort. Is this conversion something that you support?
    What impact would a 20% conversion of technicians to Title 5 federal
    civilians have on the National Guard Bureau? Also, is there a
    conversion percentage that you would consider acceptable for your
    organization?
        Answer. As the Chief National Guard Bureau I have an inherent Title
    10 responsibility to execute the law as it is written. That said, as
    previously discussed in my own testimony I favor a smaller conversion
    number than what is currently called for and would support
    congressional efforts to reduce the required percentage. A 20%
    conversion will have a negative impact. As I stated in previous
    testimony the smaller the conversion number the better when it comes to
    readiness of the National Guard. I believe, as I have testified that
    there is some number that can be converted with minimal impact to
    readiness; I don't believe that number is 20 percent.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
    Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and answers thereto follow:]

                     Professional Military Education (PME)

                          witness: lengyel, joseph l.
        Question. In light of the publication of Department of Defense
    Instruction 1215.17 in 2013 as well as the increasing use of virtual
    training for Professional Military Education (PME), does your service
    provide retirement credit for Reservists completing PME? If not, what
    steps would be required to provide credit to all reservists who
    completed PME since the publication of his DODI?
        Answer. Title 10 United States Code, Sec. 12732(a)(2) does not
    permit the awarding of retirement credit for Reserve Component Service
    members who complete training via distributed electronic methods. This
    is an issue the Department is examining as part of its review of
    Reserve Component duty status reform.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Graves and answers thereto follow:]

                       Dual Status Technicians Conversion

        Question. It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has
    provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician
    positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this
    accurate? Were the Adjutants General or the Governors consulted when
    identifying the positions for conversion?
        Answer. (1) It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has
    provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician
    positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this
    accurate? Answer. Yes, to both the HASC and SASC at different times and
    at their requests. (2) Were the Adjutants General or the Governors
    consulted when identifying the positions for conversion? Answer. Yes to
    both entities. The Adjutants General and National Governor's Council
    were and continue to be heavily involved in the process. The Adjutant
    General's provided their best military advice in the Report to Congress
    directed by NDAA 2016.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Graves.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and answers thereto
    follow:]

                       Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy

        Question. The Army intends to maintain a mixed fleet of 104,099
    tactical wheeled vehicles, including 50,000 HMMWVs and 49,099 JLTVs. At
    one point the Army planned to continue operating 100,000 HMMWVs, but
    that strategy has shifted to maintain a nearly even mix of HMMWVs and
    JLTVs.--Over the past several fiscal years, this Committee has added
    significant additional funding to modernize the HMMWV fleets of the
    Guard and reserve components.--Given that the HMMWV will remain half of
    Army's light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet beyond 2040, can you share
    the plan to maintain and modernize the readiness of the National Guard
    and Reserve HMMWVs? Do you feel that Army leadership is committed to
    funding this plan?--Please explain the Army's intentions for the nearly
    26,000 HMMWVs that are supposedly no longer required? Was there any
    discussion of repurposing these vehicles for the National Guard dual-
    purpose mission?
        Answer. Congressional support has enabled the Army National Guard
    (ARNG) to purchase 1,509 HMMWV Ambulances and modernize 1,279 Up-
    Armored HMMWVs since 2013. As such, the ARNG will replace our entire
    HMMWV Ambulance fleet by 2019. The Army's Light Tactical Wheeled
    Vehicle modernization and recapitalization efforts include the National
    Guard and Reserve. The ARNG supports the Army's HMMWV Modernization
    Strategy of improving all HMMWVs by recapitalizing existing assets. The
    Army's HMMWV Modernization Strategy incorporates JLTV deliveries, Up-
    Armor HMMWV modernization and Un-Armored HMMWV modernization, roles and
    missions. The Army has fully supported the ARNG's Light Tactical
    Vehicle modernization strategy with funding. The ARNG's Light Tactical
    Vehicle modernization strategy is aligned with the Army's overall
    strategy and also meets the ARNG objectives and requirements for dual-
    use Light Tactical Vehicles. The ARNG is assisting the Army in
    developing a plan for HMMWVs which fall outside the JLTV and Up-Armored
    HMMWV requirements. Although not finalized, ARNG Light Tactical Vehicle
    dual-use requirements are included in the way-ahead strategy.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
    Visclosky. Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and answers
    thereto follow:]

                           State Partnership Program

        Question. With Russia's increasing aggression, how do you plan to
    enhance the State Partnership Program? What more can the State
    Partnership Program in Ukraine and Hungary do to enhance the area of
    civil works/transportation infrastructure in those countries?
        Answer. The State Partnership Program began in Europe at the close
    of the Cold War with the purpose of establishing enduring relationships
    to reassure our allies, deter aggression, and help our partners provide
    more effectively for their own security. Currently, the program has
    partnerships with 12 former Soviet Bloc nations. The State Partnership
    Program is and will remain an important tool for Combatant Commanders
    advancing America's national security interests in Europe and around
    the globe. In addition to obtaining necessary funding through the
    Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process to execute a full slate of
    partnership activities in FY18, the National Guard will continue
    seeking innovative ways to leverage the unique skills of the Guard's
    Citizen-Soldiers and-Airmen as well as the strong relationships that
    Guard members have built over the years to meet emerging security
    challenges. The Commander, U.S. European Command, the lead U.S.
    Department of Defense command in both Ukraine and Hungary, will
    determine the projects undertaken by the State Partnership Program in
    those countries.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.]

                                               Thursday, June 15, 2017.

                 FY 2018 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET OVERVIEW

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, USMC, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
    DAVID NORQUIST, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER

                     Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Today, we will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2018
    budget request for the Department of Defense.
        As the incoming chair of the Defense Subcommittee, I said
    that the defense bill would be based on the needs of our
    military and the best military advice from our leaders in
    uniform. Unfortunately, after extensive conversations with our
    military leaders, I am concerned that the fiscal year 2018
    defense budget request is not enough to address the shortfalls
    and damage caused by years of underfunding. The budget caps
    have enlarged that problem and must be repealed.
        For many years, military leaders have said they would get
    the mission done no matter the level of funding they received.
    That is no longer possible, and it is our job to make sure our
    military has what it needs to face the many threats to our
    Nation.
        All Federal dollars are not the same. During a time when we
    face threats from Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and other
    terrorist groups, we must prioritize our defense funding first.
    Our adversaries are rapidly advancing their tactics and their
    capabilities. The fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill must
    ensure our capabilities remain more advanced and more lethal
    than our adversaries. The last thing we want to give our
    enemies is a fair fight.
        General Dunford, in 2012, your predecessor, General
    Dempsey, testified that we were living in the most dangerous
    era of his lifetime. That was true when he made the statement,
    and the world is so much more dangerous today.
        Unfortunately, I am concerned that the fiscal year budget
    request doesn't go far enough. Our senior military leaders tell
    us this is the minimal level needed to stop the deterioration
    of our military readiness.
        As you had said, Secretary Mattis, it will take years of
    increased funding to get us to where we need to be, and the
    budget request should be viewed as the first step for what is
    truly needed to rebuild our national defense.
        This fiscal year 2018 budget process is especially
    complicated, and we have a big job in front of us and little
    time to complete it. The world isn't standing still, and the
    threats of today and tomorrow are not waiting on our budget
    cycle. It is my hope we can find a bipartisan common ground to
    give our military the robust support that our service chiefs
    and combatant commanders tell us they desperately need. This is
    where our witnesses come in to help us clarify what we need to
    do.
        Before I introduce them, I would like to recognize our
    ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any opening remarks he would
    like to make.

                        Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

        Mr. Visclosky. The only thing I would say, Madam Chair, is
    thank you for holding the hearing and, gentlemen, for your
    service, for your testimony today, and I would commend the
    Secretary of Defense for his very good judgment in bringing
    aboard Mr. Norquist as Comptroller. Despite the fact that he
    graduated from the University of Michigan, I think he is
    eminently qualified for the position given his 6 years of
    experience as a member of our subcommittee staff, and I am very
    serious about that.
        Good luck to you, David.
        Mr. Norquist. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Granger. I call on Chairman Frelinghuysen.

                   Opening Remarks of Chairman Frelinghuysen

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
        I am going to go through my remarks because I think it is
    important to say a few things, but, first of all, I want to
    join on all the members and Chairwoman Granger in thanking you
    all for being here, especially those brothers in arms that have
    sat together at this table on a variety of earlier occasions.
        Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight
    duties of this committee. After all, the power of the purse
    lies in this building. It is the constitutional duty of
    Congress to make spending decisions on behalf of the people we
    represent at home.
        Secretary Mattis, we gather here this morning to review the
    budget of the Department of Defense, the posture of our Armed
    Forces, and to determine how this committee can help our
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines meet the many threats and
    challenges this very dangerous world has produced, because when
    it comes to the men and women in uniform, their missions are
    our missions, and we want to hear your clear priorities for
    making them more successful and safe.
        What is our strategy in Syria? What level of success are we
    having in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even as we have a policy to
    accelerate and to annihilate ISIS, we also recognize that
    threats are growing across the globe from Russia, China, Iran,
    North Korea, transnational jihadists, hackers, and
    cyberterrorists. Your needs are great, but the current
    resources available to you are not adequate.
        We share your opposition to the BCA, the Budget Control
    Act. We will work to lift its restrictions, but this hearing is
    all about an opportunity for you to tell us exactly what you
    need in the short term and long term.
        Mr. Secretary, I have questions also about the devolution
    of warfighting command authority from our Commander in Chief to
    subordinates both civilian and military. While we never want
    the President and the National Security Council to be involved
    in the minute details of operational decisions, we do have
    questions about how to strike a proper balance.
        Secretary Mattis, I hear the constant drumbeat of concern
    from field officers and enlisted personnel about the rules of
    engagement during visits to the Middle East, which all of us
    feel are important, and even from the perspective of visiting
    Bethesda and Walter Reed Hospital. Previously, they were too
    restrictive; now, I am hearing they are confusing.
        In another important area, I think I speak on behalf of all
    of my colleagues when I say we endorse the marriage of hard and
    soft power, military capability and diplomacy to ensure our
    national security. As we prepare the defense appropriations
    bill under Congresswoman Granger's leadership and a State,
    foreign operations bill, we will ask you to weigh in.
        Finally, the general accounting office recently identified
    five key challenges that significantly affect your Department's
    ability to accomplish its mission. These include: top of the
    list, rebuild readiness; secondly, mitigate threats to
    cyberspace and expand cyber capabilities; thirdly, control the
    escalating costs of certain weapons systems and, yes, of
    course, strategically managing your human capital; and, lastly,
    achieving greater efficiencies in defense business operations.
        We do not need a special report to tell us that we have a
    readiness problem--I am sure you will do that in your
    statements--or that the Department of Defense has acquisition
    challenges, but we do look forward to hearing your strategy to
    address these issues and their recommendations.
        And, with that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time,
    and I thank the panel for being here with us again. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Ranking Member Lowey.

                         Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I would like to thank Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
    Member Visclosky for holding this hearing.
        And I welcome sincerely Secretary Mattis and General
    Dunford and Under Secretary--your title now is Under Secretary
    of Defense--David Norquist. I know many of us sleep better at
    night in this very difficult world knowing that you are there
    making decisions. Thank you for appearing before us today.
        We do live in such a dangerous world in which the threats
    emanate from every corner of the globe, including North Korea's
    belligerence; ISIL's increasingly common attacks in the Middle
    East and Europe; Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Africa; Iran's
    destabilizing activities in the Middle East and state sponsor
    of terrorism; cyber attacks on U.S. interests at home and
    overseas; continued Russian aggression in the Ukraine, to name
    just a few.
        The Department of Defense's task to track the quickly
    changing global security landscape and ensure the defense of
    our Nation and our allies is both exceedingly challenging and
    costly.
        Secretary Mattis, your fiscal year 2018 budget requests
    $564.7 billion in the base budget and $63.9 billion in overseas
    contingency operations funding. The base budget request is $52
    billion above DOD's share of the fiscal year 2018 budget cap in
    current law. The President's corresponding proposal to cut
    nondefense discretionary funds to pay for it would outright
    cripple important investments needed here at home.
        While I am very pleased that your budget focuses on
    readiness and strengthening our military, I have serious
    concerns about how this dynamic world would impact nondefense
    discretionary funding, which is equally important and
    contributes to our national security.
        Quite simply, the President's budget request forsakes
    critical nondefense programs, many of which support our men and
    women in uniform, contribute to national security, and even
    enable our ability to maintain ready and able Armed Forces.
        For example, Major General Jeffrey Snow, the Commanding
    General of the United States Army Recruiting Command notes that
    only 3 in 10 recruits can meet the requirements to join the
    Army. That is an extraordinary statistic. The two things Major
    General Snow recommended are, and I quote, ``something as
    simple as what our kids are fed in schools,'' end quote, and
    the importance of not doing away with physical education
    programs. And yet this administration would roll back
    guidelines for healthy school meals and proposes to cut $400
    million from education and academic support initiatives,
    including physical education.
        Even retired General Stanley McChrystal has raised
    concerns, stating that public broadcasting, which this budget
    proposes to eliminate, makes us, quote, ``smarter, stronger,
    and, yes, safer.''
        General Mattis, you have said, and I quote, ``If you don't
    fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
    ammunition,'' yet the increases you request come at the expense
    of the 32-percent reduction in the international affairs
    budget, which would put American lives in danger, a fact
    underscored in a recent letter by 120--120--three- and four-
    star generals, and would abdicate our leadership in the world.
        This administration is heading down a dangerous path by
    proposing increases in defense spending, which I certainly
    support, while falling short of our obligations for education,
    healthcare, transportation, support for law enforcement, and
    first responders and more.
        Congress must reject President Trump's misguided budget
    request and instead pass appropriation bills that support
    national security and American families alike.
        And I just want to say in closing: I have been on this
    committee a long time, and I am proud to be on this committee
    because we have always worked constructively in a bipartisan
    way.
        So I am looking forward to this discussion. I look forward
    to your comments. And I do hope we can approach this budget and
    all the other essential parts of the budget sincerely and be
    successful in creating an appropriate balance.
        Thank you so much for appearing before us today.
        Ms. Granger. Chairman Emeritus Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman, I will forego.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        And I will do the same.
        Again, allow me to introduce our witnesses. Secretary of
    Defense Jim Mattis comes to the civilian leadership of the
    Department after a long and illustrious career in the Marine
    Corps in which he served in several senior command positions,
    including combat commands in Afghanistan and Iraq, before
    retiring with the rank of general in 2013.
        General Joseph Dunford is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff and is making his second appearance before us. Like
    Secretary Mattis, General Dunford is a Marine with a long and
    distinguished career and served as Commandant of the Marine
    Corps prior to becoming Chairman.
        Appearing with Secretary Mattis and General Dunford is
    David Norquist, who recently was sworn in as the new
    Comptroller of the Department of Defense.
        Mr. Norquist, thank you for being here today, also.
        Secretary Mattis we will begin with your opening statement,
    followed by General Dunford. Please summarize your statements
    so that we are able to get to our questions as quickly as
    possible.

                         Statement of Secretary Mattis

        Secretary Mattis. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Granger,
    Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the committee. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2018.
        And, Madam Chairman, I request that the committee accept my
    written statement for the record.
        I am joined today by Chairman Dunford and the Comptroller
    so that, hopefully, if there are detailed questions, we can
    actually answer them all right here in front of you today. I
    would like to give an opening statement, chairwoman, because I
    think I can address some of the issues that have been brought
    up already, and it should take only a few minutes.
        But this budget request does hold me accountable to the men
    and women of the Department of Defense. Every day, as you know,
    more than 2 million servicemembers, nearly a million civilians,
    do their duty, and in doing so, they honor previous generations
    of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed for our
    country, and it is my privilege to be back among them.
        We in the Department are keenly aware of the sacrifices
    made by the American people to fund our military. Many times in
    the past, we have had as a country to look reality in the eye
    and meet challenges with the help of congressional leadership
    building the most capable warfighting force in the world.
        There is no room for complacency in the Department of
    Defense, and we have no God-given right to victory on the
    battlefield. Each generation of Americans, from the Halls of
    Congress to the battlefield, earns victory through commitment
    and sacrifice. And, yet, for 4 years, the Department has been
    subjected to or threatened by automatic across-the-board cuts
    as a result of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so injurious
    to the military, it would never go into effect. But it did go
    into effect, and as forecast by then-Secretary of Defense
    Panetta the damage has been severe.
        In addition, during 9 of the last 10 years, Congress has
    enacted separate continuing resolutions to fund the Department
    of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new
    challenges. We need bipartisan support for this request, as
    noted by the chairwoman. In the past, by failing to pass a
    budget on time or to eliminate the threat of sequestration,
    Congress sidelined itself from its active constitutional
    oversight role.
        Continuing resolutions coupled with sequestrations blocked
    new programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry's
    initiatives, and placed troops at greater risk. Despite the
    tremendous efforts of this committee, Congress as a whole has
    met the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership.
        I retired from military service 3 months after
    sequestration took effect. Four years later, I have returned to
    the Department. I am shocked by what I have seen about our
    readiness to fight. While nothing can compare to the heartache
    caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in
    the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our
    military than sequestration. We have only sustained our ability
    to meet America's commitments for our security because our
    troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden, but our
    troops' stoic commitment cannot reduce the growing risk.
        It took us years to get into this situation, as the
    Chairwoman noted. It will require years of stable budgets and
    increased funding to get us out of it. I urge members of this
    committee and Congress to achieve these goals:
        First, fully fund our request, which requires an increase
    to the defense budget caps.
        Second, pass a fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner
    to avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution.
        And, third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration
    cuts to provide a stable budgetary planning horizon.
        Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because
    of four external factors that are impacting the Department at
    this time.
        The first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16
    years of war. When Congress approved the all-volunteer force in
    1973, our country never envisioned sending our military to war
    for more than a decade without pause or conscription. America's
    long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform
    and their families.
        And here I will note a few points on Afghanistan that were
    brought up during the opening remarks by the committee,
    recognizing there that our military posture is part of a larger
    regional context in South Asia. Our primary national interest
    and the international interest in Afghanistan is ensuring it
    does not become an ungoverned space from which attacks can
    again be launched against the United States, other nations, or
    the Afghan people. In this regard, our forces are conducting
    partnered counterterrorism operations, and we are supporting
    the NATO-led mission so, in the future, the Afghan people can
    defend themselves.
        This week, President Trump delegated to me the authority to
    manage troop numbers in Afghanistan. The delegation of this
    authority, consistent with the authority President Trump
    granted me 2 months ago for Iraq and Syria, does not at this
    time change the troop numbers for Afghanistan. Together in the
    interagency process with Secretary Tillerson's foreign policy
    guiding us as he implements the President's direction, we will
    define the way ahead, and I will set the U.S. military
    commitment consistent with the Commander in Chief's strategic
    direction and his foreign policy, as dictated by Secretary of
    State Tillerson. This ensures our Department can facilitate our
    missions and nimbly align the commitment of troops to the
    situation on the ground.
        Our overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same: to
    train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces so they can
    safeguard the Afghan people and terrorists find no haven in
    Afghanistan for attacking us or others. The revised Afghanistan
    strategy with a new approach will be presented to the President
    for his approval in the coming weeks.
        The second concurrent force acting on our Department is the
    worsening global security situation that was mentioned by all
    members of the committee in their opening remarks. And here we
    must look reality in the eye. Russia and China are seeking a
    veto authority over the economic, diplomatic, and security
    decisions of nations on their periphery. North Korea's reckless
    rhetoric and provocative actions continue, despite United
    Nations' censure and sanctions, while Iran remains the largest
    long-term challenge to Mideast stability. All the while,
    terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many
    regions while targeting us.
        The third force that we have to deal with is adversaries
    actively contesting America's capabilities. For decades, we
    enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating
    domain or realm. We could generally deploy our forces when we
    wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and employ them, operate
    them as we wanted. Every operating domain today, on the other
    hand, from outer space to air, sea, undersea, land, and
    cyberspace is contested.
        The fourth concurrent force that we must deal with is rapid
    technological change. Among the other forces noted thus far,
    technological change is one that necessitates new investment,
    innovative approaches, and new program starts that have been
    denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under
    continuing resolutions.
        Each of these four forces--16 years of war, the worsening
    security environment, contested operations in multiple domains,
    and the rapid pace of technological change--requires stable
    budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of
    our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms.
        I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as
    Secretary of Defense. The fundamental responsibility of our
    government is to defend the American people, providing for our
    security, and we cannot defend America and help others if our
    Nation is not both strong and solvent.
        So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the American
    public and the Congress to ensure we spend each dollar wisely.
    President Trump has nominated for Senate approval specific
    individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our
    Department's fiscal processes and ensure that we do so.
        The first step in restoring readiness is underway thanks to
    Congress' willingness to support the administration's request
    for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017
    to address vital warfighting shortfalls. Your support put more
    aircraft in the air, more ships at sea, and more troops to
    training in the field.
        However, we all recognize it will take a number of years of
    higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness, to
    strengthen the military, and President Trump has requested $639
    billion top line for the fiscal year 2018 budget.
        There are five priorities here. The first is to improve
    warfighter readiness, and that was begun in 2017, filling in
    the tradeoffs made during 16 years of war, 9 years of
    continuing resolutions, and Budget Control Act caps.
        The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality,
    as noted by the chairwoman, while preparing for future
    investment, driven then by the results of the defense strategy
    that we are working on now. Our fiscal year 2018 budget request
    ensures the Nation's current nuclear deterrent will be
    sustained and supports continuation of its much-needed
    modernization process.
        The third priority is reforming how the Department does
    business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every dollar,
    and we have begun implementation of a range of reform
    initiatives directed by the 2017 National Defense Authorization
    Act, and we are on track to enter into a full agencywide
    financial statement audit, as required by statute.
        I urge Congress to support the Department's request for
    authority to conduct a 2021 Base Realignment and Closure
    process. I recognize the careful deliberation that members must
    exercise in considering it, but BRAC has been one of the most
    successful and significant efficiency programs we have. We have
    forecast that a properly focused base closure effort could
    generate $2 billion or more annually, and over a 5-year period,
    that savings would be enough to buy 300 Apache attack
    helicopters or 120 Super Hornets.
        The fourth priority in the fiscal year 2018 budget is
    keeping faith with servicemembers and their families, since
    talented people remain our most valuable asset. But we must
    balance these requirements with those of investing for other
    readiness equipment modernization efforts to ensure that our
    military is the most capable warfighting force in the world and
    that we bring our folks home alive. Investment in military
    compensation is essential.
        Our fifth priority is support for overseas contingency
    operations. The 2018 budget requests $64.6 billion focusing on
    operations in locations you are well aware of. ISIS and other
    terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger,
    and I am encouraged, members of this committee, by the
    willingness of our allies and partners to help share the burden
    that we carry.
        Moving forward, the 2019 budget will be informed by the
    National Defense Strategy. I will then have the analytical
    rigor that I can recommend hard choices as we shape the program
    for the next 5 years. The Department will work with President
    Trump, the Congress, and this committee in particular, to
    ensure future budget requests are sustainable and provide the
    Commander in Chief with viable military options that support
    our security.
        In summation, I need the BCA caps lifted and a budget, not
    a continuing resolution, passed on time and elimination of
    future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable and
    adequate way ahead. For those who are concerned that we are not
    asking for sufficient dollars, please consider the following:
    For 2017, we asked for $30 billion. The Congress provided $21
    billion as a supplemental. Second, this fiscal year, we have
    requested the amounts I have noted already. This is a 5-percent
    growth over what national defense was funded for in 2017. This
    request is admittedly $52 billion above the Budget Control Act
    defense caps. We have underway at this time a National Security
    Strategy that will give me the analytical rigor to come back to
    you for the fiscal year 2019 to 2023 budget request when we
    want to build up our military to confront the situation that
    the chairman and I have laid out in our written statements.
        I am keenly aware that we have the support of this
    committee, and we have over many years, but I ask for your help
    to inform your fellow Members of Congress about the reality
    facing our military and the need for Congress as a whole to
    pass a defense budget on time.
        Thank you for your strong support over many years. I pledge
    to collaborate with you.
        And, ladies and gentlemen, Chairman Dunford can give some
    military aspects of this that might give more depth to some of
    the things I have just stated.
        [The written statement of Secretary Mattis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        General Dunford.

                          Statement of General Dunford

        General Dunford. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
    Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, it is an
    honor to join Secretary Mattis and Under Secretary Norquist in
    appearing before you today.
        I am honored to represent you men and women in uniform, and
    it is because of them I can state up front with confidence that
    we have the most capable U.S. military in the world. However,
    the competitive advantage that our military has long enjoyed is
    eroding, and a number of factors have contributed to that
    erosion, and we have discussed those in previous hearings.
        One is an extraordinarily high level of operational tempo
    since 9/11, which has accelerated the wear and tear of our
    weapons and equipment. Meanwhile, budget instability and Budget
    Control Act have forced the Department to operate with far
    fewer resources than necessary to meet the current strategy of
    record. As a consequence, we have prioritized near-term
    readiness at the expense of replacing aged equipment and
    capability development.
        We also maintain a force that consumes readiness as fast as
    we build it, and we lack sufficient capacity to meet current
    operational requirements while rebuilding and maintaining what
    when we describe as full-spectrum readiness. Of course, we are
    talking there of being able to respond to both Russia on one
    end and violent extremism on the other end and all the
    challenges that may fall between. The Secretary and the service
    chiefs have addressed that dynamic in their testimonies, and I
    fully concur with their assessments, but beyond current
    readiness, we are confronted with another significant challenge
    that I assess today to be near term. While we have been
    primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our
    adversaries and our potential adversaries have developed
    advanced capabilities and operational approaches. And these are
    specifically designed to limit our ability to project power,
    which we view as our source of strength of the U.S. military.
    They recognize that our ability to project power is, in fact,
    necessary to defend the homeland, advance our interests and
    meet our alliance commitments.
        And as Secretary Mattis mentioned, Russia, China and Iran
    field a wide range of cyberspace, aviation, maritime, and land
    capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability to
    deploy the force, employ the force, and sustain the force in
    combat. Russia and China have also modernized a nuclear arsenal
    while North Korea has been on a relentless path to field a
    nuclear-armed ICBM that can reach the United States.
        In just a few years, if we don't change the trajectory we
    are going to lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive
    advantage, and the consequences will be profound. It is going
    to affect our ability to deter a nuclear war, a conventional
    war, and our ability to respond if deterrence fails.
        Alternatively, we can maintain our competitive advantage
    with sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding. To that
    end, the fiscal year 2018 budget request is an essential step,
    and it builds on the fiscal year 2017 supplemental request, as
    the Secretary mentioned. However, this request alone is not
    going to fully restore our readiness or arrest the erosion of
    our competitive advantage. Doing that is going to require
    sustained investment beyond fiscal year 2018.
        As the Secretary mentioned, this took us several years to
    get into this situation we are in right now, and we assess it
    will take many years to get out of this situation. Specific
    recommendation for 2019 and beyond will be informed by the
    Secretary's forthcoming defense strategy, but we know right now
    that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent
    above inflation is necessary just to maintain the relative
    competitive advantage that we have today. That is not to build
    a force that we need tomorrow, but simply to maintain the force
    that we have today.
        As we ask for your support, we recognize the responsibility
    to maintain the trust of the American taxpayer, and we take
    this responsibility seriously and will continue to eliminate
    redundancies and achieve efficiencies where possible.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    this morning, and, Chairwoman, more importantly, thank you for
    all you and the committee do to make sure that, as you said,
    our young men and women never find themselves in a fair fight.
        And, with that, I am prepared to take your questions.
        [The written statement of General Dunford follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
        We will now proceed to questions observing our usual 5-
    minute rule, and watch your red light. I am going to forego my
    questions until the end, but just in response to your opening
    statements, we request that you reach out to Members that are
    not on this committee or the authorizing committee and make
    sure that they understand how very important this is and what
    your plan is that says we will rebuild to this at this time and
    then continue for years.
        And the question and answers, we have several members who
    are in either committee, subcommittee hearings that are hearing
    right now. So I am going to go to Ms. McCollum first because I
    know you have to leave. Mr. Calvert will be second.

                            Remarks of Ms. McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Calvert and I
    will someday repay the kindness that this committee as shared
    with us.
        First, I want to thank you all for being here today and
    your service to our Nation. I have two questions I am going to
    submit for the record, but one I am going to just mention what
    it is because I am very concerned about what appears to be--
    well, not appears to be--it is a growing problem with pilots
    across our services reporting symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen
    deprivation. And I have had some briefings on it, but I want to
    learn how more this committee can be helpful on that, and then
    another question for the record on the transgender policy and
    the way that is unfolding.
        But I want to state however, Mr. Secretary, I find this
    budget to be completely out of balance with the needs of the
    American people. We do--we do need a strong national defense,
    but we also must ensure that the needs of the American people
    here at home are taken care of. The proposed increase for
    defense will come at the expense of domestic investments for
    all Americans, including our men and women in uniform, their
    families, our veterans, and these are services that they all
    depend on: lifesaving medical research, support for our first
    responders, educational opportunities for future generations,
    safe roads and bridges. So this is about making smart choices.
        The Pentagon is going to have to be tougher on cutting
    waste and controlling spending, and I was pleased to hear in
    your remarks that you are on top of doing just that. And I
    couldn't agree with you more that we need to participate with
    the armed services in doing a BRAC. We need to be doing that.
    So you have my full support and count on me to work with you
    with that.

                            STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

        But there is an example of how continued investment after
    15 years in Afghanistan has left us in a stalemate. Just let me
    lay out some statistics here: 2,000 Americans have lost their
    lives. Over 20,000 have been wounded. Last year alone--last
    year alone--5,000 Afghanistan troops were killed in action, and
    the President of Afghanistan said that there is over 11,000
    foreign fighters right now operating in country. Corruption
    continues to run rampant in Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains
    foremost a NARCO state, and the cost of our involvement, the
    U.S. involvement, is $700 billion. That is a staggering amount
    to spend on a war you said yourself at the time we are not
    winning, and that is from The Washington Post article on June
    13th.
        So, Mr. Secretary, now that President Trump has fully
    delegated all the authority for troop levels on to you, will
    you be sending more troops to Afghanistan in the calendar year?
    What do you consider success? And will U.S. troops be fighting
    in Afghanistan 15 years from now?
        Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Congresswoman, he has not delegated all
    authority to me. He maintains strategic oversight. He is an
    actively engaged and a very hard questioner about what the
    strategy is. He has delegated the details of forces that will
    be allocated to support what he approves finally as the
    strategy, but I assure you this is not a carte blanche for me
    to come up with numbers that are going into this in
    interagency, foreign policy-led effort.
        As far as what it is that we would be doing in order to
    bring this to a better conclusion, we have got to recognize
    that we tried to leave the Afghan forces before they were fully
    mature without the sufficient air support that would allow them
    to hold the high ground, to put it in military terms. So we are
    going to have to look at a more regional strategy, one that
    takes into account Afghanistan as part of South Asia, not look
    at it in isolation. It is going to have to be one that marries
    itself to reality and the current level of support that we
    could expect out of the leadership in the Afghan forces so that
    we don't add to their responsibility without preparing them for
    success, and if that means we have to keep advisors with them a
    little longer, then 9/11 taught us the cost of not paying
    attention to this problem. And we will do so.
        For right now, we also have to work hard on the
    countercorruption effort there in order to make this government
    responsive to the needs of its people, and in that regard, that
    is why the State Department is an equal partner with me as we
    put this strategy together. We are not looking at a purely
    military strategy, and it has got to be one that leads to a
    reconciliation. All wars come to an end. Our job is to end it
    as quickly as possible without losing the very mission that we
    recognized through several administrations was worth putting
    those young Americans on the line for.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                               BUDGET CONTROL ACT

        Good morning, Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, Mr.
    Norquist. Thank you for appearing before our committee. Thank
    you for your service to our Nation. Most of us, if not all of
    us, agree and understand that the base on defense must go up
    and maybe more than the $50 billion that you are asking for.
        However, I am going to have a bipartisan moment here--maybe
    the sobering couple of days that we have had here--but the
    funding on military cannot be obtained on the back of
    nondefense discretionary spending. I think all of us here in
    this room understand that. It is not going to work. We need a
    budget agreement. We need the administration, we need the
    Senate, the House to come to a workable number that we can
    agree to get rid of the sequestration and the Budget Control
    Act and come up with realistic numbers both on the
    discretionary side and the nondiscretionary side. And we need
    to talk about the entire budget, not just discretionary
    spending.
        So I hope in the coming days that we take this seriously,
    and that is not just the House and the Senate. That does
    include the administration. So I think we all need to be
    working together on that.

                               CIVILIAN WORKFORCE

        One issue, though, that we can do within the Department of
    Defense--and you, Mr. Secretary, mentioned reforms--is
    something I know I have been harping on, and some of my friends
    up here have heard this a number of times, but from 2001 to
    2014, the Active-Duty military has shrunk by 4 percent while
    the number of civilian defense employees has grown by 15
    percent. A recent study uncovered by The Washington Post found
    that there is approximately $125 billion in bureaucratic waste
    at the DOD.
        Now I know many of my colleagues and the service chiefs
    pointed out the importance of our civilian workforce,
    especially our maintenance people and civilians who work at the
    depots. I have got to point that out here. But this report
    found excess capacity in the bureaucratic overhead, desk jobs,
    held by civilians and certainly contractors.
        Secretary Mattis, I would like to give you both the mandate
    and the authority to conduct a reduction in force that would
    place more emphasis on performance and, as you mentioned, the
    word ``lethality.'' We want to keep the best and the brightest
    of our civilian workforce while realizing billions in savings
    that could be redirected back into the Department for
    readiness, procurement, and end strength. Can you share your
    thoughts on the size of the civilian workforce within the DOD,
    and what is the overarching plan to match capability with
    requirements? Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Congressman Calvert, we are on track
    right now to reduce our headquarters by 30 percent. That is
    where you find much of the specific jobs that you have
    highlighted here. I would add that I have met twice now with
    the authors of the report that found the $125 billion in waste,
    as they pointed out. I do not agree with everything in the
    report. I have got real concerns about logistics. I know it
    doesn't look sexy, but I would tell you that the strength of
    our forces in deploying around the world is heavily dependent
    on those logistics elements and just-in-time civilian practices
    may not work well on a battlefield where the enemy is trying to
    disrupt your timelines in terms of undercutting our warfighting
    capability.
        But that does not take away in my mind that I need to look
    carefully at each one of the wastes that they identified and
    address it. The best way to do this, I believe, is to get the
    right people into the Pentagon, and I am drawing people from
    industry, including those who saved programs, big programs that
    were in big problems, for industry, aircraft programs. This
    way, they come in with a background of how to very analytically
    weigh the quantitative and nonquantitative factors so that we
    can have a grounding, I would say, a grounding in what the
    fundamentals are that permit us to revolutionize our business
    practices.
        I have three priorities in the Department: Strengthen our
    military; strengthen our alliances so we are not carrying the
    full burden for our security; and to reform the business
    practices. And I will get these people in. They are being
    confirmed as we speak. It is ongoing. And once I have them
    there, I am going to fully empower them along the lines you are
    talking about.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Lowey.

                        INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Mattis, during testimony before the Senate Armed
    Services Committee in 2013, Senator Wicker asked you if you had
    observed that the international development budget is helpful
    to us in providing national defense for our country. You
    responded, and I quote, ``If you don't fund the State
    Department full then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.
    So I think it is a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put
    into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we
    have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome
    of an apparent American withdrawal from the international
    scene,'' end quote.
        As the ranking member of both the full House Appropriations
    Committee and the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I
    frankly am extremely concerned that the fiscal year 2018 budget
    requests drastic increases in defense spending at the expense
    of nondefense discretionary priorities, including foreign aid
    and international development programs.
        Mr. Secretary, do you stand by your statements about the
    importance of the foreign aid budget, and how will these
    drastic cuts to diplomacy programs impact future DOD
    expenditures?
        Secretary Mattis. Congresswoman, I believe America has two
    fundamental powers: the power of intimidation, and that is
    represented here before the committee today, America's awesome
    determination to defend ourselves; and the power of
    inspiration, which is heavily conveyed overseas by our
    Department of State. Well, they are the lead on it.
        I have not reviewed--just getting ready for these hearings
    consumed my time to understand budgets that are rather
    extensive. I have not reviewed where the cuts come to Secretary
    of State Tillerson's budget. So I do not want to speak offhand
    without having done my homework.
        But I would tell you that, as I read about those cuts, I
    called Secretary of State Tillerson. I meet with him weekly. We
    talk several times a day, and we agreed to put two of our top-
    level subordinates together. We are going to look at the
    priorities for where we need to engage in the world. This
    committee also gives me development funds, and we have married
    the two. We will set the priorities together so that we get the
    best possible use of the dollars allocated to each of the
    Departments working in concert. So that is my effort to
    reinforce on that and keep us together, and I am confident this
    is also what President Trump expects us to do. So that is my
    best response to you.
        I have not reviewed their budget in any detail, ma'am. So I
    just can't speak to where the cuts are coming.
        Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, my timer is not on.
        Ms. Granger. Out of respect, Mrs. Lowey, we don't put a
    timer on you.
        Mrs. Lowey. Oh, you are so kind. You know, Chairwoman
    Granger and I have worked together a long time, and there
    really is outstanding mutual respect.
        Well, then I will just take another minute.
        Ms. Granger. Okay.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Mrs. Lowey. Because there is another issue that I am
    passionately concerned about, and that is cyber security. I am
    so concerned about the growing cyber threats against the United
    States' interests and assets both at home and overseas. If you
    could share with us the primary risk faced by the Department of
    Defense in the cybersecurity realm. How does the budget request
    support offense of cyber operations? And along with its
    elevation to a full unified command, as specified in the fiscal
    year 2017 NDAA, would Cyber Command benefit from ending the
    dual-hat relationship with NSA? And what steps is the
    Department taking to attract and retain these skilled
    personnel? And I have been so concerned about, once an
    individual comes to your Department and has gone through
    extensive training, we hope that we will be able to keep them
    because this is such a challenge I am aware of from the private
    sector. So thank you.
        Secretary Mattis. Just quickly, ma'am, I could not agree
    more about the growing threat. If we had been here 10 years
    ago, I would have yawned and said: I don't see the big problem.
        Right now, it is at $8 billion this year specifically
    targeted, and actually, there is a lot more going into this,
    because we are not counting in all the recruiting dollars on--
    this is just targeted on the cyber capability. I would tell you
    that growing from basically $3 billion to $8 billion in 5 years
    shows the priority we are placing on it.
        As far as the Cyber Command-NSA split, we intend to make
    this a split that actually gains more unity of effort from a
    broader constituency, too, from other elements that are also
    engaged in the countercyber threat.
        And, lastly, I just say that the attracting and keeping key
    people, the educated, trained people will be very challenging.
    We recognize it because they can be offered so much more money
    on the open market than they can be offered in government
    service. We will have to fight it probably with bonuses but
    also with a call to their patriotism, which at times is the
    most compelling, and we keep a lot of young people around based
    on the fact that we need them to defend the country. But it is
    going to be a challenge, and I did not hear one word you said
    on this issue that I take issue with. I agree with you 100
    percent. It is a priority effort.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
        And, unfortunately, I have to go to another hearing, too.
    So thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I know we rest better at night knowing that you are in
    charge of the policy. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Chairman Rogers.

                          STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

        Mr. Rogers. Amen to that last remark. We are assured with
    you in charge.
        Let me quickly and briefly take up the matter that Mr.
    Calvert mentioned and also Mrs. Lowey on the funding for the
    Department of State. We had Secretary Tillerson here yesterday,
    and he agreed with the same description of your relationship
    that you have mentioned here today, and that is great.
        But the proposed budget for State and foreign operations
    has rather draconian cuts. For example, economic assistance to
    Egypt is cut by a third; Ukraine by half; Pakistan by a third;
    Iraq by 14 percent; Afghanistan by 9 percent; and the like.
    That is economic assistance, not to mention the military each
    side. Those are rather severe, would you not agree?
        Secretary Mattis. I agree, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. What impact would those kinds of cuts have
    on your capability to do what you need to do in these various
    countries?
        Secretary Mattis. Well, in terms of a direct military
    impact, if I am kept funded, then, obviously, I can keep the
    military--the purely military--effort ongoing, and that
    includes the support for protection of our embassies, which is
    a constant priority for us.
        But I think that I would have to look--again, I am not
    trying to get out of answering the question, Congressman, but I
    would have to look in detail about what is the capability that
    they are losing, what is it, and then we would have to do an
    analysis of what that does.
        The concern I would have is sometimes these issues do not
    relate easily to a quantitative analysis, that there is
    nonquantitative aspects to our relationship with the world that
    are more difficult to come up with. They are easier to see,
    frankly, in the rearview mirror. That is when you see what has
    happened. But I just don't want to say something right now,
    sir, that I can't back up with some kind of homework that I
    have done already so I can give you some authoritative answers.
        Mr. Rogers. When you have time to reflect on that, we would
    like to hear from you.
        Secretary Mattis. Okay, sir.

                                BUDGETARY NUMBER

        Mr. Rogers. I have been dealing with these CRs and
    omnibuses now for many years. And we are headed straight into
    that rabbit patch again very quickly. I don't recollect a time
    later in the season that we have gone as far as we have this
    time. Here it is almost July 4th, and we are nowhere near
    coming up with a budgetary number that we can sit down and
    appropriate to on Appropriations Committee.
        So I want to encourage you to talk with the White House
    people, especially OMB, and see if we can negotiate a number
    that we can appropriate to here on this subcommittee and the
    other 11. Otherwise, we are headed straight into a CR, with all
    that contains, or an omnibus, where we don't get what we need
    to get in defense.
        So that is the dilemma that we are in, but it also is the
    dilemma that you are in. We need desperately a number that both
    sides have agreed to, and I am here to tell you that I think
    that is possible, but it does take some elbow work, and it
    takes some grease work, and it takes some effort.
        But on this subcommittee, we understand completely your
    need for help, and we are there to give it to you. But our
    hands are tied until we get that number that we can all work
    under. So let me encourage you to work your magic with the
    budgeteers at the OMB and other places.
        We appreciate your service, all of you. Thank you so much
    for dedicating your lives to our country. And we feel safe with
    you in the positions you are in.
        I yield.
        Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

                             NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
        I would just point out to the panel that my understanding
    is the deadline for the Department to have auditable results is
    the end of fiscal year 2017, which is fast approaching. I
    understand from the Under Secretary that that goal will
    absolutely be met, and I am counting on him.
        What I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, is, if we can follow
    up with your office, as you know, I have an intense interest on
    the Nuclear Posture Review, the modernization program, and I
    appreciate your very thoughtful conversation in February. Too
    often I think people have an instinctive response that we need
    a triad forever. You suggested that you want to take a very
    serious look as to what it should be going forward.
        I think when people think about the nuclear posture, they
    also think about nonproliferation, many of the programs being
    at the Department of Energy, but the third element, from my
    perspective, are those nonnuclear events or weapons that
    potentially trigger a nuclear event. Our country, others are
    working on hypersonic weapons. So we have unstable regimes that
    what will trigger their nuclear response, absent a nuclear
    attack of our own?
        And I would appreciate sitting down with whoever you think
    is appropriate from the Department so that I have a clearer
    understanding and perhaps the chair and others on the
    subcommittee, how the Department works through preventing that
    from happening to the best of our Nation's ability, where it is
    not toe to toe, somebody launches first, but there is some
    event, there is that new weapons system that is just kinetic,
    nonnuclear, that triggers that nuclear event. I think it is a
    very serious issue, and I would like to have that conversation.
        Secretary Mattis. I will find the right people to bring up,
    sir. I understand the nature of your question, though, and I
    would just say that I had not put those in my thinking into the
    Nuclear Posture Review. So let me reconsider the guidance I
    have given them. We are working, obviously, the triad: should
    it be there, which weapon system should constitute each leg,
    and the nonproliferation. I need to look at this myself. After
    I get my head wrapped around it right, I will assign some
    people to come up and brief you and get your thoughts on this.
        Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate it, because I do think you have
    been very thoughtful on this.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

        Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, and Mr. Norquist, it is
    good to have all three of you here. I really thank you for your
    service. And, quite frankly, it speaks well of the President
    that you all were nominated in your respective positions and
    got such strong bipartisan support when the Senate considered
    you. So I appreciate that.
        Second, I couldn't help but laugh, Mr. Secretary, when I
    read your now famous remark about your sleep habits. And I
    thought, well, all of us sleep a lot better right now if you
    happen to be an American thanks to you. So we are very grateful
    for that.
        I want to echo a little bit of what has been said up here
    several times, because I don't think it can be said often
    enough. When we look at the approps process, and I focus a lot
    on that, at the end of the day, there are only one or two
    outcomes this year. We are either going to have a continuing
    resolution or we are going to have a negotiated bipartisan
    agreement. And as you have made crystal clear, the latter is
    much preferable to the former. And so I really want to
    emphasize that where my colleagues are concerned and, quite
    frankly, associate myself with some of my Democratic
    colleagues' remarks: If we don't get to a good number in the
    nondefense area, we will inevitably end up doing something that
    nobody on either side of the aisle wants to do, and that is
    present you with the kind of dilemma that you have outlined in
    front of you.
        I think, at the end of this day, this committee will give
    you at least what you ask and probably more. But, again, if we
    don't get the process right, none of that will matter. You
    know, they can authorize everything all day long. Until we
    actually get the numbers where we can appropriate, things don't
    happen.
        I do have a question. I know you are in the last part of
    really working on the National Security Strategy, and we look
    forward with a great deal of anticipation to looking at that.
    But I am curious if you believe--and this may be a little out
    of your lane. If you don't want to comment on it, that is
    perfectly fine with me. But some of us up here have been
    concerned for a long time about the lack of a new Authorization
    for Use of Force. We are really operating off things that go
    back to 2001, 2002, 2003. We are fighting a different enemy in
    a different place than we envisioned at that time.
        Would it be helpful for Congress to explicitly have this
    sort of debate and come to these sorts of conclusions,
    obviously, with the guidance from the administration, input
    from the administration and experts, or is that just a waste of
    time?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, I don't believe it is a waste of
    time at all. The Chairman and I have talked at length about
    this in our private conversations, and the Congress making a
    statement like that would hearten our own troops. It would
    reassure our allies around the world. It would put America out
    front in terms of a united--or the consensus of the Congress
    that this is where you think we have to be committed.
        I believe it is much preferable to leaving it to be argued
    about in bits and pieces over specific issues or troop strength
    or something like this. And the Chairman, I could have him
    comment, too, but he believes it sends a real statement, sir.
        Mr. Cole. Mr. Chairman.
        General Dunford. Congressman, that is exactly the
    conversation we had. I think it would send a loud and
    unmistakable message to our young men and women that are
    deployed that the people at home in the form of the Congress
    support what they are doing. And it is a consensus about what
    they are doing, and what they are doing is important.
        Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much for that because I feel
    exactly the same way. I think it is a constitutional issue as
    well. And I think it means a lot when people of your stature
    tell us that it matters to the men and women that we have put
    in harm's way to do difficult things for us.
        So, Madam Chairman, I would hope, while we all work hard,
    and I know we will, on getting the appropriate resources so
    that we have at least the administration's request and perhaps
    some more, that we also push our respective leadership on both
    sides of the aisle to stop avoiding a debate that needs to
    happen.
        You know, I have actually worked with my friend, Mr.
    McGovern from Massachusetts, we probably don't see eye to eye
    on the issue, but we certainly see eye to eye on the importance
    of a resolution and a congressional statement. So I think that
    is part of our job ahead of us, too. It is not just to give you
    the resources, which we certainly need to do, but to make sure
    that you have got the clear lines of authority and the
    unequivocal support of the American people as you go about
    carrying out the mission we have asked you to do.
        I am not going to take the rest of my time. I yield back.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. I certainly agree with you Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Ryan.

                             U.S. ROLE IN THE WORLD

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
        I want to make a couple of points, and then have a question
    with regard to North Korea. One is we just got back from a
    trip: We were in Bahrain. We were in Norway. We were in
    Germany. We were in Spain. And as a guy from Youngstown, Ohio,
    it always inspires me to see the footprint of the young men and
    women who are under your command, that they take their
    responsibilities so very seriously. They are so well trained.
        The point I want to make is that I don't think we do a good
    enough job of letting the American people know how important
    our role in the world is. When you are in the Persian Gulf,
    when you are in the Middle East, when you are in Europe, you
    are thinking about what we are doing in Eastern Europe with
    NATO, the American people just don't quite understand, I think,
    the prominence and the responsibilities that we carry. And part
    of that is losing the World War II generation, the people that
    were engaged in war and all the rest. So all of us--just to
    make a point because I think all of us need to think about, as
    we are having these discussions, how we communicate that to the
    average citizen that is in Gary, Indiana, or Youngstown, Ohio,
    how important it is for us to be engaged in the world, and you
    are on the front lines of that. So I wanted to make that point.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        Secondly, I would love for either Secretary Mattis or
    General Dunford to talk to us about North Korea generally. But,
    in particular, what does it look like should we have to make a
    decision in the next 12 to 18 months, if you look at the
    trajectory of where North Korea is going? We have got to come
    to some determination here about what we are going to do, and
    whether or not we are okay with them potentially getting the
    capabilities to be able to launch some attack, not just in U.S.
    interests, but potentially strike the United States.
        I think it would be instructive for the American people to
    know, kind of not giving away state secrets or getting
    classified, but just what that would look like if there is a
    back and forth between, whether it is the United States or an
    ally that we have in the region, and North Korea, what happens
    in South Korea, what happens in Seoul, what happens to Japan?
    Because we hear a lot: Well, just bomb them; just take it out,
    take out their capabilities.
        Can you just illustrate for us what that engagement looks
    like?
        Secretary Mattis. I can, Congressman Ryan. I would suggest
    that we will win. It will be a war more serious in terms of
    human suffering than anything we have seen since 1953. It will
    involve the massive shelling of an ally's capital, which is one
    of the most densely packed cities on Earth. It would be a war
    that fundamentally we don't want. And we would have our allies
    and us; we would win at great cost.
        This is why in one of the most--the highest priority
    efforts that President Trump has directed, he has brought--
    invited the President of China to Mar-a-Lago. There were only
    two issues brought up in Mar-a-Lago, and this was one of them.
    It was that high a priority.
        Secretary Tillerson has this as a priority. We are working
    through China to ensure that China understands that North Korea
    is today a strategic burden for them; it is not a strategic
    asset. And China has actually responded in some ways
    positively. You saw them vote last week for additional
    sanctions on North Korea, for example. And I think that we are
    exhausting all possible diplomatic efforts in this regard.
        Next week, Secretary Tillerson and I will meet with our
    opposite members from Beijing who are flying here to Washington
    over several issues, but this one will loom large. So it would
    be a serious--it would be a catastrophic war, especially for
    innocent people in some of our allied countries, to include
    Japan most likely, but it is also one that we are doing
    everything possible not to have happen and resolve this through
    diplomatic means.

                             ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

        Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Just, lastly, one point. When we were in Kuwait a few weeks
    back, we went to this small little tent where they had 3D
    printers, and the Marine Corps was printing parts for different
    things that they needed. I want to engage the Department in the
    future to make sure that you have the resources that you need.
    This could be a tremendous capability. But one of the aspects
    is they almost need like a depot for how to get these parts,
    get the kind of design, a design depot, to be able to download
    these parts in places like Kuwait to really, I think, save us a
    lot of money, Madam Chair. And I know we are putting money into
    one of President Obama's initiatives for manufacturing
    innovation institutes, one of which is additive manufacturing,
    a great capability where you don't have to order a thousand
    parts of this, that or the other; you can actually print one in
    the field. And this is a way for us to merge modern technology,
    to give the warfighter the capabilities that they need. So I
    just wanted to give you the heads-up. We are going to continue
    to work on that and I think save the taxpayer a heck of a lot
    of money in the process. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

                     STRATEGIC DECISIONS AND DEFENSE BUDGET

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you all for being here today. We have
    learned a lot, and we appreciate your service to our country
    and that of your families. So, please, pass that along as well.
        Secretary Mattis, throughout much of your military career,
    it was the National Security Strategy of our country to have
    the ability to fight and win two major conflicts
    simultaneously. And over time, that strategy has changed to a
    strategy of being able to win one significant conflict in one
    theater while having the ability to hold in another until
    additional resources could be brought to the fight.
        Accordingly, Congress has appropriated the necessary
    resources for force structure, procurement, and research and
    development to reach those strategic objectives. Today, with
    the rising threats all over the world, many of which we have
    already discussed here today, I am concerned that, should a
    conflict break out in one region, that our adversaries in other
    regions may use that as an opportunity to take aggressive
    military action.
        At the end of the day, with the President's budget we are
    discussing today, how capable will we be to simultaneously
    fight two major conflicts should that become necessary?
        Secretary Mattis. Implementing this budget, Congresswoman,
    will enable us to be better prepared for this. That is not to
    say strategic decisions wouldn't have to be made once engaged.
    And we do assume, however, that--we agree with your thesis
    that, in the event we are doing something in one place, the
    potential for somebody to take advantage of it is a given. So
    we are completely aligned with you on that.
        You can see us right now engaged in Afghanistan, not in a
    heavy way. The Afghan Army is carrying the bulk of the
    fighting, but it is still a significant draw on us. You see us
    engaged in the Middle East in the same way. And we are doing an
    awful lot of this by, with, and through allies, but your
    question go to the heart of, what if we have to do most of it?
    And this budget is designed to better prepare us, but it is
    going to take years to recover from all the damage, ma'am.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        General Dunford. Congresswoman, I would just add, as
    directed last year, we did a simultaneity drill in the
    Department so we could understand what really it would take to
    do two MCOs. We certainly wouldn't want to have that
    conversation in this venue. But we would be happy to share the
    details of that with you. We have done the analytic work
    necessary to really be able to talk about the capabilities and
    capacity implications of being able to fight in two places at
    once. And that will very much inform the Secretary's strategy
    review that is ongoing right now. We will bring that work into
    the Secretary's strategy review.

                          ARMY AVIATION AND READINESS

        Mrs. Roby. Well, I would like that. I think we could
    probably all benefit from having that information in front of
    us.
        Turning to readiness, specifically Army aviation. Of
    course, our military doesn't go many places without Army
    aviators. And my concern is that those aviation assets are
    being stretched pretty thin. Given the global high demand for
    Army aviation capabilities, I am interested in your thoughts as
    it relates to increasing readiness.
        It is my understanding that we have a shortage of pilots. I
    know we are short on Apache helicopters, and programs like the
    Light Utility Helicopter look to be underfunded. So what are
    your thoughts on increasing Army aviation readiness?
        Secretary Mattis. Since near the end of World War II, we
    have dominated the skies overhead, almost to the point that we
    could start taking it for granted, which would be a disaster if
    we did that. It takes a lot of commitment, sacrifice over many
    years. There is, for Army aviation alone, over $3 billion in
    investment. This is building more Black Hawks, Apaches,
    Chinooks, that sort of thing.
        The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Naval
    Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps are all working with
    private industry now because we are not creating enough pilots
    in this environment right now to serve either the commercial or
    security interests, service interests. So we are going to have
    to deal with this as a national level problem. And, you know,
    we have responded to this sort of thing in the past. We have to
    dust off the old thinking and find some new ideas in there. But
    we are working it right now. We just had the meeting with
    industry here last month with, again, General Goldfein, our
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force, leading it, but all the
    service chiefs are engaged.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I think I was next.
        Ms. Granger. Oh. Mr. Ruppersberger. Pardon me.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you very much. First, Secretary
    Mattis, or General Mattis, whatever, I respect you and worked
    with you as a General, General Dunford and also Mr. Norquist.
    You know, you have gotten a lot of accolades, and you deserve
    it because of who you are and you earned the position. We all
    talk about sleeping at night, but these are serious times for
    our country.
        I want to quote you, because I am going to make more of a
    statement, I think, to this committee and to our leadership on
    the committee. You have said that Congress has failed to show
    leadership when it comes to funding the Pentagon, and I agree
    with you on that comment. For years now, since sequestration
    has passed, we have had four-stars coming in and telling us how
    it makes it weaker and weaker. And, yet, we really have not
    done what we need to do to repeal it, both Democrats and
    Republicans.
        Times have changed since sequestration was passed; the
    world has gotten a lot more dangerous, as you have testified.
    By the way, when you are one of the last ones to ask questions,
    you know, a lot of these issues, North Korea and all, have come
    up. So I am going to maybe make a statement within my time.
        And I want to say this to our committee: A lot of us have
    worked together for years, and I respect each and every one of
    you on the Republican and Democratic side. But there comes a
    time when we have to do something, and that is this issue of
    sequestration. As dangerous as we are and when every single
    Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine talks about sequestration, and,
    yet, we have not repealed this at these very, very dangerous
    times. And I think we have to show some action. I think we
    can't be concerned about Republican or Democrat or whether we
    are going to break the Hastert rule. I mean, all of these
    things are just political, and yet we have an obligation on
    this committee, Defense Appropriations, to give you the
    resources. And if sequestration is still there because of
    idealistic political reasons, whatever that is, or we are not
    going to give this up if we don't get something else, that is
    wrong.
        So I am asking our leadership and each and every one of us
    on this committee to really sit down and work a strategy,
    Republican and Democratic strategy. Now, we are very upset
    about what happened yesterday. Maybe that is going to be an
    impetus for us to do something, because we haven't done it, and
    it is about time we do it.
        And my question was going to be, and you have already
    repeated it: Do you agree with what I said that we need to
    repeal sequestration?
        Secretary Mattis. I do. And I agree it is nonpartisan.
    Secretary Panetta was my boss a few years ago, and he was in a
    Democrat administration. He was a Democrat. And I don't see
    this as a partisan issue. This is an American issue.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Whether it is the Speaker or the leader,
    whatever that is, let's pull together this committee. We know
    each other, and we trust each other. I have respect for every
    single member on this committee, and I know we all feel this
    way. Let's just get it done. I am an Under Armour guy because
    of Baltimore, but there is the Nike phrase, ``Just Do It.'' And
    I think it is about time we really just sit down and take care
    of that strategy.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        The other issue I have--and we have talked North Korea, and
    I don't want you to repeat yourself--one thing that hasn't come
    up. I found the subject matter that hasn't come up, and that is
    the issue of hypersonic missiles. We know that Russia and China
    have developed hypersonic missiles, which are so fast that they
    could put, in my opinion, our ships, our aircraft carriers, all
    at risk. And I am not sure where the Navy is at that point, and
    if it is classified, I don't want to get into it. But I think
    this is something that has to be focused on and very quickly.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        You know, we talked about cyber. We are dealing with those
    issues and all the things that need to be done. But when our
    aircraft carriers, which are so awesome--look at how many
    people we have, look at how we use them, and yet they could be
    at risk. And I want to make sure that we look at the funding
    and the focus, and that you can report back to this committee
    where we are on our defense and hypersonic missiles.
        Secretary Mattis. Will do, Congressman. And coming into the
    job, I have been briefed by holdovers from the last
    administration and new people coming in now, and your view of
    the hypersonic threat, the need for defenses, but also to
    ensure we have hypersonic technology at cutting edge is agreed
    upon. There is no pushback on it that I found. We have got to
    move out--we will come back to you showing----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Most people don't know about the issue,
    but I would like this, at least personally for me, but I think
    the committee, too, wants to hear about hypersonic.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Carter.

                                COMBAT VEHICLES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thank all three of you for being here. You are very
    important to the future of our Nation and we appreciate the
    good work that you do. And I would like to associate myself
    with everyone who has discussed the challenges we have trying
    to put together what we need to do without a number that we
    need to work with. And anyway you could help us get that fixed
    is a great idea.
        My world is all about the guys on the ground. I represent
    Fort Hood. I have got kind of a combination question I would
    like to ask. First and foremost, Secretary Mattis, they are
    obviously investing very heavily in upgrading many of the
    combat vehicles. While these upgrades certainly represent
    increased speed, lethality, and protection, they cannot be
    characterized as significant leaps forward in capability. As
    you are aware, our competitors' combat vehicles are approaching
    parity with the Army. It seems readily apparent that we should
    prioritize investing heavily to speed up the development of the
    next generation of combat vehicles, yet funding levels for this
    effort has not increased over the last several years.

                            NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER

        Can you share with the committee your sense of our ground
    combat vehicles and what additional resources you need from
    this committee to adequately close the capability gap? And I
    will include with that that I would like to hear an assessment
    of where we are--of what are the training changes we have to
    make at the National Training Center to go to high-end
    warfighting versus the warfighting we have been engaged in for
    16 years almost.
        So where are we on readiness of our troops, training, and
    the vehicles that we are sending them to war in? And I would
    love to hear from both of you.
        Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. And we probably owe you a more
    detailed explanation of the program to get us where we need to
    go, because we are not there today is the bottom line. This is
    somewhat a result of the funding issues and the distraction of
    war and the combination of those factors. But we have programs
    we have put together. The Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle is
    being fielded now to the first Army and Marine units. It is a
    joint program to get full economies of scale to spend the money
    wisely. But it is a much broader issue, as you know, with
    different types of vehicles, from armored vehicles to transport
    vehicles, and the various levels--types of vehicles that we
    need to get.
        In terms of the training challenges, I will hit that and
    then turn the two questions to The Chairman. There, what we
    have to do is adapt to the changing character of war, and Army
    battalions in the field are now going to have assets that an
    Army battalion didn't have 10 years ago, for example,
    surveillance assets, drones. We also have an enemy drone
    problem, where we don't have the right defenses. Every Army
    battalion headquartered out there is probably going to come
    under cyber attack. That didn't happen 10, 20 years ago.
        So these new domains, these new technologies highlight the
    need to avoid a continuing resolution. As you know, under a
    continuing resolution, I can do zero about new starts to
    address the changing character of war. Let me turn over to the
    Chairman.
        General Dunford. Congressman, you bring up a really
    important point, and I alluded to it in my opening statement,
    and that is, I think it is fair to say that the majority of our
    investment--and if you look at the Army's investment in 2017,
    even in the supplemental--it was all to maintain the current
    capability we have. So we made marginal improvements in the
    capability protection system of the current tanks, for example,
    but we don't necessarily have as much money in modernizing our
    armored capability as we would want to have.
        And that really is, as the Secretary lays it out, I mean
    2018 hits readiness, to include for vehicles. And what we
    really need to start thinking about, 2019 and beyond, is
    tomorrow. And we have, for the last 7 or 8 years, one of the
    most significant challenges of the budget situation, we have
    discussed here today is we are always dealing with the current
    challenges, always dealing with today's readiness, always
    trying to get today's equipment up to speed.
        And now we are at the point where there is actually a
    distinction without a difference between procurement and
    current readiness because, in many cases, either units don't
    have the full complement of the vehicles they have or we are
    starting to field vehicles that don't have a competitive
    advantage or the competitive advantage, as you suggest, is
    reducing. So I think as we look to 2019 and beyond, you know
    modernizing our ground combat vehicles is something that
    probably hasn't moved at a pace satisfactory to us.
        With regard to training, though, what General Milley has
    identified as now a requirement, I think your word,
    Congressman, is all of his brigades will go through the
    National Training Center. That is exactly to address the
    dynamic that you spoke about to make sure that we are not only
    prepared for the current deployments in dealing with violent
    extremism, but we are full-spectrum ready and that the Army
    units at Fort Hood, the mechanized units at Fort Hood actually
    can conduct the full range of mission-essential tasks that
    those units have been assigned. And he won't certify those
    brigades as being ready unless they actually have done an NTC
    rotation. And in this budget in 2018, in the readiness piece,
    we are addressing increased numbers of NTC rotations to enhance
    the readiness problem you talked about.
        So I think we have a good-news story on maintenance and
    readiness. I think we have a good-news story on training. And I
    think the challenge that remains before us to address next year
    and years after is going to be the modernization challenge
    because I'm not satisfied that we are actually doing all we can
    to build the Army of tomorrow.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you. From what little I have been able to
    figure out, I agree with that assessment and I am worried about
    it and concerned about it. And I want to make sure we all know
    that, when the smoke clears, it takes a man with a gun to stop
    a man with a gun. In fact, we learned that yesterday.
        So I wish you well. And I will be raising this issue
    constantly. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Ms. Kaptur.

                                INDUSTRIAL BASE

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Gentlemen, you give great example to the young generation
    of this country. I thank you for your patriotic service. I am
    going to read some questions that I will be submitting to the
    record, and then I will ask each of you two questions that I
    would like you to verbally respond to. I don't expect you to
    answer the first issues I am going to talk about.
        First of all, I have deep concerns about our industrial
    base issues, and your testimony does reference that to some
    extent. I would just like to state the importance of dual
    sourcing of certain technologies, such as small gas turbine
    engines. I have concern about that.
        Number two, stresses on our U.S. steel industry due to the
    severe dumping by China, South Korea and Russia.
        And, thirdly, real threats to our single-source domestic
    beryllium capability. I have a letter, actually, on that, Mr.
    Secretary, that I will give you.
        But thank you for mentioning the defense industrial base.
    Thanks for being aware of it and, in view of a lot of things
    that have happened with the global economy, why we need to pay
    attention to it.
        Number two, I place a very high priority on U.S. energy
    independence. We are about 90 percent of the way there. I
    appreciate what DOD has been doing, particularly Navy and
    Marine Corps, with significant leadership, both in installation
    and operational energy efficiency, to move us toward
    independence. And I will ask you, for the record, to summarize
    the Department's role in achieving DOD energy independence but
    also in terms of some of your technological investments, how
    you are helping America reach that broader goal of energy
    independence.
        My two questions are: General Dunford, three-quarters of a
    century after World War II, could you summarize for the
    American people, particularly the younger generation, the
    nature of the Russian threat and why the European Reassurance
    Initiative is so vital to liberty and affirmation of our
    Article 5 commitment.
        Secretary Mattis, the question I wish to ask you is: I
    really particularly gravitated to a sentence in your testimony
    having to do with the stresses on our troops and the prolonged
    wars in which we are involved. And I can't seem to put my
    finger on the sentence on that, but it was right at the
    beginning. Oh, here: ``Our country never envisioned sending our
    military to war for more than a decade without pause or
    conscription.'' The American people ought to reread that
    sentence.

                                HEALTH BENEFITS

        But my question really is, Mr. Secretary, the GAO released
    a study on May 16, reporting that of the 91,764 servicemembers
    who were separated for misconduct between 2011 and 2015, had
    later been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI, associated with that
    misconduct, GAO found many, many of them, at least 23 percent,
    were made ineligible for health benefits from the VA. I would
    like to just express to you that I have spent a long time
    trying to get DOD to discharge to care. I have failed in that,
    though it is getting a little bit better. And I would ask you
    if you could help us to review the separation policies of the
    U.S. military in all the branches to assure that servicemembers
    who need care will receive it. I will also place on the record
    from a 10-year study we have been conducting with the Ohio
    Guard and Case Western Reserve University and University of
    Michigan and University of Toledo, over 3,000 DNA samples from
    separated servicemembers who voluntarily offered their DNA.
        One of the most shocking findings of what we have been
    investigating has been that the most significant predictor of a
    servicemember contracting PTSD is not military service but
    violence experienced by that individual prior to military
    service which the military service complicates. That is a
    really important finding and one that should be paid attention
    to on enlistment. And I just thought I would place it on the
    record.
        So, General Dunford, if you could kindly respond on the
    Russia question and, Secretary Mattis, on the ability of your
    Department to discharge to care.
        General Dunford. Congressman, first, thanks.
        And on the Russia question, interesting, we rewrote our
    National Military Strategy last year, and we took some time to
    say, what is the source of strength of the United States? And
    not a surprise to the committee, we went back and we said:
    Since World War II, the strategic source of strength to the
    United States is the network of allies and partners that we
    have built up since World War II. In other words, the friends
    that we have that we can call upon for a wide range of common
    challenges is what is critical.
        What Russia really is going about doing each and every day
    is undermining the credibility of our alliance commitment to
    NATO and our ability to respond to NATO. That is what they are
    doing. That is the most insidious thing that Russia is doing.
    So why is it important that we have the European Reassurance
    Initiative?
        First of all, we had an expression in the past that virtual
    presence is actual absence. It has to be a physical
    manifestation of our commitment, and the European Reassurance
    Initiative, which this year is $4.8 billion, gives us three
    brigade combat teams on a continuous basis in Europe. It gives
    us additional preposition equipment.
        Most importantly, what it does is it assures our allies
    that we actually are committed, and it deters Russia because
    they know we have the ability to respond, and they also know
    that we are committed, which is the linkage between the
    European Reassurance Initiative and the challenge that we face
    from Russia.
        But in addition to what they do to undermine the
    credibility of our alliances, of course, Russia possesses the
    nuclear weapons in the thousands that can destroy our Nation.
    They also have significant cyber capabilities, and they have
    been using those on a routine basis against our networks, and
    we have seen that. So there is a full range of challenges. And
    I would just say that, in terms of capability as well as
    behavior, if you look at what Russia has done since the Crimea
    in the Ukraine and testing Georgia a few years ago, both their
    behavior and their capabilities would tell me that, of all the
    nations in the world that could pose an existential threat to
    our Nation and that could undermine the credibility of our
    alliances and the international order that we have had and
    enjoyed since World War II, it would be Russia.
        Ms. Granger. Before we go further in this--Ms. Kaptur, you
    used the entire 5 minutes for your question, and we have a hard
    stop at 11:50. So I am going to ask those on our panel today to
    answer that in writing or some meeting of Ms. Kaptur, because
    we have others that are waiting. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.

                                  NORTH KOREA

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Secretary Mattis, Chairman Dunford, Under Secretary
    Norquist, welcome, glad to have you here today. And we
    appreciate your service to our Nation and know that you will
    pass along that gratitude to the men and women who will work
    throughout the Department of Defense.
        I want to follow up on a question that my colleague, Mr.
    Ryan, had asked. If you go back to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
    first 3 days from March 19, 20, and 21 of 2003, 1,700 sorties
    were launched, including 504 cruise missile strikes.
        We all appreciate the candor that a war with North Korea
    would pose a severe threat to Seoul and, of course, to a lot of
    most South Korea. However, the concern is that this may be
    interpreted by North Korea to mean that we are going to allow
    them to continue to build weapons that are capable of dropping
    nuclear bombs here on the U.S. territory. If North Korea fails
    to curb the program and the President were to decide to strike,
    my question is, are we assembling the resources that we need to
    cripple the North Korean military in the first 72 hours?
        Secretary Mattis. Our intent, if we had an indicator and
    warning of war, would be to assemble those resources, sir.
        Mr. Aderholt. What do you need in order to do that to
    prevent just mass civilian casualties?
        Secretary Mattis. The best thing, sir, would be to have
    such a strong military and diplomatic front, including
    international, that we force Korea to divest of its nuclear
    program, a policy that both the United States and China share,
    by the way, of a denuclearized peninsula. So that is the most
    important thing, is to make certain we don't get to that point.
        Mr. Aderholt. But you have--currently, do you have the
    capabilities to assemble the resources that you would need to
    cripple North Korea within that first 72 hours?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, due to the nature of the threat, the
    dug-in nature of the artillery and missile--or our rocket
    positions within range of Seoul, there is probably an awful lot
    of damage that is going to be done no matter how much
    capability we bring to the theater.

                          CYBER ATTACKS ON POWER GRIDS

        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. A report was released recently that
    highlighted the potential for adversaries to conduct cyber
    attacks on power grids. The article referenced the attack on
    Ukraine's power grid back in December of 2016. I know this may
    be classified, but is this area of cybersecurity an area that
    you are looking at?
        Secretary Mattis. It is an active, very active, area of
    security we are looking at, sir, in conjunction with Homeland
    Security--Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
    Energy and the FBI. And it is active. It is ongoing. We keep a
    very close eye on it, including this week.
        Mr. Aderholt. Chairman Dunford, do you have any comments on
    either one of those issues?
        General Dunford. The only thing I would say, Congressman,
    is just go through the priorities and talk about what we do
    with regard to those challenges to our power grid and so forth.
    The number one priority we have in the Department is to defend
    our own DOD information technology network, and then we work in
    collaboration with the private and public sector to make sure
    that we share when there is a vulnerability and the solutions
    to those vulnerabilities.
        Then we play the away game, if you will, and prepare to
    deal with those threats that are outside the continental United
    States. So, when the Secretary spoke about the collaboration
    with the FBI and Homeland Security and so forth, the actual
    protection of the power grid in the United States is not
    something that we are responsible for but something we support.
        Again, when the United States CYBERCOM identifies
    vulnerabilities or solutions to address those vulnerabilities,
    there is a collaboration that takes place. But what we really
    focus on is our own network and then making sure we have cyber
    capabilities to take the fight to the enemy.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                     REGIONAL STRATEGY AND AERIAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I also want to say thank you to all three of you for your
    service. I also join my colleagues that we need to get to a
    number in a bipartisan way, because we have to find that
    balance between the defense and the nondefense spending, and I
    hope we can do this. Otherwise, if we going to CR, I think it
    is not good for anybody.
        I have two questions. Earlier you all had discussed the
    importance of a regional strategy and aerial resources to the
    maintaining of the high ground on the operations of
    Afghanistan.
        General Dunford, I know that, in February, you were in
    Azerbaijan meeting with your counterpart of this year, and I
    think we know it is a--Azerbaijan is an ally. I think we know
    the role that they played during the Afghanistan conflict
    there. Would you all give us--would you give me your thoughts
    on elevating maybe the facility that you have there in
    Azerbaijan or maybe some other stable regional ally there,
    because we know that the Middle East is complicated, and
    sometimes our ally provides complicated situations to us. That
    is question number one.

                       READINESS OF FLIGHT TRAINING UNITS

        Number two, in light of the discussion of readiness, can
    you also discuss the importance of maintenance in supporting
    force readiness? Specifically, the readiness of flight training
    units have suffered in Texas because of an incomplete approach
    to the engine maintenance, and how does your proposed budget
    attempt to fix this deficiency?
        General Dunford. Sure, Congressman, let me start with
    Azerbaijan. As you mentioned, I was there back in February and
    had the privilege of meeting with their leadership, to include
    the President, and to thank him for the support they provided
    in what we call a northern distribution network. We were able
    to reinforce and resupply our forces in Afghanistan as a result
    of the access that Azerbaijan provided to us.
        And I don't assess today that we need to increase that
    access. But we appreciate maintaining that access because it
    has been critical in allowing us to have global reach. And
    certainly our United States Transportation Command has a very
    close partnership with Azerbaijan, and they are very
    appreciative of the access and the support that we have. And we
    would like to maintain that relationship.
        With regard to readiness, you will see in the Secretary's
    budget a significant emphasis overall on readiness, a subset of
    which is the maintenance issue. But, Congressman, I would like
    to highlight for you an important point. Back in 2013, when we
    went through sequestration, we laid off a lot of engineers and
    a lot of artisans and a lot of people that are very critical to
    maintaining our aircraft. They are critical to the triage of
    aircraft and identifying what repairs need to be done and
    making sure in a very systematic way we get the right aircraft
    in the depot at the right time to turn it around with an
    acceptable timeline.
        We have not recovered from 2013, and many of the people
    that were laid off as a result of sequestration in 2013 never
    came back. So the challenge that we have with aviation
    maintenance--and it is across all the services--the challenge
    that we have in aviation maintenance can only be fixed--this is
    another argument for all of us collectively for having
    sustainable budgets, because we need to have sustainable
    budgets to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce. And
    when we talked about civilian workforce earlier, we are very
    reliant, as you know, in our depots, for a quality civilian
    force and the right people to work on our aircraft. And
    predictable budgets and a stable workforce are going to be
    critical for us to get out of this maintenance trough.
        In many cases, what you see is units that actually aren't
    able to man or unable to field the requisite number of aircraft
    for that particular unit, for--we call it Primary Aircraft
    Authorized. In some cases, they rate 12; they only have 6. They
    rate 20, and they only have 10. So the budget does address the
    maintenance issue. We are trying to recover from, really, what
    has happened over the last 3 to 4 years and appreciate your
    support and focus on that issue.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Granger. Thank you.
        Mr. Womack.

                             CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        Mr. Womack. Thank you. I just got a couple of questions or
    give you an opportunity to expound just a little bit. As my
    friend Tom Cole said earlier in his testimony, we are rapidly
    moving to one of two outcomes in the fiscal year 2018 budget
    process and appropriations process. We are either going to have
    a bipartisan omnibus package of some type or we are going to
    end up with a CR. CR is disastrous.
        I want to give both of you an opportunity to--at the risk
    of sounding like I am piling on the sequester--give us a real
    idea of what this means if we are headed toward a potential
    continuing resolution with significant limitations on how we
    can fund the emerging needs that have been emerging now for a
    while at the Pentagon.
        Secretary Mattis. Thank you, Congressman.
        Just for an example, we cannot do the new starts. So why is
    that so critical today? Because the changing character of war,
    which this committee has articulated repeatedly this morning--
    cyber warfare, space issues, I can go on, counterdrone
    capability--we cannot start that. We cannot start new starts
    under the continuing resolution.
        We also block service growth. For example, we cannot enlist
    people in the United States Army, and they need more soldiers;
    we all recognize that. The world has changed. But if we don't
    know how we are going to pay them a year from now, the only way
    we could respond if we didn't have the money next year, if we
    brought more troops in, for example, if a CR comes into effect,
    is we have to take the money from operations and maintenance.
    Now the troops, you are paying them using the money that should
    have been fixing their gear.
        I think, too, just look at--what business would say, ``We
    are going to do short-term contracts, repeated contracts now
    that we are going to have to put a lot of time into''--you know
    how extensive government contracts are to prevent any fraud,
    waste or abuse--``and we are now going to do the same contract
    for a 3-month period or for a 6-month period''? We get nothing
    more out of it. We simply pay. We double, triple, quadruple the
    administrative costs that deliver no combat capability
    whatsoever. In other words, it did not only cost us adaptation;
    it actually reduces the result, the effect we can get from the
    dollars you give us. It goes into administrative air; it
    doesn't go into combat capability on the ground.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Womack. And it goes on and on and on, this impact of
    the sequester, and so what--and I am on the Budget Committee
    with other members of the Appropriations Committee. So what is
    the right number for 2018? That seems to be where we are hung
    out to dry right now in terms of getting a budget agreement out
    of the Budget Committee and onto the floor of the House.
        We certainly know it is not the sequester number, which I
    believe is 549 on the base. Is it 603? Is it 640 that HASC
    wants? Is it somewhere in between? Where is that number, so
    that people like me can have an informed idea of what is
    possible out of committee?
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, I am going to give you a number: $52
    billion over the BCA defense cap. It is $574 billion in our
    base budget. It is $65 billion in our OCO. But there is also,
    if you were to go above that, I think our priorities are right
    in everything that we have given you, but I have reviewed the
    service secretaries unfunded priorities list, and I agree with
    the priorities they give if we go beyond the base budget
    numbers I have given you. In other words, that too is an area
    where the Congress can exercise its oversight and its purse
    strings, frankly.
        But, right now, the President's budget, which I am
    defending and I believe is the right step to fix, to reverse--
    start reversing the damage and get us on the right track as we
    get a strategy right, is 574 in the base, 65 in the OCO, and
    there is about $33 billion in the service unfunded priorities
    lists, sir.
        Mr. Womack. How impactful is sequester on your planners at
    the Pentagon, particularly for the FYDP, because when you do
    your FYDP, you have to look at what current law is, correct?
        Secretary Mattis. We do, sir. We have placeholders as we
    look further out because we all know that we cannot defend this
    country unless we withdraw from many of our commitments that we
    have learned over the years we need to protect our people and
    our interests. So, right now, it is paralyzing.
        Mr. Womack. One final thought before my time is up. Impact
    on the defense industrial base is also something we don't spend
    a lot of time talking about.
        Secretary Mattis. Sir, the industrial base cannot be
    expanded to bring us when we know we need more munitions, for
    example, if they don't know 3 months from now or 9 months from
    now that they are going to still get a contract for it. In
    other words, they can't do something that would put the company
    out of business just on a bet. And so you are highlighting all
    of our concerns, I will just tell you, sir.
        Mr. Womack. Yeah, before I yield back, I just want to say
    we have to fix the issue or else we are going to be right back
    where we were, and that is with a yearlong CR, and that would
    just be a disaster.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Granger. Let me clarify one thing.
        Mr. Womack, on the numbers that you gave, you also included
    military construction in that, right? So it is not just our
    bill; it is the MILCON?
        Secretary Mattis. Yes, ma'am. It is. It is in there, the
    MILCON.

                      Closing Remarks of Chairman Granger

        Ms. Granger. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That finishes the
    question.
        I want you to just go away with understanding how much
    confidence we have in you. You have experience. You are in a
    position, and so we are--we have great confidence in what you
    say and what you stand for, but we also have great concerns
    about readiness. Are we ready--how much damage those cuts have
    done to us.
        We have a concern that we share with you, and that is a
    continuing resolution, and it is just deadly. It is a horrible
    situation. And we can't get to what you need with a continuing
    resolution. So any way you can reach out. You have such
    presence. People respect you. They look to you for the answers.
    They have to understand that. If you will reach out to those
    that are on the committees in both the House and the Senate
    that are on the committees, the four committees that make these
    decisions, it would make the possibilities much better.
        That concludes today's meeting. Thank you very much.
        [Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the
    answers thereto follow:]

                           Hypersonic Weapons Systems

        Question. I have long been a supporter of offensive, hypersonic
    weapons systems. However, our efforts have remained at the research
    level rather than a true program. Our Combatant Commanders have
    expressed a need for this capability against enemy air defenses, and
    General Milley before this subcommittee also confirmed the need for
    this weapon. I don't believe the current budget justification documents
    create the program we need; I believe the range in the 2013 JROC
    document is too limited. A land-based system which launches from U.S.
    territory is needed. Could you please provide a budget outline which
    would support a limited, early operational capability as soon as
    possible, and would you consult with General Milley and the Army SMDC
    to see what that timeline could be?
        Answer. The Joint Staff supports hypersonic weapon system
    development and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
    recently revalidated the requirements for a Prompt Global Strike
    capability. The Joint Staff will continue to work with and support the
    Services to provide a limited or early operational capability within
    the FYDP, to include exploring basing options for new and existing
    systems.

                               Transgender Troops

        Question. I understand that the Army and Marine Corps have asked
    for up to a 2-year delay on implementation of the policies regarding
    transgender troops and the Transgender Training sessions required for
    all officers, non-commissioned officers, and civilians. While I
    understand concerns for fairness and related matter, I believe these
    policies may have been unnecessarily rushed by the previous
    Administration. Readiness must be your top priority. On a related
    matter, I also urge you to block any consideration of gender transition
    therapy requests by detainees at Guantanamo. I don't believe that this
    is a justifiable use of our taxpayer funds. Are you willing to strongly
    consider such a delay?
        Answer. The Marine Corps supports the Department of Defense Policy
    regarding Transgender Marines and associated training.

                              Space Launch System

        Question. A. Let's assume that the NASA fully covers the
    development costs of the Space Launch System, or SLS. In the event that
    other launch vehicles are behind schedule or have gone up dramatically
    in cost, does the SLS present an opportunity for the Department of
    Defense to launch some of our large national security payloads? B. If
    NASA creates a production model which allows SLS to be sold on a lower
    cost basis, are you willing to look at SLS as an occasional launch
    vehicle for national security payloads?
        Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) does not have any current
    requirement for this large payload space lift capability. For the most
    common payload separation orbits, all variants of the SLS provide
    significantly (at least three times, and upwards of nine times) more
    capability than operationally required to meet current DoD
    requirements. Additionally, public law and National Space Policy
    dictate that the DoD must procure launch services from the commercial
    marketplace when practicable. The DoD does not have any current
    requirements that cannot be met with current launch services provided
    by commercial sources.

                                    Space X

        Question. A. What are the terms of the lawsuit settlement between
    the Department of Defense and SpaceX? (SpaceX sued the Air Force over
    an alleged lack of opportunity to compete). B. Were a specific number
    of sole-source launches provided to SpaceX as part of the settlement?
        Answer. The terms of the lawsuit settlement between the Department
    of Defense and SpaceX cannot be released due to the confidentiality
    order of the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 14-354 C, filed
    January 23, 2015.

                               Frigate Production

        Question. I believe the distributed lethality concept is more
    important than ever in locations which involve littoral waters, and
    that a hybrid ship order would provide stability to the shipyards and
    an opportunity to test new systems and components prior to full-blown
    Frigate production. Please provide your view on that possibility, and
    the likely budget needed.
        Answer. To allow adequate time to define Frigate (FFG(X))
    requirements, thoroughly evaluate design alternatives and mature the
    design, the Presidents Budget (PB) 2018 submission defers the first
    year of FFG(X) procurement to Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 with additional
    Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) being procured in FY 2018 and FY 2019. This
    approach keeps both LCS shipyards viable ahead of the pending FFG(X)
    competition, allowing the Navy to leverage past and current investments
    in our shipyard workforce and infrastructure. The Navy is already
    pursuing opportunities to forward fit and back fit some FFG(X)
    capabilities onto LCS to further increase the lethality and
    survivability of those platforms. Increased magazine protection and
    shock hardening of auxiliaries along with the addition of a lightweight
    tow, and space and weight for the Over-The-Horizon Weapon System (OTH-
    WS) are separately priced options in the Request for Proposal for the
    three FY 2017 LCS. As the Navy is currently in negotiations for the
    three FY 2017 LCS, details regarding the cost of those options cannot
    be provided in accordance with federal regulations. The Navy is also in
    source selection for OTH-WS which will provide added offensive
    capabilities to the LCS. The PB 2018 submission includes $8.4M to
    initiate ship engineering work to include design configuration and
    installation planning for the LCS platforms. The submission also
    identifies OTH-WS procurement ($42.3M) and in-service fleet support
    funding ($15.9M) through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for the
    weapon system.

                       FY 2019 to FY 2023 Funding Levels

        Question. Secretary Mattis, you mentioned a Defense Strategy to
    determine Defense funding levels for FY 2019 to FY 2023. Do you have a
    timeframe on when those numbers will be available? Your report on those
    estimates will be important to this body if we consider repealing or
    lifting BCA Caps.
        Answer. The National Defense Strategy is ongoing and will direct
    resourcing requirements for the FY 2019-2023 Future Years Defense
    Program. Funding levels and resourcing decisions will be worked closely
    with the Office of Management and Budget in preparation for the FY 2019
    President's Budget Submission to Congress in February 2018.

                        European Reassurance Initiative

        Question. Your FY 2018 budget request contains a 40 percent
    increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative. Does this
    funding pay for equipment, weapons, and systems software for our allied
    partners? If so, is there funding allocated for maintaining and
    servicing those items?
        Answer. The vast majority of the Department's FY 2018 European
    Reassurance Initiative request focused on increasing U.S. readiness and
    responsiveness through increased presence, expanded exercises, and
    prepositioning of wartime equipment and stocks. The United States
    prefers to use other programs and authorities, such as Foreign Military
    Sales and Foreign Military Financing, to provide Allies and partners
    with equipment, weapons, and systems software. This year, Congress
    added ERI funding to increase Ukraine's ability to defend its sovereign
    territory. ERI support to Ukraine will include assistance with command
    and control capabilities; counter-battery radars; training, equipping,
    and employment of forces; comprehensive logistics; and advisory
    efforts.

                                European Allies

        Question. I think that the European Reassurance Initiative is
    critically important to deter potential Russian aggression. There was a
    unit from the California National Guard here recently and they
    discussed some of the challenges in training their Ukrainian
    counterparts. These challenges ranged from the Ukrainian forces not
    having a formalized enlistment and training program, to not having the
    proper systems to account for personnel and to pay their Soldiers. So,
    I am interested in how the Department of Defense is assessing the
    capabilities of our European allies as we continue to rotate units into
    the European theater. Is there a one to two-page product on each of the
    allied partner forces that you can provide that gives us a snapshot of
    their capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, their overall level of
    readiness?
        Answer. The Department, both unilaterally and in conjunction with
    Allies, continuously assesses the capabilities, strengths, weaknesses,
    and overall readiness of our Allies. These assessments are often
    voluminous and contain classified information. The Department does not
    produce one- or two page unclassified summaries of these assessments,
    however my staff would be happy to provide a classified briefing on
    these matters at your convenience.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                             Overpressure Injuries

        Question. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about
    overpressure injuries and what actions are you taking to mitigate
    exposure to your personnel in the field and training environments? B.
    Who in your organization is responsible for this occupational hazard?
    C. It took roughly 40 years of personalized radiation measurement to
    fully understand the effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary
    first step to understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation?
    Why not deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to
    capture the data? D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of
    the gauge because it ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of
    TBI.'' How many of our men and women are using the gauges in the field
    or in training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? How many
    devices have been purchased and where are they today?
        Answer. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure
    injuries and what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your
    personnel in the field and training environments? Air Force leadership
    is concerned about the health and safety of all our Airmen and strives
    to institute appropriate engineering, administrative, or personal
    protective equipment controls where the evidence supports their
    effectiveness in preventing workplace injury and illness, regardless of
    the type of exposure encountered. B. Who in your organization is
    responsible for this occupational hazard? The Air Force Medical
    Service's Aerospace Medicine community is responsible for the medical
    aspects of the occupational health and safety program. They identify
    and measure workplace hazards and conduct associated medical
    surveillance of at-risk service members. Numerous medical and line
    responsibilities are enumerated within DoD Instruction 6490.11, DoD
    Policy Guidance for Management of mild Traumatic Brain Injury/
    Concussion in the Deployed Setting. Given the current science regarding
    overpressure, the only workplace exposures of this type which can be
    reliably monitored are noise exposures as part of our long-established
    hearing conservation program. C. It took roughly 40 years of
    personalized radiation measurement to fully understand the effects of
    exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to understanding
    dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not deploy blast
    overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the data? The
    current surveillance science regarding overpressure continues to
    evolve. However, other than that which is hearing related, surveillance
    mechanisms are insufficiently reliable to protect against the effects
    of blast exposures. The key performance element of any such monitoring
    device or test is its positive predictive value, the ability to
    associate exposures with outcomes in a reliable, predictable manner.
    Blast gauges are environmental sensors and have proven particularly
    deficient in this regard when tested in the field, particularly in
    their ability to correlate blast exposure with Traumatic Brain Injury.
    D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of the gauge because it
    ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.'' How many of our men
    and women are using the gauges in the field or in training? Do high-
    risk units have access to the devices? How many devices have been
    purchased and where are they today? Following unsuccessful field
    testing in the US Central Command theater of operations with various
    army units, there are no deployed units currently using these devices.
    The Air Force was not part of that study and currently fields no such
    devices on our deployed Airmen based upon the lack of evidence
    regarding their surveillance value based upon those earlier field
    studies. As the science and technology matures we will re-assess the
    fielding of these devices for our at-risk Airmen.
        Answer. Navy Medicine is dedicated to our mission of optimizing
    Sailors' and Marines' readiness, health, and keeping them on the job.
    Navy Medicine is actively engaged in research performed in partnership
    with other Department of Defense (DoD) entities. In addition, we are
    partnering with nongovernmental academic institutions and assessing
    clinical application of evolving scientific information to develop best
    practices and policy as part of Navy Medical Department TBI programing.
    Inquiries regarding acquisition and fielding of specific blast exposure
    sensors and other related technology is out of Navy Medicine's scope.
    A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure injuries
    and what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your personnel
    in the field and training environments? Navy and Marine Corps are aware
    of and acutely concerned with the risk of overpressure injuries in both
    training and field environments. Many of the acute risks of exposure to
    blast overpressure are known. While acute exposure standards do exist
    for overpressure injury protection for single events, a standard for
    repetitive exposure has not been established. As an emerging science,
    dose effect exposure impact and injury pattern research is active but
    insufficient at present for driving policy to mitigate exposure
    effects. Monitoring systems and threshold determination for multiple
    blast overpressure events to accumulate data in a manner similar to
    cumulative radiation dosimetry is under development as part of an
    effort funded by Military Operational Medicine Research Program. B. Who
    in your organization is responsible for this occupational hazard?
    Leaders at all levels are responsible for the health and safety of
    Sailors and Marines. Navy Medicine is invested in research to
    understand risks associated with overpressure exposure, as well as
    methods to identify and treat possible consequences of overexposure. It
    should be noted that overpressure exposure is currently considered an
    emerging occupational hazard, without current nationally recognized
    established exposure limits or standards, and is still in the research
    realm. The Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) is part of a multi-
    institutional effort to develop exposure standards to repetitive low
    intensity blast overpressure events. This effort involves research on
    the assessment of blast effects in DoD operational units (e.g.,
    Breachers, Artillery) and the use of animal models to develop an
    exposure standard algorithm. The effort is funded under the Defense
    Health Program. NMRC's collaborative effort is focused on the
    development of an exposure algorithm. The data from this effort will be
    shared with DoD operational planners to develop occupational standards
    and surveillance procedures. Navy Medicine is responsible for the
    medical readiness of Sailors and Marines, and as such, is actively
    engaged with the TBI community of interest, including ongoing
    collaborations with DoD, the other Services, Defense and Veterans Brain
    Injury Center (DVBIC), National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE),
    and numerous private research institutions. The collaborations keep
    Navy Medicine at the cutting edge of science to ensure policies and
    practices are current with regard to informing policy to reduce
    exposure to injury, establish appropriate screening and surveillance
    practices, and to guide interventions to mitigate effects of injuries.
    As has been stated, this is an area of emerging science, and thus,
    policies and practices are dynamic, with efforts to continually capture
    data to advance efficacy of mitigation strategies. C. It took roughly
    40 years of personalized radiation measurement to fully understand the
    effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to
    understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not
    deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the
    data? Accurate measurement of overpressure exposure is critical in
    protecting Sailors and Marines, and in understanding potential health
    consequences of exposure. There are several challenges associated with
    this, including understanding how different devices measure
    overpressure, how differences in measurement relate to actual
    physiological and brain exposure, and then what different levels of
    exposure mean for risk to brain integrity, as well as clinical
    consequences. Advances have been made in all of these areas. Despite
    this progress, the current state of science is inconclusive with regard
    to exposure to sub-concussive events and subsequent injury or symptoms,
    and there is a need for continued partnerships to advance the science.
    Efforts to accurately measure and understand overpressure exposure have
    shifted from wide-scale deployment which had limited utility for
    understanding effects and development of subsequent policy. In order to
    better understand overpressure phenomenon, current use of overpressure
    measurement is in focused, rigorously studied settings. This allows for
    capture and analysis of data in a systematic way which is contributing
    to ongoing advancement of understanding of exposure and subsequent
    policy and practice changes. Navy and Marine Corps are proactively
    involved in collaborative research including measurement of
    overpressure exposure in institutional review board controlled trials
    which will allow for systematic collection and analysis of data in
    specific environments and applications, which is necessary to answer
    the questions above. NMRC is aware of several efforts within the DoD
    medical research and development community to develop and refine blast
    sensor technology. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is conducting the
    Blast Load Assessment Sense and Test (BLAST) program which is
    developing technologies that quantify the physiological effects of
    blast loads on personnel in the field. The objective is to address
    military-specific blast overpressure induced injury as well as blunt
    force injury. D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of the
    gauge because it ``ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.''
    How many of our men and women are using the gauges in the field or in
    training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? How many
    devices have been purchased and where are they today? Navy Medicine
    doesn't manage distribution of blast sensor devices and is not in a
    position to respond to questions of distribution. However, it should be
    noted that there is, as of yet, no definitive evidence linking
    repetitive overpressure exposure to traumatic brain injury. The state
    of science is emerging, and Navy Medicine stands at the forefront of
    research to understand these relationships, and to adjust policy and
    practices as indicated to protect Sailors and Marines.
        Answer. A. The Service Chiefs are very concerned about the
    potential for blast overpressure (BOP) injuries and enforce established
    occupational health standards and safety procedures to protect
    personnel who use weapon systems in field and training environments. In
    parallel, the DoD and the Army have implemented policies to maximize
    the identification and screening for Service members exposed to BOP.
    Medical information collected as a result of policy is leveraged for
    immediate healthcare delivery, while exposure data is shared through
    Service or department-wide efforts to maximize understanding of BOP. B.
    DoD-level policies task operational commanders to oversee the safety of
    training events, and enforce policies and procedures that provide
    maximal surveillance, mitigation, and treatment of BOP-related
    injuries. The Army serves as the Executive Agent for coordinating all
    DoD blast injury research which bridges medical and operational
    commands. U.S. Army Medical Command (USA MEDCOM) has the lead on
    occupational health compliance, clinical care for injuries, and
    development of medical research on occupational hazards related to BOP.
    C. It is unclear at this time if direct parallels can be drawn between
    personalized radiation measurement and blast overpressure surveillance.
    The Army previously deployed a large-scale blast overpressure
    surveillance program during OEF deployments, which did not produce
    actionable information. The Army has since moved to a focused approach,
    involving research level data collection and surveillance from
    environmental sensors in training. This effort aims to: (1) optimize
    sensor technologies for surveillance in training environments, (2)
    understand the health effects of single and repetitive exposure to BOP,
    (3) establish evidence-based injury thresholds, and (4) provide
    immediate feedback to Leaders on BOP profiles in training. D. In 2012,
    the Army procured approximately 108,000 gauges for use in Operation
    Enduring Freedom (OEF). The data from this effort did not provide
    actionable information or insights into the impact of single or
    cumulative BOP. The Army's effort to understand low-level BOP shifted
    to a more tailored approach in the training environment. Within the
    current Army effort (Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT)), there
    are 1600 gauges in use on select training ranges: artillery, breacher,
    mortar, grenade, engineers, and shoulder fired weapons. These gauges
    are drawn from both existing inventory and purchase of newer designs.
    The gauges are available to ``high-risk units'' as commercial off the
    shelf (COTS) devices.

                          Blast Overpressure Exposure

        Question. Scientific studies have linked repetitive blast
    overpressure exposure to structural changes in the brain, increased
    risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases. A. Why has this
    research not resulted in blast overpressure surveillance programs that
    provide actionable exposure data to protect and preserve our
    warfighters, particularly considering the signature injuries from Iraq
    and Afghanistan have been TBI and PTSD. B. Given the significant
    scientific evidence linking blast overpressure exposure and brain
    injury, how do you explain the hesitation to monitor to fully document
    exposures and take steps to reduce those exposures?
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD policy is designed to
    protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. However,
    advances in science in this area have shown that previously established
    standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national
    standards do not exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in
    collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure
    overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to effects of sub-
    concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer
    reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often
    developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There
    are active and robust efforts to translate knowledge from research into
    actionable equipment, practices, and interventions both on the field
    and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events''' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
        Answer. A. The DoD has surveillance programs to protect our
    warfighters from exposure to BOP which are based on prior research
    efforts and the current scientific understanding. In accordance with
    occupational health standards, the BOP programs are managed within the
    DoD Auditory community and coordinated with the TBI community as
    appropriate. The link between low-threshold repetitive blast
    overpressure (BOP) exposure to ``structural changes in the brain,
    increased risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,'' is
    currently debated in the medical and scientific communities (internal
    and external to the DoD) and remains a topic of research rather than
    settled science. B. The link between low-threshold repetitive blast
    overpressure (BOP) exposure to ``structural changes in the brain,
    increased risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,'' is
    currently debated in the medical and scientific communities (internal
    and external to the DoD) and remains a topic of research rather than
    settled science. The DoD has taken actions to improve our understanding
    of BOP through the analysis of retrospective and prospective human
    exposure data from the training and operational environment while
    simultaneously implementing policies to monitor, protect, screen,
    diagnose, document and treat not just diagnosed TBls, but also
    potentially concussive events. Through event-driven screening for
    exposures, and early medical evaluation and documentation, the Army is
    the lead for the DoD and is maximizing the identification and treatment
    of Service members with injuries.

                   Exposures in Training With Weapons Systems

        Question. DoD research studies have shown exposures in training
    with weapon systems that are routinely above currently established safe
    overpressure exposure limits. Monitoring revealed these exposures, and
    can help to identify and reduce repetitive exposures in the future. A.
    Why have the services failed to institute formal overpressure
    monitoring programs in areas where existing safety standards are
    routinely violated? B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild
    TBI impact unit readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and
    the overlap of mild TBI symptoms with those commonly experienced by
    servicemembers (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring
    essential to maintaining unit readiness? C. Marine Corps System Command
    has invested over $1 million in a Phase I and Phase II SBlR to develop
    a blast overpressure measurement system which was delivered in
    September 2016. Is this technology being used to monitor exposures for
    at risk personnel? If no, why not?
        Answer. A. The DoD uses a combination of environmental monitoring,
    in select higher risk training environments, with connections to active
    medical research protocols. The output of these efforts are improving
    environmental sensor capabilities and honing our understanding of BOP
    and the potential short-term or long-term clinical outcomes. The Army
    protects personnel by assessing health risks associated with the use of
    weapon systems prior to rollout and by implementing evidence based
    safety standards that are enforced by operational commanders. The Army
    no longer uses universal monitoring of blast overpressures (BOP)
    exposures in combat because this program did not produce actionable
    information. However, the Army does employ a targeted monitoring effort
    to protect personnel. B. The DoD maintains readiness through policy,
    education, and standardized clinical care to produce an educated force
    trained and prepared to recognize potential for risk and provide early
    recognition, treatment and tracking of concussive injuries to protect
    Service member health. The DoD is also funding research efforts with
    the goal of validating exposure thresholds. C. Since the development of
    the blast gauge, the Army, USSOCOM, DARPA and the USMC have all
    purchased and used blast gauges in varying capacities. The Army's
    Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT) program is primarily using the
    earlier generation 6 gauges. However, the DoD through Walter Reed Army
    Institute of Research is actively working to assess and improve the
    gauges including the generation 7.
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD policy is designed to
    protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. However,
    advances in science in this area have shown that previously established
    standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national
    standards do not exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in
    collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure
    overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to effects of sub-
    concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer
    reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often
    developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There
    are active and robust efforts to translate knowledge from research into
    actionable equipment, practices, and interventions both on the field
    and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events'' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
    C. Yes, the GEN 7 B3 sensor developed to measure blast overpressure in
    the Phase I and Phase II SMIR is currently being used by researchers
    for monitoring personnel exposures to blast. Current users include
    Naval Research Laboratory Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,
    Office of Naval Research and Special Operations Command. We are
    currently working with our Training and Education Command and Walter
    Reed to get the system sensors approved for use at the Weapons Training
    Schools. Anticipated deployment is late FY18.
        Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with
    overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and
    advancing. As technology and knowledge increase, awareness of potential
    risks become known, and policies and practices are adjusted
    accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use and have
    undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with
    ongoing active research to further improve our ability to protect
    Sailors and Marines. While there is some emerging indication of a
    relationship between repetitive overpressure exposure and subsequent
    health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and specific
    correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports
    ongoing research to better understand overpressure exposure, we
    continue to implement and advance evidence based practice to increase
    detection and treatment to maximize health and readiness of Sailors and
    Marines. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal
    overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety
    standards are routinely violated? Where standards exist, current DoD
    policy is designed to protect Sailors and Marines from known
    overpressure risks. However, advances in science in this area have
    shown that previously established standards may be inadequate, and as
    of yet, more refined national standards do not exist. The Navy
    continues to be engaged in collaborative research to improve capability
    to accurately measure overpressure, as well as increase knowledge
    related to effects of sub-concussive overpressure effects. Even in
    advance of publication in peer reviewed publications, DoD proactively
    acts on emerging data, often developing policies and practices to
    protect Sailors and Marines. There are active and robust efforts to
    translate knowledge from research into actionable equipment, practices,
    and interventions both on the field and in the medical realm. B.
    Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild TBI impact unit
    readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of
    mild TBI symptons with those commonly experienced by service members
    (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring essential to
    maintaining unit readiness? As knowledge of exposure dose and
    cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect
    Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and
    mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is
    currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in
    Southern California to develop aprotocol for routine periodic
    assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event.
    This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were
    triggered by ``potentially concussive events'' and did not take into
    account single or repetitive exposure to ``sub-concussive'' events. The
    effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not
    identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with
    traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures
    may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a
    screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to
    enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for
    earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing
    research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately
    monitor exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure,
    which will increase ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness.
    C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase
    I and Phase II SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system
    which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to
    monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? Defer to
    Marine Corps Systems Command.
        Answer. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal
    overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety
    standards are routinely violated? While operational guidelines exist
    for safe distancing from acute blast sources, we are not aware of
    existing overpressure standards from the Occupational Health and Safety
    Administration, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
    Hygienists, the American National Standards Institute, or other
    recognized certifying standards organization, that characterize and
    establish exposure limits for repetitive or sustained blast exposures.
    B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild TBI impact unit
    readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of
    mild T81 symptoms with those commonly experienced by servicemembers
    (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn't monitoring essential to
    maintaining unit readiness? The current surveillance science regarding
    overpressure continues to evolve, but is currently not sufficiently
    reliable to protect against the effects of such exposures. The key
    performance element of any such monitoring device or test is its
    positive predictive value, the ability to associate exposures with
    outcomes in a reliable, predictable manner. The devices which are
    environmental sensors, have proven particularly deficient in this
    regard when tested in the field, particularly in their ability to
    correlate blast events to Traumatic Brain Injury. Until such time as
    better sensors are available, we will continue to maintain readiness
    through policy, education, and standardized clinical care to provide
    early recognition, treatment, and tracking of all concussive injuries.
    C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase
    I and Phase 11 SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system
    which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to
    monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? The Air Force
    has not procured any elements of the system for use within the Air
    Force. Though this is a Generation 7 gauge, its extremely low detection
    threshold results in high sensing variability, thus limiting its
    effectiveness as a reliable surveillance device.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
    Visclosky. Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and the answers
    thereto follow:]

                              Sea Hawk Helicopter

        Question. As you both know, the Sea Hawk Helicopter is the
    workhorse of the Navy as we have sustained a very high OPTEMPO for many
    years. The current Seahawk fleet of 555 aircraft is based on a five
    year old Force Structure Assessment that was updated in December 2016
    from 308 to 355 ships. If this plan is carried out, the Navy will need
    a corresponding increase in helicopters. Meanwhile the Service Life
    Extension program will ultimately take roughly 50 aircraft out of
    service each year. Procuring additional aircraft now will help address
    these needs as well as prevent a key production line from going cold.
    What are the Navy's plans for procurement of the Seahawk in the coming
    years?
        Answer. The Department is committed to building the capability and
    capacity in our Fleet, and Seahawk helicopters play a vital role in
    accomplishing these goals. The Navy operates nearly 600 MH-60
    helicopters around the world, and intends to modernize and sustain MH-
    60 inventory via planned Service Life Extension Program and/or Mid-Life
    Upgrade initiatives. These programs will ensure the capabilities of
    these aircraft remain relevant well into the future. Although the
    current fleet of Seahawks is fulfilling our needs, we need to consider
    airframe delivery schedules relative to future ship delivery timelines
    before committing to purchasing additional Seahawks. The decision to
    procure or recapitalize the current MH-60 in the face of increasing
    threats will be considered alongside all of our warfighting priorities.
    Thank you for your continued support of the Navy and in particular,
    Naval Aviation.

                                    Stryker

        Question. 203 Members of Congress and 10 Members of this
    Subcommittee wrote a letter to the Army earlier this year urging
    funding both for Stryker lethality and survivability upgrades. I was
    surprised to see no funding for either modernization programs in the
    President's FY18 Budget request. Given that we know that Strykers are
    critical to the 21st Century Army, what would the Army choose such a
    path? What is the impact on the industrial base?
        Answer. Although the Army has not specifically requested funding
    for Stryker lethality and survivability upgrades, the Army requested
    $97.6 million for Stryker modifications in Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18).
    This funding will support procurement of Stryker Training Aids;
    Devices; Simulators and Simulations (TADSS); Stryker Lethality
    hardware; fielding support (wholesale parts); and various Stryker
    fleet-wide modifications including addressing Command, Control,
    Communication,, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance (C41SR) obsolescence. The Army will field the 2nd
    Cavalry Regiment's 30 millimeter Strykers in 4th Quarter FY18 but has
    yet to determine the solution for the entire fleet. The Army is
    solidifying requirements for improving the lethality of the remaining
    eight Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and is scheduled to present options
    in October of this year to the Chief of Staff of the Army to determine
    lethality and survivability options moving forward. These options all
    include near-term lethality upgrades to the Stryker fleet. Although the
    Army's fourth Double V Hull (DVH) Stryker brigade is on the Chief of
    Staff of the Army's FY18 Unfunded Requirements List, the Army continues
    to modernize the DVH fleet. The DVH vehicles that have been procured
    beyond the current three DVH Brigades come equipped with the latest
    upgrades that include engine, suspension, and electrical network. These
    Strykers will go into the current DVH brigades to allow older DVH
    vehicles opportunity for these upgrades. The Army is aware of a
    potential impacts to the Stryker industrial base, and has developed
    options to mitigate any production gap between completion of DVH
    production and upgrades to current DVH Strykers.

                                   Munitions

        Question. I am concerned about our stockpiles of key munitions like
    the Hellfire. What else can we do to ensure that our munitions
    stockpiles are at a sufficient level? I also noticed that funding for
    THAAD looked a bit light. I would think that we would be ramping that
    up with the increasing ballistic threats from Iran and North Korea.
        Answer. The Army continues to place emphasis on ensuring critical
    munitions are being produced, stockpiled and positioned appropriately
    to support world-wide contingencies. For example, the HELLFIRE missile
    is currently being produced at its maximum rate of 6,000 missiles per
    year.
        Additionally, a $77M investment in the HELLFIRE production line in
    FY17 will increase capacity from 6,000 missiles in FY16 to 11,000
    missiles in FY19. The Army will see results from this investment but
    deliveries of HELLFIRE missiles take place approximately 24 months
    after they are put on contract. The Army is a user of the THAAD system,
    but procurement for THAAD interceptors is programmed by the Missile
    Defense Agency using Defense Wide Funds. The FY18 budget request
    procures 34 THAAD interceptors out of a potential maximum production
    capacity of 96.

                                      LCS

        Question. A. Could you please provide an update on the transition
    from the Littoral Combat Ship to the Frigate? B. What are the
    priorities for the development of the Frigate and how will it improve
    upon the current Littoral Combat Ship? C. Is the Navy still planning to
    down-select between the two current vendors in FY19 or has that been
    pushed to FY20? Given the vulnerability of the shipbuilding industrial
    base, what would be the benefits of keeping the contract split between
    the two vendors?
        Answer. A. The 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) validated the
    requirement for 52 Small Surface Combatants. To date, nine LCS have
    been commissioned into the Fleet and 19 are under contract (LCS 27 & 28
    were awarded in June 2017), with 11 of these 19 LCS in various stages
    of construction. A total of 30 LCS are planned to be procured. FY19 LCS
    quantities are under review and will be provided with the FY19 budget
    submission, following completion of the Defense Strategy Review. The
    Navy recognizes the critical nature of maintaining the shipbuilding
    industrial base while transitioning from LCS to Frigate and will weigh
    this factor in the FY19 budget submission. For FFG(X), the Navy will
    consider multiple proposed designs for a lethal, multi-mission ship
    capable of integrated strike group operations and operating
    independently in contested environments while incorporating Navy
    standard combat system elements. The Navy is evaluating capability and
    cost trade space associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request
    for Information from industry. Additionally, a competitive industry
    environment will contribute to maturing multiple designs during the
    Conceptual Design phase with an anticipated FY20 contract award for
    Detail Design and Construction. B. FFG(X) priorities for development
    include improved lethality and survivability beyond that of LCS and the
    previous Frigate baseline. The FFG(X) will include improved radar,
    combat systems, launchers, weapons, and electronic warfare, and add
    capability in the electromagnetic maneuver warfare area that LCS does
    not currently possess. These improvements will make the FFG(X) a blue-
    water capable, multi-mission ship capable of operating in contested
    environments with robust self-defense. LCS was designed to be a
    focused-mission ship with limited self-defense. FFG(X) will have the
    ability to protect itself and potentially others with improved air
    defense capability and shock-hardened systems for decreased
    vulnerability.The FFG(X) will be capable of simultaneous multi-mission
    execution in Surface Warfare (SLJW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW),
    Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW), and unmanned intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance. It will implement Navy standard
    combat system elements to achieve commonality, decreasing development
    risk while ensuring required capability, lowering life cycle costs, and
    streamlining sparing, training, and maintenance requirements. These
    improvements over LCS will enable FFG(X) to support Distributed
    Maritime Operations by extending the Fleet tactical grid with improved
    EMW, Electronic Warfare (EW), unmanned, and Command, Control,
    Communications, Computer, and Information (C4I) systems and provide
    relief for large surface combatants to conduct missions for which they
    are uniquely qualified. FFG(X) requirements will be refined and
    finalized based on industry feedback on the feasibility of meeting the
    desired performance levels and accommodating common Navy standard
    systems in the various ship designs in a cost effective manner. C. The
    Navy does not plan to down-select between the two current LCS
    shipbuilders, but instead will hold a full and open competition for the
    FFG(X) utilizing existing designs. The Navy is evaluating trade space
    associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request for Information
    from industry that maximizes capability at the appropriate cost.
    Additionally, a competitive industry environment will contribute to
    maturing multiple designs during the Conceptual Design phase with an
    anticipated FY20 contract award for Detail Design and Construction.

                            Army Fixed Wing Aircraft

        Question. Can you please provide your thoughts on cost savings that
    can be achieved through the Army's replacement of the C12?
        Answer. The Army is in the process of replacing the legacy C-12
    fleet with a commercially available aircraft and expects to award a
    procurement contract in 3QFY18. With an estimated savings of
    approximately $100M in operation and sustainment costs over the life of
    the aircraft. These savings estimates are based on costs of similar,
    currently available, commercial aircraft.

                                     Cyber

        Question. With so much happening in the Cyber domain, I was hopeful
    That you could share your vision regarding DOD's increasing role in
    this fight and what additional resources may be required. How can we
    recruit and retain the type of cyber warriors we need for this fight?
        Answer. In addition to defending DoD's network, data, and weapons
    platforms, our cyberspace operations provide commanders with options
    across all domains to apply combined arms maneuver, create dilemmas for
    the enemy, complicate adversaries' strategic calculus, and ultimately
    gain the advantage on the battlefield for the Joint Force to win. The
    Army continues to grow its specialized fields and recruit much needed
    cyber skills, recently accessing 30 officers into the established Cyber
    branch. Both the Army's Cadet Command (USACC) and the US Military
    Academy (USMA) have been mentoring cadets to consider degrees in
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields for the
    last several years. As a result, the STEM degree average rose to 26% of
    FY17 new lieutenants commissioned through ROTC, from 15.5% in FY12.
    USMA conducts STEM outreach for diverse youth as part of its recruiting
    strategy, and its Cyber Research Center and Cyber Center of Excellence
    prepares cadets in the acquisition, use, management, and protection of
    information. The Army is also executing a direct commissioning pilot
    program into cyber specialties to uniquely skilled and experienced
    individuals who meet program requirements. On the enlisted side, many
    of our highest level enlistment and reenlistment incentives are
    dedicated to cyber and other information technology fields. The Army
    also offers a variety of compensation incentives to recruit quality
    civilian talent into the cyber workforce, including up to 25% of the
    annual rate of basic pay for newly appointed employees, a higher pay
    rate through the Superior Qualifications and Special Needs Pay-Setting
    Authority, and up to $60,000 to repay student loans for a highly
    qualified employee. The Army retention program retains sufficient
    numbers of retention-eligible Soldiers consistent with fluctuating end
    strength requirements. The Army developed Special Duty (SD) and
    Assignment Incentive Pay (AlP) incentives to focus on Soldiers serving
    in critical cyber work roles, which complement the professional
    development and training benefits that also enhance the ability to
    recruit and retain quality personnel. The Army offers its civilian
    cyber workforce similar opportunities for career growth and formal
    training, as well as retention and relocation incentives to retain high
    performing employees.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby.
    Questions submitted by Ms. McCollum and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                           Fighter Oxygen Deprivation

        Question. Gentlemen, I want to ask you about what appears to be a
    growing problem in which pilots across our services are reporting
    symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. In the past few months,
    Senior Navy officials have reported a rising rate of psychological
    episodes experienced by F-18 pilots during flights. The Navy also
    halted the entire fleet of T-45 trainer jets because of pilots'
    breathing concerns. And then just last week the Air Force temporarily
    stopped flying F-35 fighter jets at Luke Air Force Base due to a number
    of incidents where pilots were reporting symptoms of hypoxia. It seems
    like we have a serious problem that is not unique to one fleet and
    extends across the services. Safety of flight is non-negotiable, and
    the increasing number of pilots suffering from oxygen deprivation is
    simply unacceptable. Gentlemen, how concerned are you about these
    reports and what is being done right now to ensure that our pilots are
    operating in a safe environment?
        Answer. The DOD and the Services are extremely concerned about
    aircrew safety related to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. This is the
    number one safety issue, with the utmost priority to fix. All available
    assets (e.g. laboratories, specialists and test facilities across DOD
    and Industry) and expertise (e.g., NASA, Industry and Academia) are
    being utilized to assess, isolate and correct root cause(s). As the
    scientific and engineering investigations work toward determining the
    root causes, the Services are concentrating on four major pillars of
    action: to alert, monitor, protect and prevent hypoxia and oxygen
    deprivation. Although aircraft oxygen systems vary in complexity, there
    are two major potential contributors to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation
    that are common: the oxygen system not providing sufficient oxygen to
    the aircrew and cockpit pressure fluctuations. There are multiple
    technical paths being pursued, to include aircraft system hardware re-
    designs and component improvements; maintenance and support process
    implementation and modification; interim operational limitations and
    modified flight procedures; aircrew and aircraft sensor integration;
    aircrew flight gear modifications; and aircrew awareness and training--
    to name a few. The department has deemed this a resources unconstrained
    approach and will continue to receive maximum attention and
    prioritization until the risks of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation are
    resolved.

                             DoD Transgender Policy

        Question. Mr. Secretary, we are approaching the July 1st deadline
    for the Defense Department to implement the policy that lifted the ban
    on transgender personnel from serving in the military. Is the Pentagon
    considering delaying this decision and if this is the case, was this a
    decision that was made internally at the Pentagon or was this direction
    that came from the White House?
        Answer. STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON MILITARY SERVICE
    BY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS: The Department of Defense has received the
    Presidential Memorandum, dated August 25, 2017, entitled ``Military
    Service by Transgender Individuals.'' The Department will carry out the
    President's policy direction, in consultation with the Department of
    Homeland Security. As directed, we will develop a study and
    implementation plan, which will contain the steps that will promote
    military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for
    budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law. The soon
    arriving senior civilian leadership of DoD will play an important role
    in this effort. The implementation plan will address accessions of
    transgender individuals and transgender individuals currently serving
    in the United States military. Our focus must always be on what is best
    for the military's combat effectiveness leading to victory on the
    battlefield. To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving
    within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide
    advice and recommendations on the implementation of the President's
    direction. Panel members will bring mature experience, most notably in
    combat and deployed operations, and seasoned judgment to this task. The
    panel will assemble and thoroughly analyze all pertinent data,
    quantifiable and non-quantifiable. Further information on the panel
    will be forthcoming. Once the panel reports its recommendations and
    following my consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, I
    will provide my advice to the President concerning implementation of
    his policy direction. In the interim, current policy with respect to
    currently serving members will remain in place. I expect to issue
    interim guidance to the force concerning the President's direction,
    including any necessary interim adjustments to procedures, to ensure
    the continued combat readiness of the force until our final policy on
    this subject is issued.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. McCollum.
    Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                                      F-35

        Question. A. For such an expensive aircraft, I'm concerned about
    our pilots having to self-limit their flying in this way. How long do
    we anticipate having this issue with the F-35? Are we concerned about
    adversaries exploiting this weakness by adjusting their tactics against
    the F-35? B. Do you anticipate further slippage in the F-35 schedule?
        Answer. A. The restriction on the weapons bay doors was removed in
    March 2016 as a result of further analysis, test, and requalification
    of the limiting component, which was the Remote Input/Output unit
    within the weapons bay. With this restriction lifted there are no
    concerns related to adversary exploitation. B. Since the flight
    restriction related to excessive weapons bay temperature was lifted in
    March 2016, the F-35 program does not anticipate any related schedule
    slippages. In a broader context, the F-35 program continues to make
    steady progress toward the completion of its System Development and
    Demonstration (SDD) phase and delivery of full Block 3F capability.
    Following the 2011 re-baseline, the program of record estimate for the
    end of developmental flight test was October 31, 2017. Since the time
    of this re-baseline, the F-35 Joint Program Office has recognized a 3
    to 4 month risk associated with this date, putting the end of SDD
    flight test in early CY 2018. The program is tracking to completion of
    SDD flight test in that timeframe. Delivery of full Block 3F capability
    remains on track as well; current estimates for delivery of full Block
    3F capability by variant are shown in the table below.

                        FULL BLOCK 3F CAPABILITY DELIVERY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2011 Post Nunn-McCurdy APB Dates             Current Estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Objective: August 2017.................  F-35A: October 2017 (w/o AIM-
                                              9X).
                                             November 2017 (w/AIM-9X).
                                             F-35B: November 2017 (1.3
                                              Mach).
                                             May 2018 (1.6 Mach).
    Threshold: February 2018...............  F-35C: January 2018 (1.3 Mach).
                                             February 2018 (1.6 Mach).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The delivery of full capability for all 3 variants falls within the
    2011 Acquisition Program Baseline dates with the exception of the B-
    model envelope between 1.3 and 1.6 Mach. This is due to the fact that
    only one B-model test aircraft (BF-3) has been properly instrumented
    for the testing needed to reach 1.6 Mach.

                               Weaponized Drones

        Question. Do you have adequate funding and authorizations to deal
    with emerging threats, such as weaponized drones? How can Congress
    support you better?
        Answer. The Department has adequate authorities to respond to
    emerging threats, such as weaponized drones, in zones of active
    conflict overseas. For instance, Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA)
    provided under section 806 (c) of Public Law 107-314, enables the
    Secretary or Deputy Secretary to waive certain laws, and, with certain
    limitations, permit the use of any funds available to the Secretary, in
    order to respond quickly to Urgent Operational Needs and to expedite
    delivery of capabilities to the warfighter. DoD authorities to counter
    potential (weaponized) drone threats in the homeland are constrained by
    provisions of Federal law. Congress--in the FY2017 NDAA--established
    section 130i of title 10, U.S. Code, which authorized the Secretary to
    mitigate threats posed by drones to the safety or security of
    facilities and assets related to three DoD mission areas, including
    nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and the national security space.
    DoD is seeking a modest expansion of this authority in the FY2018 NDAA
    to, in part, incrementally expand the covered missions detailed in the
    authority. The Department will continue to plan for and resource
    capabilities to counter weaponized small unmanned aircraft consistent
    with the risks these threats pose and their overall priority in future
    President's Budget requests.

                             Additive Manufacturing

        Question. A. How are we empowering our servicemembers to use
    additive manufacturing? Are you receiving sufficient funding? B. Is
    there work to include contractual requirements for the manufacturing
    base to provide MILSPECS for additive manufacturing parts when they
    cease carrying existing product lines?
        Answer. For several years the DoD Manufacturing Technology
    programs, under the collaborative umbrella of the Joint Defense
    Manufacturing Technology Panel, have been working to enhance standards
    for technical data packages (TDPs). A TDP is ``a technical description
    of an item adequate for supporting an acquisition strategy, production,
    engineering, and logistics support. The description defines the
    required design configuration and procedures to ensure adequacy of item
    performance. It consists of all applicable technical data such as
    drawings, associated lists, specifications, standards, performance
    requirements, quality assurance (QA) provisions, and packaging
    details.'' Citation needed. Although TDPs are applicable to all types
    of manufacturing (not just additive manufacturing), their widespread
    use would greatly enhance DoD's ability to make parts after the
    original manufacturer has ceased production. Regardless of whether
    parts are made additively or otherwise, each acquisition program office
    is responsible for deciding whether to include delivery of TDPs as part
    of the contract deliverables. While providing TDPs benefits DoD by
    providing information needed to make the parts indefinitely, industry's
    concerns include: (1) TDPs are often considered proprietary, and
    manufacturers may only agree to document and deliver the data at a
    significant expense to the DOD; (2) the packaging and delivery of TDPs
    may require special handling which adds further expense; and (3) there
    is a wide variance in the capabilities of the acquiring organizations
    to validate and store TDPs. Through the DoD-wide AM Business Model
    Wargame working group, the Department is working with industry to
    address the concerns with acquisition contract language related to
    technical data. The various efforts in this area hope to address both
    concerns of industry and the needs of the Department.

                             Translators and Visas

        Question. A. Can you comment on the impact of our translators to
    the safety of our military forces? B. Can you discuss how strengthening
    our ties with allied citizens in these regions and honoring our
    commitment to our translators preserves the safety of our forces? C. Do
    you recommend that we continue to authorize and appropriate Special
    Immigrant Visas?
        Answer. Translators provide a valuable service to our military
    forces serving overseas, particularly in areas of active combat. I
    agree that our translators should be well compensated for their service
    in order to promote continued support amongst our partners. The
    authorization and appropriation of Special Immigrant Visas however,
    needs to be weighed in the larger context of visa authorizations as
    determined by the State Department.

                                   INF Treaty

        Question. A. From your perspective as the senior military advisor
    are Russian treaty violations a risk to US Forces and commitments? Are
    we unduly constrained by treaties which only our nation is complying
    with, such as the INF Treaty? B. Do you find our defense unduly
    constrained by the INF Treaty given that we appear to be the only
    nation in compliance with this agreement? C. One additional area the
    General Dunford acknowledges as a risk to our strategic advantage are
    mounting global ballistic missile threats. I am aware that growth in
    missile defense capabilities for the United States have been paused
    while the administration conducts a Ballistic Missile Defense Review.
    Do you have an anticipated timeline for completion of the BMDR?
        Answer. Currently, we are able to satisfy our military requirements
    while remaining in compliance with the INF Treaty. However, any treaty
    violation that could allow Russia to unlawfully gain a military
    capability advantage poses a potential threat to U.S. forces. With
    respect to the INF Treaty, I believe the status quo, in which the
    United States remains in compliance with the Treaty and the Russians
    are in violation of it, is untenable. The INF Treaty is in our national
    security interest if all parties comply with their Treaty obligations.
    We will continue to engage Russia--directly and together with our
    allies--to urge Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance with
    its Treaty obligations, but our patience is not unlimited. Regarding
    missile defense, our goal is to complete the Ballistic Missile Defense
    Review in the October timeframe. However, I would like to assure you
    that our development of missile defense capabilities is not on hold
    during this process. The approximately $8 billion fiscal year 2018
    budget request for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) missile defense
    programs includes funding for completing construction of the Aegis
    Ashore site in Poland, continuing development of the redesigned kill
    vehicle, developing a long-range discriminating radar, beginning work
    on a new radar in Hawaii, and continuing funding for advanced
    discrimination sensor technology and space-based kill assessment
    programs. We also remain on track to complete the deployment of 8 more
    interceptors in Alaska by the end of this year, bringing the total to
    44, and we are moving forward with efforts to bolster our defenses
    against advanced cruise missiles.

                                Industrial Base

        Question. A. Is reliance on non-American-made products a risk to
    our national security? B. Could your share where you feel the
    Department will find its biggest challenges in the industrial base?
    What can Congress do to help you build up these lost industries? Is the
    solution more funding or more time?
        Answer. The Department understands there may be security concerns
    in some key technology and production areas that support maintaining
    our technical dominance. These security concerns might be associated
    with critical technology areas such as microelectronics, robotics,
    artificial intelligence, and virtual reality, or security-of-supply
    concerns resulting from foreign dependency on products from adversarial
    nations. However, reliance on non-American made products is necessary
    to take advantage of the cost and technology benefits offered by access
    to global suppliers and many of our non-American made products are
    provided by trusted allies. The Department continues to identify and
    address risks related to supply-chain disruption, counterfeit parts,
    sabotage, and theft of critical American defense technology. Our job is
    to create a balance that allows us to benefit from global markets
    without putting at risk our national security. The biggest industrial
    base challenge the Department is facing is to sustain a healthy and
    resilient industrial base. DoD is concerned about the viability of
    critical elements of the supply chain at the lower-tiers for defense-
    unique markets and heavily commercial markets where DoD has very
    limited participation. On July 21, the President signed an Executive
    Order requesting the Department, in coordination with Commerce, Labor,
    Energy, and Homeland Security, to provide a report assessing the
    products and materials essential to national security and the
    resiliency of the manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply
    chains to support national security needs. In the next months, we will
    be working with multiple government agencies and industry to do the
    required assessment and provide recommendations to mitigate identified
    issues. The solutions to mitigate industrial base risks involve both
    adequate funding and time to implement them. The Department thanks you
    for your continuous support to the programs and authorities that allow
    us to sustain an innovative and healthy defense industrial base.
    Programs like the Manufacturing Institutes, the Industrial Base
    Analysis and Sustainment Funds, Defense Production Act Title Ill, and
    ManTech are helping us to work with industry to identify and reduce
    supply-chain risks. We ask you to continue supporting sufficient and
    timely investments to sustain the industrial base.

                                AAFES and NEXCOM

        Question. A. What is the status of healthy, convenient food options
    for our servicemembers? Are you getting the support necessary from
    AAFES and NEXCOM to provide healthy choices for our servicemembers? B.
    What can we do to encourage a healthy style of eating that will support
    our servicemembers career and fitness needs? For example, would it help
    if every base has a Nutrition Coordinator to help unify the efforts of
    dining facilities and convenience food outlets elsewhere on base?
        Answer. A. Healthy, convenient food options continue to expand Army
    wide. Building on the success of the DoD Healthy Base Initiative, the
    Healthy Army Communities (HAC) program commenced as a coordinated Army-
    wide program to improve the health and wellness of the total Army
    community, including active duty, reservists, families, civilians and
    retirees. The program focuses on changing the environment to make the
    healthy choice easier while helping individuals change their behavior
    towards healthier lifestyles. This includes the reshaping of Army
    garrison communities to be healthier places to live, learn, eat, work,
    play and shop. AAFES is a very committed partner with HAC and has
    already begun identifying brand transition opportunities and contract
    timelines to consider brands with healthier offerings. AAFES also
    provides for healthier options through the ``Be Fit'' program of vetted
    healthy nutritional criteria that's highlighted in the Express
    locations with Healthy Only item end caps and new refrigerated island
    coolers featuring healthy only grab and go products. The program is
    more than just food, but also aligns with active wear and fitness
    equipment to promote overall health and wellness. Additionally, AAFES
    is actively participating in the development and implementation of the
    Military Nutritional Environment Assessment Tool (m-NEAT 2.0) and
    working with the DoD Food and Nutrition Subcommittee. B. We believe HAC
    and the newly launched Army Holistic Health and Fitness Initiative are
    the most effective way ahead to promote healthy eating, increased
    physical activity, improved sleep and the reduction of tobacco products
    in the total Army community. Stakeholders are in the process of
    coordinating and developing action plans with short and long-term
    initiatives. These plans will be used as a foundation for implementing
    both short and long-term improvements. In FY18, ten Army Installations
    will conduct Innovation Demonstrations that will highlight and measure
    many of the efforts and initiatives developed to encourage and promote
    health and wellness to the total community. These demonstrations will
    take full advantage of the many programs and support structures already
    in place to support the community and will increase education and
    awareness.
        Answer. A. Healthy food options are generally available to Sailors
    who, depending on their messing status, have a variety of choices for
    where they obtain their food. For the approximately 70% of Sailors who
    live off-base and receive a basic allowance for subsistence (and those
    who live on base but are authorized to mess separately) food options
    include the base or ships galley, the commissary, civilian grocery
    stores, NEXCOM mini-markets, and both on-base and off-base restaurants.
    Sailors provided subsistence in kind are entitled to take all of their
    meals at the galley, which always provides healthy options, but are
    free to use their income to purchase food at commercial establishments
    if they desire. NEXCOM supports healthy eating across the spectrum of
    food sales. The food and merchandising experts, with the guidance of
    the staff dietician, work to ensure a balance of eating options at each
    installation. As part of NEXCOM's ``A Better You Program,'' exercise
    and healthy lifestyle products and information are promoted, and
    healthy eating is addressed through: 1. Food Service--NEXCOM provides
    name-brand food service as a complement to government dining facilities
    (where available) and home eating. Food service contracts include a
    clause requiring food partners to post nutritional information on their
    food offerings. The Subway chain represents approximately 20% of
    NEXCOM's fast food portfolio and is widely recognized as an industry
    leading healthy brand, and each restaurant is encouraged to provide
    healthy menu options. As new or existing spaces become available, new
    partners that promote healthier eating are pursued. 2. Retail--NEXCOM
    has extended a Fresh Food Initiative to 87 locations such as minimarts
    and micromarkets, across CONUS and OCONUS. These locations feature a
    full assortment of grab-and-go healthy options such as whole and cut
    fruits, gourmet wraps, salads, sandwiches, vegetables and yogurt. B.
    Providing for the optimal nutritional fitness and well-being of Service
    members, without unreasonably infringing on their personal liberties,
    is a priority for the Navy. Optimized nutrition is a significant
    component of preventive health strategies with potentially significant
    pay back in maintaining mission readiness, long-term health, and well-
    being while reducing personnel losses, subsequent accessions and
    training, and direct health treatment costs. Sailor's food choices are
    affected by taste, price, convenience, and nutritional literacy. The
    Navy has several programs to improve nutritional literacy, including
    ``Go For Green'' food labeling in the galleys and the Navy Operational
    Fitness and Fueling Series (NOFFS). However, while Sailors are
    generally aware of the healthy food choice, they often choose less
    nutritious options because of taste, price or convenience. The proposed
    example of a Nutrition Coordinator on every base is likely to have a
    low return on investment because of the challenge posed by complex mix
    of appropriated, non-appropriated and off-base food options and the
    vastly different business imperatives they face.
        Answer. A. Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs' (M&RA)
    Business & Support Services Division (MR) encompasses the Marine Corps
    Exchange (MCX), Marine Marts, Vending, Tactical Field Exchanges and MWR
    Food Operations (clubs, food courts, snack bars, and restaurants).
    These are valued non-appropriated fund (NAF) entities that provide
    critical financial support to a myriad of MWR, and Family Readiness
    programs. These venues provide a variety of items geared towards the
    promotion of an active healthy lifestyle. Our MCX has increased the
    number of healthy grab-and-go offerings at Marine Marts, highlighting
    ``Better for You'' products including beverages, fresh fruits, yogurts,
    smoothies, boiled eggs, snack foods, sandwiches, salads, as well as,
    creatively packaged lunch kits designed as portion-controlled
    convenience offerings. Similarly, Marine Corps NAF food courts, snack
    bars and restaurants feature several healthier concepts such as
    Wheatfields, LifeJuice, Panera Bread, Chopz and Jamba Juice.
    Additionally, many Marine Corps clubs offer reduced portion sizes,
    expanded salad bars, and alternative sides such as fruit or steamed
    vegetables. B. The Marine Corps actively participates in several DoD-
    led programs to develop new ways to promote healthy lifestyles for
    Marines and their families, including: DoD's Total Force Fitness
    initiative, which is a framework for building and maintaining health,
    readiness and performance; Operation Live Well, a DoD wellness
    campaign, aimed to make healthy living an easy choice for service
    members, retirees, civilians and their families; and DoD's Nutrition
    Committee. We have also partnered with Cornell University, the National
    Association of Convenience Stores, and Pepsi & Coca-Cola to test new
    ways of promoting healthy consumption choices. A mandated education
    component by credentialed nutritional educators would assist in
    demystifying purported ``healthy'' items. Transforming available food
    options on the installations by nutritionally educated Marines who
    choose to spend their food dollars on healthy options, rather than on
    less healthy options.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Ryan.
    Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and the answers thereto
    follow:]

                       Domestic Small Gas Turbine Engines

        Question. What steps are the DoD taking to preserve a dual domestic
    source for procurement and maintenance of small gas turbine engines
    (the type used to power Harpoon and F-107 missiles)?
        Answer. Small gas turbine engines power the U.S. Navy Harpoon,
    Standoff Land-Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) and Tomahawk
    weapons. The Harpoon and SLAM-ER are powered by J402 engines, which
    Teledyne Technologies manufactures. Tomahawks are powered by F107 and
    F415 engines manufactured by Williams International. Both Teledyne
    Technologies and Williams International are domestic companies.
    Currently, these weapons are in production for the U.S. Navy or foreign
    military sales. Additionally, there are maintenance activities for
    sustainment that include tasks performed by these engine companies.
    Looking to the future, Williams International, Teledyne Technologies,
    and Florida Turbine Technologies (also a domestic company) are
    individually partnered with the Department of Defense under the
    Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) Consortium. This
    consortium aligns technology investments with projected requirements of
    future programs. The domestic industrial base for small gas turbines is
    assessed as healthy. This position is supported by participation of two
    domestic engine companies in production and maintenance activities of
    current weapon systems along with membership/involvement of three
    domestic sources in technology advancement of small gas turbines. This
    level of participation and interest is providing an innovative
    environment that includes competitive pressure.

                              U.S. Steel Industry

        Question. What are the DoD's concerns as related to our national
    security due to the stresses on our U.S. Steel Industry caused by
    severe dumping by China, South Korea and Russia?
        Answer. The Department's concerns related to our national security
    resulting from stresses caused by excess foreign production capacity on
    the U.S. Steel Industry are generally associated with potential adverse
    impacts and negative effects on the viability of U.S. steel producers.
    DoD needs a healthy U.S. steel industry, but military uses of steel
    represent approximately three percent of U.S. steel demand. Therefore,
    the Department believes that DoD programs will be able to acquire the
    steel necessary to meet national defense requirements.

                                   Beryllium

        Question. What is the DoD doing to preserve our single source of
    domestic Beryllium?
        Answer. In 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) executed and
    successfully completed a 9-year beryllium domestic-production,
    capacity-development project. The project's purpose was to establish
    and preserve an assured supply of beryllium for U.S. defense
    requirements. The Department is undertaking a refreshed industrial base
    assessment of beryllium. The purposes of this assessment are to
    identify any new unmet U.S. defense requirements for beryllium, and if
    so, the potential need for further industrial base investment by the
    Department in related areas. We expect to complete this assessment
    during 2018.

                                 Russian Threat

        Question. Please summarize the nature of the Russian threat.
        Answer. Russia presents the greatest array of military challenges
    and remains the only potential existential threat to the United States.
    They continue to invest in a full-range of capabilities designed to
    limit our ability to project power into Europe and meet our alliance
    commitments to NATO. These capabilities include long-range conventional
    strike, cyber, space, electronic warfare, ground force and undersea
    capabilities. Russia is also modernizing all elements of its nuclear
    triad. These modernization efforts must also be viewed in the context
    of their activities in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. Russia's
    operations, capability development, and asymmetric doctrinal and
    strategic approaches are designed to counter NATO and U.S. power
    projection capability, and undermine the credibility of the NATO
    alliance.

                                   Article 5

        Question. Please state for the record, why are the European
    Reassurance Initiative and affirmation of our Article 5 commitment so
    critical to democracy?
        Answer. The North Atlantic Treaty is founded on the principles of
    democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. The Treaty reflects
    the commitment of all NATO Allies to safeguard the freedom, common
    heritage and civilization of their people, to promote stability and
    well-being in the North Atlantic area, and to unite their efforts for
    the preservation of peace and security and for collective defense.
    Article 5 is the foundation on which this commitment is based, and has
    ensured the security of the Euro-Atlantic area since 1949. The U.S.
    commitment to Article 5 not only reassures our NATO Allies that the
    U.S. will take action, in the event of an armed attack against one of
    more of them, to restore and maintain the security of the North
    Atlantic area; but it also serves to deter any potential aggressor from
    conducting an armed attack against any NATO nation, knowing the U.S.
    will respond, in accordance with Article 5. The 2014 Russian occupation
    and annexation of Crimea, and subsequent Russian backed and led
    fighting in the Donbass, has shown Russia's willingness to use force to
    achieve its objectives, and disregard for the sovereignty of
    independent nations. These Russian actions have led to concern and
    uncertainty in many of the democratic nations of Europe. The European
    Reassurance Initiative is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to
    democracy in Europe, reassures our democratic allies that we are
    committed to their sovereignty, and shows Russia that their efforts to
    undermine democracy in Europe will not be tolerated, and will be met
    with force if needed.

        [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]