[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]