[Senate Hearing 115-903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-903
HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-894 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman JACK REED, Rhode Island
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
TED CRUZ, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BEN SASSE, Nebraska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
________________________________________________________________________
june 20, 2017
Page
Hearing to Consider the Nomination of Patrick M. Shanahan, to be 1
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Members Statements
McCain, Senator John............................................. 1
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 3
Cantwell, Senator Maria.......................................... 8
Witness Statements
Shanahan, Patrick M., to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.......... 9
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 34
Questions for the Record....................................... 61
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 67
Biographical Sketch............................................ 67
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 70
Signature Page................................................. 73
(iii)
HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators McCain, Fischer,
Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Sasse, Reed,
McCaskill, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine,
King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman McCain. Good morning.
The Committee meets this morning to consider the nomination
of Patrick Shanahan to be Deputy Secretary of Defense of the
United States.
Mr. Shanahan, we thank you for joining us today and for
your willingness to serve our Nation at an important time. We
welcome your family and friends. As is our tradition, we invite
you to introduce them at the beginning of your testimony.
It is important that this Committee and other appropriate
committees of the Congress be able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information. So it is
the standard for this Committee to ask certain questions in
order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Shanahan. I have.
Chairman McCain. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in hearings?
Mr. Shanahan. I will.
Chairman McCain. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Shanahan. I will.
Chairman McCain. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisals for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Chairman McCain. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this Committee?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Chairman McCain. Do you agree to provide documents,
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or
to consult with the Committee regarding the basis for any good
faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Chairman McCain. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any action which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Shanahan. No.
Chairman McCain. In the interest of time, I will submit my
opening statement for the record. I know that will come as a
terrible blow to the other Members of the Committee. I can see
how upset they are in missing that, and maybe with a little
luck, Senator Reed will do the same.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator John McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
The Committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of
Patrick Shanahan to be Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United
States.
Mr. Shanahan, we thank you for joining us today and for your
willingness to serve our Nation at an important time. We welcome your
family and friends, and as is our tradition, we invite you to introduce
them at the beginning of your testimony--If confirmed, Mr. Shanahan,
you will assume a critical position at a time when our military faces
significant challenges around the world, and when the Department of
Defense itself faces major internal challenges of its own. As the
Pentagon's senior management executive, the Deputy Secretary is
indispensable to meeting these challenges head-on and setting the
Department on the right path for the future.
This committee has heard recently from our Nation's senior
intelligence officers about the rising threats we face around the
world, from Afghanistan, to Iraq and Syria, to Iran and North Korea, to
China and Russia. At the same time, this Committee has heard from our
senior civilian defense and military leaders about the diminished State
of our military to combat these threats: readiness shortfalls, an
eroding military advantage, and the urgent need for growth and
modernization.
And yet, the Congress still has not summoned the political courage
to repeal or revise the Budget Control Act, which has imposed immense
harm on our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, rather than propose changes to
these budget caps and work with the Congress to implement them, the
administration has requested an arbitrary defense topline for fiscal
year 2018 that both breaks the spending caps in law and is inadequate
to meet the challenges facing our Nation and our military.
As this Committee has gathered from recent testimony, $603 billion
for defense is insufficient to simultaneously restore readiness,
rebuild lost capacity, and modernize the force for the future. As a
result, this Committee has received lists of unfunded military
requirements from the Department in excess of $30 billion.
As we advocate for increased defense spending, this Committee
remains equally committed to ensuring that all of those taxpayer
dollars are used efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, there is
still a lot of work to do.
The Department of Defense is blessed with the best, most dedicated
workforce in the world, both military and civilian. But these
committed, mission-focused Americans work in an institution that
remains plagued by a sclerotic bureaucracy that is eroding our military
technological advantage, an acquisition system troubled by schedule
delays and cost over-runs, and administrative overhead that consumes
far too much money--money that can and should be redirected to our
warfighters.
Over the past few years, this Committee has gone to great lengths
in our defense authorization legislation to try to improve the way the
Department does business. We have empowered the leaders of the military
services with new acquisition authorities. We have broken up an overly
centralized acquisition system to reinvigorate the core mission of
technological innovation. We have realigned the management of defense
agencies that consume tens of billions of dollars each year providing
shared business services across the Department. We have improved core
personnel benefits, such as military retirement and health care, while
generating tens of billions of dollars' worth of savings in the
process. We have sought to cut down on overhead functions and rebalance
the Department's `tooth-to-tail' ratio.
This Committee has led these reforms, and for all of these reasons,
we place special importance on the position of Deputy Secretary of
Defense, which is essentially the Chief Operating Officer of the
largest, most complex organization in the world.
Mr. Shanahan: We look forward to hearing how, if confirmed, you
would work with this Committee to implement these reform efforts, build
upon them, and take the next steps to improve the transparency,
accountability, and effectiveness of the Department of Defense. Your
impressive business record certainly prepares you to manage a large
organization. But given that you have never worked at the Department of
Defense, or in government at all, we need to know how your experience
in other sectors would inform the work that the Deputy must do.
And in light of your extensive background at the Boeing Company,
you will need to explain to this Committee how you would avoid
conflicts of interest in your work at the Department of Defense, and
why all of us can have confidence that you would be an unbiased and
committed advocate for the taxpayer and the warfighter.
In short, Mr. Shanahan, this Committee needs to know that you would
be our partner. You would have to trust us to be your partner in major
decision making and in sharing the greater risks that are necessary for
our Nation to win in a more competitive world. In return, if you will
be accountable to us--and if confirmed, you will be--we must be able to
trust you to determine how best to get the results we demand with fewer
statutory and regulatory impediments.
In short, we need to restore accountability. And that starts today,
with you proving to us that we can and should entrust you with one of
the most difficult, multifaceted, and vitally important jobs in the
U.S. Government.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. It is your lucky day, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to welcome Mr. Shanahan and Senator Cantwell. I had a
chance to speak to Mr. Shanahan and I have every confidence in
his abilities. Thank you.
If I may, also Senator Shaheen wanted to be here. She is
delayed in this terrible weather. She might not make it here
today.
With that, I would ask permission to submit my statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jack Reed follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Jack Reed
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in welcoming Mr.
Shanahan this morning. Thank you for your willingness to serve your
country. I also want to recognize your family members for their support
and willingness to let you serve in the Department of Defense.
If confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, you will serve as
the number two official in the Department of Defense and the Chief
Management Officer of the Department. You will be responsible for
ensuring the military personnel and civilians of the Department of
Defense have what they need while also managing finite taxpayer dollars
in the face of many who will be looking for additional resources.
Your distinguished record of more than thirty years at Boeing
culminated in your current position as Senior Vice President for Supply
Chain and Operations. During your tenure at Boeing, you developed a
reputation as ``Mr. Fix-It'' due to your successful record of taking on
challenging programs, fixing their problems, and turning them into
successes. In our meeting, you emphasized your belief in getting more
out of the private sector to achieve cost-efficient results while
ensuring our warfighters have the best equipment at their disposal. It
is that kind of dynamic leadership that the Defense Department needs as
our Nation faces as diverse an array of threats and challenges to our
national security as at any point in our history.
For the past 16 years, our military has been consumed by two
prolonged wars against violent extremist groups like ISIS. This
generational fight has sapped readiness and precluded our military
personnel from training for full spectrum operations. In addition, we
now face the rise of near peer competitors, with a resurgent Russia,
which is disrupting Europe and our own nation, and a saber-rattling
China, which is unnerving our allies in Asia. Compounding these threats
are a destabilizing North Korea and the long shadow of Iran. All of
these challenges will inevitably show up on your desk as the Pentagon
seeks decisions on policy and resources. Every day you will have to
prioritize and make hard decisions.
None of these decisions will be harder than budgetary choices.
While in an ideal world, strategy would drive budget, the reality is
that the Budget Control Act spending caps drive most defense decisions.
Unfortunately, while the President's budget request adds much-needed
funding to defense, it does not address the issue that the budget caps
are law, but instead increases defense at the expense of non-defense
accounts. Furthermore, if enacted, the President's budget request would
trigger sequestration, effectively wiping out those increases with
across-the-board cuts.
We face many challenges that will require strong leadership and the
ability to make tough decisions. I look forward to hearing our
nominee's views on these issues.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Since a quorum is now present, I ask the
Committee to consider a list of 995 pending military
nominations. All of these nominations have been before the
Committee the required length of time. Is there a motion to
favorably report these 995 military nominations to the Senate?
Senator Reed. So moved.
Chairman McCain. Is there a second?
Senator Kaine. Second.
Chairman McCain. All in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. The motion carries.
[The list of nominations considered and approved by the
committee follows:]
Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee
Which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on June 20, 2017.
1. BG Ronald J. Place, USA to be major general (Reference No.
98)
2. Capt. William C. Greene, USN to be rear admiral (lower half)
(Reference No. 107)
3. Capt. William S. Dillon, USN to be rear admiral (lower half)
(Reference No. 108)
4. Capt. Karl O. Thomas, USN to be rear admiral (lower half)
(Reference No. 123)
5. In the Army there are 81 appointments to the grade of colonel
(list begins with Jennifer M. Bager) (Reference No. 159)
6. In the Army there are 12 appointments to the grade of colonel
(list begins with Alfred C. Anderson) (Reference No. 160)
7. In the Navy Reserve there are 6 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Juanito F. Boydon, Jr.) (Reference No. 395)
8. In the Navy Reserve there are 3 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Anthony L. Bayungan) (Reference No. 396)
9. In the Navy Reserve there are 17 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Todd M. Boland) (Reference No. 397)
10. In the Navy Reserve there are 64 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with James G. Adams) (Reference No. 398)
11. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Shawn G. Denihan) (Reference No. 399)
12. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Kelvin J. Askew) (Reference No. 400)
13. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Kathleen A. Allen) (Reference No. 401)
14. In the Navy Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of
captain (Bruce E. Osborne) (Reference No. 419)
15. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Colette M. Murphy) (Reference No. 420)
16. In the Navy Reserve there are 14 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Nathan R. Anderson) (Reference No. 421)
17. In the Navy Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of
captain (Adria R. Schneck) (Reference No. 422)
18. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Mary A. Ponce) (Reference No. 423)
19. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Ryan K. Mahelona) (Reference No. 424)
20. In the Navy Reserve there are 14 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Joseph T. Bailey) (Reference No. 425)
21. In the Navy Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of
captain (David W. Shaieb) (Reference No. 426)
22. In the Navy there are 15 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Lee A. Axtell) (Reference No. 427)
23. In the Navy there are 13 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Thomas M. Bestafka) (Reference No. 428)
24. In the Navy there is 1 appointment to the grade of captain
(Danny W. King) (Reference No. 429)
25. In the Navy there are 30 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Babak A. Barakat) (Reference No. 431)
26. In the Navy there are 26 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Michael J. Allanson) (Reference No. 432)
27. In the Navy there are 16 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Matthew L. Beran) (Reference No. 433)
28. In the Navy there are 21 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Garland H. Andrews) (Reference No. 434)
29. In the Navy there are 50 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Oladapo A. Akintonde) (Reference No. 435)
30. In the Navy there are 16 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Jeff A. Bleile) (Reference No. 436)
31. In the Navy there are 5 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Grady G. Duffey, Jr.) (Reference No. 438)
32. In the Navy there are 4 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with William M. Kafka) (Reference No. 439)
33. In the Navy there are 6 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Daniel E. Fillion) (Reference No. 440)
34. In the Navy there are 5 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Damon B. Dixon) (Reference No. 441)
35. In the Navy there are 11 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with James W. Adkisson III) (Reference No. 442)
36. In the Navy there are 7 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Cory S. Brummett) (Reference No. 443)
37. In the Navy there are 18 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Julie M. Alfieri) (Reference No. 444)
38. In the Navy there are 9 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Matthew E. Arnold) (Reference No. 445)
39. In the Navy there are 11 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Peter A. Arrobio) (Reference No. 446)
40. In the Navy there are 18 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with John A. Anderson) (Reference No. 447)
41. In the Navy there are 3 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Lawrence H. Kennedy) (Reference No. 448)
42. In the Navy there are 5 appointments to the grade of captain
(list begins with Jose G. Hernandez) (Reference No. 449)
43. In the Navy there are 173 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with David A. Abernathy) (Reference No. 450)
44. MG Jay B. Silveria, USAF to be lieutenant general and
Superintendent, US Air Force Academy (Reference No. 466)
45. Capt. Samuel J. Paparo, Jr., USN to be rear admiral (lower
half) (Reference No. 470)
46. Capt. Gregory N. Harris, USN to be rear admiral (lower half)
(Reference No. 471)
47. Col. John P. Lawlor, Jr., USAR to be brigadier general
(Reference No. 479)
48. Col. Dion B. Moten, USAR to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 480)
49. Col. Bowlman T. Bowles III, USAR to be brigadier general
(Reference No. 481)
50. In the Army Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of
colonel (William F. McClintock) (Reference No. 483)
51. In the Army Reserve there are 9 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with David S. Allen) (Reference No. 484)
52. In the Army there is 1 appointment to the grade of lieutenant
colonel (Jeffrey L. Washington) (Reference No. 485)
53. In the Navy there is 1 appointment to the grade of lieutenant
commander (Kenneth M. King) (Reference No. 486)
54. In the Navy there is 1 appointment to the grade of commander
(Garry P. Closas) (Reference No. 487)
55. In the Marine Corps there is 1 appointment to the grade of
colonel (Jason K. Fettig) (Reference No. 488)
56. RADM(lh) Daniel J. MacDonnell, USNR to be rear admiral
(Reference No. 490)
57. In the Navy Reserve there are 3 appointments the grade of
rear admiral (list begins with Daniel B. Hendrickson) (Reference No.
491)
58. Capt. Jacquelyn McClelland, USNR to be rear admiral (lower
half) (Reference No. 492)
59. Capt. James M. Butler, USNR to be rear admiral (lower half)
(Reference No. 493)
60. In the Navy Reserve there are 5 appointments to the grade of
rear admiral (lower half) (list begins with Eugene A. Burcher)
(Reference No. 494)
61. RADM(lh) Keith M. Jones, USNR to be rear admiral (Reference
No. 495)
62. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to the grade of major
(Jered N. Fry) (Reference No. 496)
63. In the Air Force there are 2 appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Christopher R. Boney) (Reference No. 497)
64. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to the grade of major
(Jeffrey A. Garrett) (Reference No. 498)
65. In the Air Force there are 2 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel and below (list begins with Roger A. Lee) (Reference
No. 499)
66. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to the grade of
colonel (Theadore L. Wilson) (Reference No. 500)
67. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to the grade of major
(Jason S. Cross) (Reference No. 501)
68. In the Navy Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Paul D. Melvey) (Reference No. 502)
69. In the Navy Reserve there are 13 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with William J. Bailey, Jr.) (Reference No. 503)
70. In the Navy Reserve there are 21 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Gina A. Buono) (Reference No. 504)
71. In the Navy Reserve there are 6 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with David J. Allen) (Reference No. 505)
72. In the Navy Reserve there are 5 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with David M. Buzzetti) (Reference No. 506)
73. In the Navy Reserve there are 11 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with David E. Bailey) (Reference No. 507)
74. In the Navy Reserve there are 8 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with John R. Adams) (Reference No. 508)
75. In the Navy Reserve there are 7 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Sean A. Cox) (Reference No. 509)
76. In the Navy Reserve there are 13 appointments to the grade of
captain (list begins with Elizabeth W. Bundt) (Reference No. 510)
77. RADM(lh) Bret C. Batchhelder, USN to be rear admiral
(Reference No. 522)
78. Col. DeAnna M. Burt, USAF to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 526)
79. BG Stephen R. Hogan, ARNG to be major general (Reference No.
527)
80. BG Janson D. Boyles, ARNG to be major general (Reference No.
528)
81. In the Army Reserve there are 22 appointments to the grade of
major general and below (list begins with Steven W. Ainsworth)
(Reference No. 529)
82. In the Army Reserve there are 2 appointments to the grade of
major general (list begins with Gregory L. Kennedy) (Reference No. 530)
83. BG Christopher P. Callahan, ARNG to be major general
(Reference No. 531)
84. In the Army Reserve there are 17 appointments to the grade of
major general (list begins with James P. Begley III) (Reference No.
532)
85. RADM(lh) Ann M. Burkhardt, USN to be rear admiral (Reference
No. 533)
86. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to be major (Angela
M. Mike) (Reference No. 534)
87. In the Air Force there are 4 appointments to be major (list
begins with Matthew V. Chauviere) (Reference No. 535)
88. In the Air Force there are 13 appointments to be colonel
(list begins with Michael E. Bruhn) (Reference No. 536)
89. In the Air Force there are 31 appointments to be lieutenant
colonel (list begins with Jeffrey W. Drake) (Reference No. 537)
90. In the Air Force there are 36 appointments to be major (list
begins with Megan E. Anderson) (Reference No. 539)
91. In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to be lieutenant
colonel (Jose G. Bal) (Reference No. 544)
92. In the Army Reserve there is 1 appointment to be colonel
(Joseph B. Dore) (Reference No. 545)
93. In the Army there are 2 appointments to be lieutenant colonel
and below (list begins with Christopher M. Chung) (Reference No. 546)
94. In the Army there are 2 appointments to be major (Devin G.
McCane) (Reference No. 547)
95. In the Army there is 1 appointment to be major (Janna X.
Gaddy) (Reference No. 548)
96. In the Army there are 2 appointments to be major (list begins
with Bradley H. Stephens) (Reference No. 549)
97. In the Army there is 1 appointment to be major (Terry Kim)
(Reference No. 550)
98. In the Army there are 16 appointments to be major (Jeff A.
Burchfield) (Reference No. 551)
99. In the Navy there is 1 appointment to be commander (Miguel A.
Santiesteban) (Reference No. 552)
100. MG Scott A. Howell, USAF to be lieutenant general and Vice
Commander, US Special Operations Command (Reference No. 570)
101. MG James C. Vechery, USAF to be lieutenant general and Deputy
Commander for Military Operations, US Africa Command (Reference No.
571)
102. MG Thomas A. Horlander, USA to be lieutenant general and
Military Deputy for Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management and Comptroller (Reference No. 572)
103. RADM Andrew L. Lewis, USN to be vice admiral and Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations for Operations, Plans, and Strategy, N3/N5, Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations (Reference No. 574)
104. RADM Matthew J. Kohler, USN to be vice admiral and Commander,
Naval Information Forces (Reference No. 575)
105. VADM Kevin M. Donegan, USN to be vice admiral and Director,
Navy Staff, N09B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (Reference
No. 576)
106. MG Robert F. Hedelund, USMC to be lieutenant general and
Commanding General, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Reference No. 577)
107. VADM James G. Foggo III, USN to be admiral and Commander, US
Naval Forces Europe/Commander, US Naval Forces Africa, and Commander,
Allied Joint Forces Command, Naples (Reference No. 598)
_______________________________________________________________________
TOTAL: 995
Welcome, Mr. Shanahan. You are deprived of the important
opening statements of Senator Reed and myself.
But before we allow you to speak, Senator Cantwell is here,
and I apologize, Senator Cantwell, for not recognizing you to
take time from your very busy schedule to introduce Mr.
Shanahan. Senator Cantwell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McCain,
Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of this
Committee, I am proud to introduce an extremely qualified
candidate, Patrick Shanahan, to serve as the Deputy Secretary
of the Department of Defense.
I, too, want to welcome his family. They are here, and I am
sure he will make that appropriate introduction.
Mr. Shanahan has a unique experience leading major reforms
of large, highly complex programs at the Boeing Company, such
as the 737 MAX and the 787 Dreamliner. These aircraft have
cutting-edge technology, keeping them ahead of the global
competition.
His entire career has been about solving problems no one
else can solve, and these skills would be invaluable at
Department of Defense (DOD). He drives change by building teams
that think outside the box and then convince others to think in
doing things new ways. Mr. Shanahan has driven reforms in
talent management, affordability, technology, and supply chain,
and he has had an impressive 31-year career at the Boeing
Company, last serving as Senior Vice President of Supply Chain
Operations. His hands-on leadership inspires those around him
to strive to achieve results on time and on budget. Mr.
Shanahan, managing the Boeing Company's highly complex
operations in Renton and Everett, Washington and Charleston,
South Carolina, has served as the head of the commercial
airplane program. His attention to detail, while operating some
of the largest manufacturing operations in the world, will
prove invaluable at DOD.
He is also fearless. He understands what our country is up
against when it comes to the Russians and the Chinese and the
North Koreans and it will not faze him. He focuses on big,
game-changing innovation and science and technology and will
not be deterred by the bureaucracy of DOD.
Mr. Shanahan also knows how the Department of Defense
operates and has served as Vice President and General Manager
of the Boeing Missile Defense System and was responsible for
the U.S. Army aviation programs and site activities in
Philadelphia and in Mesa, Arizona as Vice President and General
Manager for Rotorcraft Systems. He has been able to achieve
positive results throughout his career.
He understands the need for fiscal responsibility and for
innovation of the Department. DOD is the largest employer in
the world with almost 3 million people and the largest military
budget in the world, and he has the management skills from the
private sector to guide DOD successfully into the future. I am
confident that he will be an effective leader in this position
for our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to excuse myself but
again thank the Committee for this opportunity to introduce Mr.
Shanahan.
Chairman McCain. We thank you, Senator Cantwell. We fully
understand you have other duties in the Senate, and thank you
for taking the time to introduce Mr. Shanahan.
Mr. Shanahan?
STATEMENT OF PATRICK M. SHANAHAN, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Mr. Shanahan. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for your very
kind words, thoughtful introduction, and enduring support.
Before I begin, my thoughts and prayers go out this morning
to the families of the seven sailors killed in the tragic
accident on the USS Fitzgerald.
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of this
Committee, I greatly appreciate the welcome and time you have
afforded me this morning.
I am grateful to the President and Secretary Mattis for
nominating me to the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense.
I would like to acknowledge my three children, who have
accompanied me here today, Kayla, Will, and Jack, who are
seated behind me.
I also want to take a moment to recognize and honor my
parents, Jo-Anne and Michael Shanahan. I am the oldest of three
boys. My father, Michael Shanahan, instilled in my brothers and
I, from as early as I can remember, service before self.
My father was an Army veteran who served in Vietnam. He
taught his boys to love their country and value its freedoms.
My father served in law enforcement for over 25 years. He
taught us to treat people fairly, respect law and order, and
the importance of protecting the community.
My father co-founded a food bank in 1982 that is ongoing.
To date, it has distributed over 200 million pounds of food to
the needy. He showed us that with initiative and outreach, good
ideas can scale to make a big difference.
At age 52, my father was afflicted with Parkinson's. He
battled that savage disease for 17 years before passing. I
never once heard him complain. My father modeled for us what it
means to have grit, that is, the ability to maintain an
indomitable spirit and persevere no matter what the challenge.
I so wish he were here today. I know exactly what he would say
to me. He would say, Patrick, don't screw this up.
My mother, Jo-Anne, could not be here. She is here in
spirit. My mother always supported me unconditionally. She
taught my brothers and I to support others unconditionally.
What I appreciate most about her that I would like to share is
she taught me to truly believe in myself and that I could do
anything I set my mind to. She taught my brothers and I that it
is not the size of your muscles that matter. It is the size of
your heart. She taught me to be a better parent, and that is a
gift I can never repay. Her words for me today where, you will
do fine.
I am here to earn your support. I aspire to join a strong
and capable DOD team. I aspire to help them dominate and win. I
aspire to help usher in a new age of innovation and
effectiveness in the Department.
I believe I have prepared myself to contribute as Deputy
Secretary of Defense. I bring over 3 decades of leadership
honed in America's largest manufacturing exporter. I have led
large, geographically dispersed organizations focused on
developing and fielding complex engineered products. I have
experience converting technological innovation into operational
capability.
I bring with me a formula for leadership that has a record
of delivering affordable, high-performing business systems and
operations under adverse conditions. Leadership casts a long
shadow, and strong leadership can create teams that achieve
ambitious change at scale.
I believe my skill set strongly complements that of
Secretary Mattis. He is a master strategist with deep military
and foreign policy experience. As Deputy Secretary of Defense
and Secretary Mattis' Chief Operating Officer (COO), I bring
strong execution skills with a background in technology
development and business management, areas this Committee in
particular has identified for reforms.
If confirmed, I will work tirelessly with Congress and the
Department to deliver on our commitments to our men and women
in uniform and their families, to defend the Nation, and to be
relentless stewards of the taxpayers' money.
I appreciate the time you have afforded me today to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shanahan follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr. Patrick Shanahan
Senator Cantwell, thank you very much for your kind remarks,
thoughtful introduction and enduring support. Chairman McCain, Ranking
Member Reed and the Members of this Committee, I greatly appreciate the
welcome and time you have afforded me this morning.
I am grateful to the President and Secretary Mattis for nominating
me to the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense.
I would like to acknowledge my three children that accompanied me
today--Kayla, Will, and Jack. I also want to take a moment to recognize
and honor my parents, Jo-Anne and Michael Shanahan.
I am the oldest of three boys. My father, Michael Shanahan,
instilled in my brothers and I from as early as I can remember . . .
service before self.
My father was an Army veteran who served in Vietnam. He taught his
boys to love their country and value its freedoms.
My father served in law enforcement for over 25 years. He taught us
to treat people fairly, respect law and order, and the importance of
protecting the community.
My father started a food bank in 1982 that is on-going. To date,
they have distributed over 200 million pounds of food to the needy. He
showed us, that, with initiative and outreach, good ideas can scale to
make a big difference.
At age 52, my father was afflicted with Parkinson's. He battled
that savage disease for 17 years before passing . . . and I never once
heard him complain. My father modelled, for us, what it means to have
grit . . . that is . . . the ability to maintain an indomitable spirit
and persevere no matter the challenge.
I so wish he were here today . . . and I know what he would say to
me . . . don't screw this up.
My mother, Jo-Anne, could not be here. She is here in spirit.
My mother has always supported me unconditionally. She taught my
brothers and I to support others unconditionally.
What I appreciate most about her that I would like to share is:
She taught me to truly believe in myself and that I could do
anything I set my mind to;
She taught my brothers and I that it is not the size of your
muscles that matter it is the size of your heart;
She taught me to be a better parent, a gift I can never repay.
Her words to me for today were . . . you'll do fine.
I am here to earn your support. I aspire to join a strong and
capable DOD team. I aspire to help them dominate and win. I aspire to
usher in a new age of innovation and effectiveness in the Department.
I believe I have prepared myself to contribute as Deputy Secretary
of Defense.
I bring over 3 decades of leadership honed at America's largest
manufacturing exporter. I have led large, geographically-dispersed
organizations focused on developing and fielding complex, engineered
products. I have experience converting technological innovation into
operational capability.
I bring with me a formula for leadership that has a record of
delivering affordable, high-performing business systems and operations
under adverse conditions. Leadership casts a long shadow, and strong
leadership can create teams that achieve ambitious change at scale.
I believe my skillset strongly complements that of Secretary
Mattis. He is a master strategist with deep military and foreign policy
experience. As Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary Mattis' Chief
Operating Officer, I bring strong execution skills with background in
technology development and business management--areas this Committee in
particular has identified for reforms.
If confirmed, I will work tirelessly with Congress and the
Department to deliver on our commitments to our men and women in
uniform, their families, to defend the Nation and be relentless
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
I appreciate the time afforded me today to answer your questions.
Chairman McCain. Thank you, Mr. Shanahan.
In your questions that were submitted to you, one of the
questions was about providing the Ukrainians with lethal
defense weaponry with which to defend themselves. Inexplicably,
you responded by saying you would have to look at the issue. It
is not satisfactory, Mr. Shanahan. Would you wish to abridge or
amend your statement concerning what----
Mr. Shanahan. Chairman----
Chairman McCain. Go ahead.
Mr. Shanahan. I support equipping the Ukrainians.
Chairman McCain. You support providing lethal defensive
weaponry to Ukraine?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Chairman McCain. All right, good. I am glad to hear that.
But I have to tell you, Mr. Shanahan, our job is advice and
consent. We are equal branches of government. Your response to
that question was, frankly, very disappointing to me. You have
been associated for the last I do not know how many years with
one of the five corporations that provide 90 percent of the
defensive weaponry to defend this Nation, and your answer was,
well, I would have to look at the issue. That is not good
enough, Mr. Shanahan. I am glad to hear you have changed your
opinion from what was submitted, but it is still disturbing to
me.
It is still disturbing to me, after all these years, that
you would say that you would have to look at the issue. Have
you not been aware of the issue? Have you not been aware of the
actions of the Senate Armed Services Committee? Have you not
been aware of the thousands of people that have been killed by
Vladimir Putin? Have you missed all that in your duties at one
of the major defense corporations of this country?
Mr. Shanahan. No, Chairman. I am aware of that.
Chairman McCain. I got to tell you it is very disturbing.
One, I am disturbed that we now have an executive from one of
the five major corporations that has corralled 90 percent of
our defense budgets and on one of the major issues that this
Committee has had hearings about, has had markups about, has
reported out our bill and you want to find out more
information. Not a good beginning. Not a good beginning. Do not
do that again, Mr. Shanahan, or I will not take your name up
for a vote before this Committee. Am I perfectly clear?
Mr. Shanahan. Very clear.
Chairman McCain. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shanahan, one of the issues that you are going to face
is generically termed the Third Offset. Bob Work, who you are
succeeding, has done a remarkable job I think, and he has been
the leader for this effort. It is essentially trying to counter
technologically and otherwise our adversaries, their area
denial capabilities, their cyber capabilities, their asymmetric
capabilities, and leap ahead with new technologies. In trying
to deal with that, the Congress reestablished the position of
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (R&E).
But as Deputy Secretary, you are going to play a critical
role in supporting the new or revised Under Secretary, but also
reaching out to the whole community, Intelligence Community,
the industrial community, technological community. Can you give
us some sense of how you are going to continue Mr. Work's
efforts with respect to the Third Offset?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes, Senator Reed. If confirmed, I will spend
time with the group that has done the Third Offset work. I have
not received the classified briefings on the work that they
have done.
The effort I would undertake is to make sure we have a
clear path to being able to operationalize the capability. When
I look at the strategy exercise that we will be conducting to
put together the fiscal year 2019 budget, it will be critical
that we have an assessment of how much funding needs to be
applied against the Third Offset. I believe the restructuring
of R&E will give us the concentrated skill set so that we can
have a more informed recommendation.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
I presume also because of your significant experience in
private industry, you already have some ideas of companies that
are not currently involved but could be major contributors to
this effort, some of these path breaking not only software but
technology companies. Is that accurate?
Mr. Shanahan. That is correct. I think to Chairman McCain's
point, we need to broaden our industrial base, and it is
important that we develop other capabilities and other
companies as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
One of the other changes that we made in last year's
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was creating an Under
Secretary for Acquisition and also Chief Management Officer. In
many respects, you are really the Chief Management Officer as
the Deputy Secretary of Defense. But how will you work with the
Chief Management Officer? Have you any ideas with respect to
that issue?
Mr. Shanahan. I do. The Chief Management Officer, as I see
it, has responsibility for helping to streamline business
operations. So as the Deputy, it is all of operations for the
Department. That is how I see my responsibility. A subset of
that is the business operations. But I will work hand in glove
with the Chief Management Officer. The real intent--and I have
experience in this area--is how do we quickly capture
efficiency and the opportunities by standardizing and sharing
many of these services, if you will, across the Department.
Senator Reed. Very good.
One of the areas that is complicated, troubling, and daily
we seem to be falling behind is the whole concept of
information operations. It is ironic that the country that
created Madison Avenue is now sort of trying to catch up in
terms of influencing individuals through media. The Department
of Defense has a role in this.
The first question is conceptionally I would think the
Secretary of Defense is going to be very much involved in this.
But do you see a role that you will play in terms of trying to
coordinate all the different aspects just within DOD and then
again reaching out to other agencies?
Mr. Shanahan. Sir, I do. I think the Deputy and the Chief
Operating Officer role really needs to ensure that we have the
right structures so that we are effective in interfacing with
these other organizations and that we have the proper
architectures so that the systems are cost effective, the
proper architectures so that we can upgrade them easily and
evolve as technology changes.
Senator Reed. Very good.
Again, thank you, Mr. Shanahan. I think you are bringing
significant experience to this very challenging job. Thank you
very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Fischer?
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shanahan, I appreciated your comments in our meeting
about the nuclear deterrent, and being a weapons system that we
use every single day, this fact is overlooked but every day we
have missileers who are in launch control centers, and we have
submarines that are on alert defending our Nation.
Secretary Carter characterized our nuclear deterrent as the
bedrock of our national security. Do you agree with that
statement?
Mr. Shanahan. I do.
Senator Fischer. I know the forthcoming Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) will lay out the particulars, but in general, do
you support the modernization of our nuclear weapons, the
associated delivery vehicles, command and control architecture,
and the supporting infrastructure?
Mr. Shanahan. I do.
Senator Fischer. General Selva, the Vice Chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, has testified that the Joint Staff puts our
nuclear deterrent as the number one priority for modernization
and recapitalization. That is based on the fact, in his words,
that we have squeezed about all the life we can out of the
systems we currently possess. Do you agree with his assessment
and the level of urgency and priority that this requires?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, if confirmed, I have not had a
review of the priorities of the Department. I understand the
importance of the nuclear deterrent, and I will take advice
from General Selva and make sure that he gets the proper
support.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
When you were in my office, we talked a little bit about
technology and innovation, but one thing we did not touch on is
the question of risk tolerance. Innovation is inherently risky
and not all good ideas pan out. But the current environment
seems to be very intolerant of risk. Do you believe the
Department and the Services need to be more tolerant of risk,
and how do you think the Department can better navigate that
tension between effectively using scarce resources and
tolerating the amount of risk that is required if we are going
to have any innovation take place?
Mr. Shanahan. My view on risk is that you have to manage
risk. Out of the pointy end of the spear, we do not want really
any risk.
I think when it comes to innovation--and this is the
mindset I have developed working in the commercial world--
innovation is messy, and if you try something and it fails, I
think that is--your point around risk--we should not be afraid.
Organizations that pride themselves on execution tend to be
afraid of failure. I am a proponent of failing, failing fast,
learning quickly. I think the faster you do that, the more we
end up training people. It is not about the technology. It is
about our people learning how to develop the technology because
they know how the users can apply it.
Senator Fischer. In your response to the Committee advance
policy questions regarding Russia's violation of the INF
[Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty, you state, I
understand that the administration is reviewing a number of
potential responses as part of its ongoing review of this
issue, and I will be keenly interested in making sure these are
translated into action.
To be clear for the record, do you believe a response is
necessary beyond simply expressing concern through diplomatic
channels, which has already been done?
Mr. Shanahan. I do.
Senator Fischer. Do you have any personal thoughts right
now on what options would be available to be some of those
responses?
Mr. Shanahan. I do not.
Senator Fischer. You also noted that Russia's action in
violation of the INF Treaty, if it is unchecked, could lead to
doubt in the stability of current and future arms control
agreements and initiatives. Could you elaborate on that
statement? Sometimes there is a view that is expressed that
holding violators accountable for their behavior risk, deals
collapse and that we should, therefore, suppress any suggestion
that a violation has happened. I do not believe you agree with
that view. Do you?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, I think the Russians are
adversarial. I think through the whole-of-government we need to
deal with their--whether we call it aggression or their
disruption to our interests. I, at this point, do not have any
specific recommendations. If confirmed, I will spend a
significant amount of time dealing with Russia.
Senator Fischer. But would you be supportive of developing
options to present to the President besides diplomatic or just
making statements and then letting it go by?
Mr. Shanahan. I would be supportive.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Mr. Shanahan, you are not making me happy.
We expect straightforward answers, and you just ducked
basically every question that Senator Fischer asked you. I am
telling you, Mr. Shanahan, I believe in the Constitution of the
United States which says that the Congress of the United States
shall provide advice and consent. I am not going to sit here
and watch you duck every question and expect that everything is
going to go smoothly. It is not.
Senator Hirono?
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Shanahan.
Mr. Shanahan, you have limited institutional experience in
the military, DOD, or the Pentagon. In my experience, I have
seen the Deputy Secretary heavily involved with running the
bureaucracy while the Secretary works closely with the
President, NSC [National Security Council], Congress, allies,
although I just heard you say that you would work closely
regarding Russia.
If confirmed and if you are tasked with running the inner
workings of the Pentagon and its many internal and interagency
structures, how will you overcome your lack of institutional
experience to effectively operate in this environment?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, I have worked in environments where
we have very disparate organizations. They may not be DOD, but
in the commercial world with many different suppliers and
agency-like organizations. I believe that my technical and
management background will prepare me to be able to quickly
assimilate the knowledge and the expertise to properly
interface.
Senator Hirono. What would be one of the first things that
you would do to get yourself to a position where you can hit
the ground running, should you be confirmed?
Mr. Shanahan. I think the first place that I was going to
hit the ground running was on the restructuring of R&E
[research and engineering], the A&S [acquisition and
sustainment] organization, and then working the Chief
Management Officer initiative. I think that will be a good way
to begin to understand the inner workings of DOD. Then in the
second phase of that, participating on the nuclear posture
review and the national ballistic missile defense review will
also begin to allow me to interface with some of these other
organizations and structures.
Senator Hirono. While you have a lot of experience in the
private sector, the DOD is an entirely different, I think,
entity in order of probably complexity and all the people that
you will be working with. I assume that should you be
confirmed, you will have a list of to-do's and people that you
are going to meet with so that you can become quickly apprised
of what your responsibilities will be in running, basically in
running sort of the nuts and bolts of the DOD.
Mr. Shanahan. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Cost overruns and schedule delays on major system
acquisition programs have plagued DOD for many decades. This
Committee, under Senator McCain and previous chairmen, have
tried to improve the defense acquisition system for better
contracting outcomes for our military, as well as for our
taxpayers. You have significant experience with one of our
largest defense contractors. Based on your experience and
perspectives from the industry side, what would you recommend
in order to get better results from our contracting and
acquisition processes?
Mr. Shanahan. You know, there are a number of tools from a
contracting standpoint that are important. Firm fixed-price
contracts is a very effective tool to drive supplier or
contractor performance. Having the right incentive clauses is
very important. But I also believe, if confirmed, when we work
the audit, we will come up with a new cost accounting scheme so
we can better understand what things should cost and understand
to the degree how much we are overpaying. To me, really
understanding the cost baseline that we have with the
contractors is so important. From that, we need to renegotiate.
Senator Hirono. I think with the kind of very specific
experience you have in dealing with the acquisitions yourself,
that you will be able to bring some very key elements of why
these overruns occur on a regular basis, much to our
consternation. I am going to be looking to you for those kinds
of efforts.
Turning to the Indo-Asia-Pacific strategy--I only have a
little bit of time--the Asia-Pacific area has some of the
largest economies, many militaries representing 60 percent of
the area's GDP [gross domestic product], et cetera. What are
your thoughts on how we should move forward in the Asia-Pacific
theater?
Mr. Shanahan. I think the Chinese have been modernizing
quite significantly in recent years, and that threatens our
ability for freedom of movement. It is really important that we
find ways to maintain the security architecture of the Pacific
Rim. It is very important that we support our allies and
partners there and reassure them of our commitments.
Senator Hirono. I would like to see a continuing focus on
the Indo-Asia-Pacific area because as the rest of the world
becomes even more unstable, at least if we can keep the Indo-
Asia-Pacific area stable, even more stable, even with North
Korea and China as major players there, through things like
acquisition reform and other things that you could bring to the
table, I hope that will release more resources for the Indo-
Asia-Pacific arena.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Mr. Shanahan, congratulations on your nomination.
As we have discussed this morning, the Deputy Secretary
plays a major role in managing the Department, while the
Secretary is a member of the National Security Council and the
public face of the Armed Forces to the American people and
abroad. You have a long and distinguished career at Boeing. In
particular, your reputation for turning around the Dreamliner
program is probably something that a lot of military programs
could use.
However, that long career at Boeing also raises some
questions I think we should just address in a forthright manner
upfront here at your hearing.
How do you plan to carry out your duties as the Deputy
Secretary while avoiding any potential conflicts of interest
based on your time at Boeing?
Mr. Shanahan. I will divest all ties with Boeing with the
exception of my executive retirement which is permitted under
the ethics agreement. For the duration, if I am confirmed, I
will not deal with any matters regarding Boeing unless cleared
by the Office of Ethics. We will put in mechanisms so that my
calendar, the meetings that I will participate in that we can
screen to make sure that there are no matters related to Boeing
that I will be exposed to.
Senator Cotton. Thank you for that.
Chairman McCain. Will that name specific programs?
Mr. Shanahan. Will the ethics agreement call out specific
programs? It is all matters Boeing. So it would include all
programs.
Senator Cotton. I think Chairman McCain was driving at the
next question that I want to raise related to those
precautions, which I think are prudent. Boeing, obviously, is
one of our major defense contractors. They have many programs,
some of which have some troubles of their own, the F-18, the
KC-46 tanker, the V-22 Osprey, the F-15 Apaches and Chinooks in
the Army. Do you think that recusing yourself form these
Boeing-related issues could negatively impact the Department's
decision-making process?
Mr. Shanahan. I do not believe so. In my view, I believe I
can provide general guidance in terms of program execution and
techniques to drive better performance without getting into the
specifics of a particular program.
Senator Cotton. Thank you for that.
In terms of your financial divestiture, you are or will
soon be fully divested from all Boeing stock except for your
retirement program. Is that correct?
Mr. Shanahan. If confirmed, I will divest.
Senator Cotton. Given your time at Boeing and your
successes there, I presume it is safe to say that they have
made you a very wealthy man over 30 years compared to most
Arkansans.
Mr. Shanahan. They have treated me well.
Senator Cotton. At this point in your career, your focus
and your loyalty is solely on the Department of Defense and the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are out on our front
lines?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes, Senator. I am 1,000 percent committed to
the Department and to delivering on the reforms that Senator
McCain, Chairman McCain has outlined.
Senator Cotton. That is what I expected, but as I said, I
thought it was important to put upfront the steps you are
taking to recuse yourself from Boeing decisions and to ensure
that you are making the decision in the best interest of the
men and women of the Armed Forces, to include men and women who
are going to depend on some Boeing systems, and there will be
systems in place to account for that.
I do want to turn to one other issue that has been raised
here as well, and that is trying to work with more smaller
firms that would like to be defense contractors. As Senator
McCain says, something like 90 percent of all acquisition
business goes to 5 firms. Some of this relates to the
Department of Defense's own bureaucratic issues, but some
relates to the culture that you see in the tech world. I have
heard from many tech leaders and entrepreneurs that they simply
do not want to do business with the Department of Defense, even
though they have very fine products and services, in part
because they do not want to deal with, say, 7-year timeline
development programs or they simply do not want to deal with
all the red tape.
Have you given thought about how to conduct outreach to
that world and make the acquisitions process more user friendly
for smaller, more nimble firms and a firm like Boeing?
Mr. Shanahan. I have, and if confirmed, I think that is one
of the more exciting aspects of the job is, you know, we are
seeing a transformation of technology and this is the
industrial base we need to grow. My experience at Boeing is on
developing supply chains. We really need to have a conscious
focus on how to grow these new capabilities. I think we are
onerous in terms of the requirements we put on these small
organizations, whether it is demanding their intellectual
property or to go through these complicated contractual
mechanisms. If confirmed, that is an area of importance to me.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on the question that Senator Cotton
just asked. Procurement is one of the recurring issues that
comes before this Committee. In fact, we had testimony from
Silicon Valley firms that they just were not going to bother to
even apply. Yet, as one of our generals testified last week, we
do not want our soldiers in a fair fight. That means
maintaining a qualitative technical edge, and yet, the system
that we have in place seems determined to not keep up with
that.
Go a little deeper. How are we going to think through this
procurement system that is so Byzantine--I hesitate to even use
that term. That is an insult to the Byzantium Empire--that is
so arcane and cumbersome that it is actually discouraging the
importation into our defense system of advanced technology?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, this is an area where I have had
some fairly good success, and rather than trying to change the
whole system, you have to change parts of the system. I will
give you an example.
We found technology that will fundamentally change how we
do work, and what we would do is develop prototypes and we
would operationalize those prototypes. The process--this is
going a little bit a deeper. The intent was to flush out all
the bureaucratic mechanisms that would say no. The idea is not
can this technology work. It is that you run these prototypes.
We called them ``pathfinders'', and the pathfinder was to find
all the restrictions, all the people that say no and take them
out of the away. Once we had something that we could
demonstrate works, then we replicate. That is how we could get
to scale. But it is in doing those prototypes that you can get
a quick win and then you also find out where the real
limitations in the system are.
Senator King. But one of the fundamental differences
between Boeing and the United States Government is Boeing was
in an exceedingly competitive situation where you had Airbus
and other providers around the world trying to start to get
into the airline business. You had the whip of competition over
your head. When we are talking about within the Defense
Department, you do not have that, and that is why it has to be
a major management focus and constant attention to sort of
substitute for the pressure that competition creates.
Mr. Shanahan. Right. I personally think the limits on the
budget are the competition. It is the analog to the competition
we had with Airbus. We have a competition for money in the
Department. There is not enough to go around. We must find ways
to generate savings so we can pay to go do these things.
Senator King. By the way, on procurement, not only is there
an issue of cost, there is an issue of time. Senator Inhofe has
presented graphs about the difference between the private
sector--the time it takes Boeing to get a new aircraft from
concept to flight is something like 7 years. In the military,
it is 23 years. So time is an issue as well as money, and that
has to be part of your focus.
Mr. Shanahan. Speed is everything. The shorter the time,
the less the cost. In the commercial world, everything is fixed
price development. So speed is the most important management
element because it flushes out all the issues that prevent you
from being able to perform.
Senator King. I would suggest that in your position, it is
not enough to simply say we are going to work harder at it. I
hope that you will think about and perhaps convene a public-
private group to think about how do we structure because I
believe structure is ultimately policy, how do we structure the
procurement system to produce at lower costs and at higher
speed. I urge that upon you as a possible initiative. I think
just saying, well, we are going to try to do better is not
going to be enough to change a system that is so thoroughly
entrenched.
Secondly, in terms of costs, which is your area as the
Chief Management Officer, is the growth of staff both within
the Pentagon and within the Services. We have had lots of talk
here, and there have been some cuts in staff. But I believe
that is also an area that has to be looked at because every
dollar that goes into tail does not go into tooth. When we are
talking about scarce dollars for readiness and recapitalization
of the nuclear deterrent, whatever it is, we need to find
places. There have been studies that indicate significant
savings in the bureaucracy or the staff both in the Pentagon
and in the Services. I hope that is an area you will pay
attention to.
Mr. Shanahan. It will be.
Senator King. Finally, we need to be able to audit the
Department of Defense. I cannot keep going home to Maine and
saying we are spending half a trillion dollars a year but it
cannot be audited. Do you take that as one of your priorities?
Because as I recall our hearings here over the last 4 years,
2017 or 2018 is supposed to be the target for the Department of
Defense to be ready for an audit.
Mr. Shanahan. You have my commitment to start the audit in
September, and it is one of the highest efforts in terms of
priorities for me.
Chairman McCain. Could you repeat that?
Mr. Shanahan. The audit--and I believe it is September or
it could be October is when we will begin the audit for the
Department of Defense.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you.
I appreciate that very much as well.
Last week, we had a hearing with the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO), Admiral John Richardson, Acting Secretary
Sean Stackley, and General Robert Neller, Commandant of the
Marine Corps, and we talked a little bit--I just want to tag on
to what Senator King was saying--about how we procure items and
going through that process. I asked if they needed additional
authorities, and they stated that they believed they had all
the authorities they needed to speed up the procurement
process, but there were a lot of regulations that got in the
way. So tagging onto his comments, will you make a commitment
to go through those regulations, identify those that are
unnecessary so that we can procure faster?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, I am committed to unwinding the
system that keeps our men and women from being able to perform.
The one thing I do know is that it is not our people that
are the problem. It is the system that we have created over
time, and dismantling that is the critical thing I need to do
in this position.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
According to title 10, the Deputy Secretary of Defense is
the Department's Chief Management Officer. Earlier you kind of
called that the all of operations officer, which is a great
description. It is clear that you are an experienced manager.
You have had great success with Boeing.
The law also requires you to serve in other roles in the
Secretary's absence. I would like to start with more of a
policy question, policy discussion.
I have been calling attention to the increasing threat
posed by violent extremist organizations in Southeast Asia for
quite a while now. As we speak, U.S. Forces are assisting and
liberating the Filipino City of Marawi from a terrorist siege.
Secretary Mattis had said that ending the named
counterterrorism operation in the southern Philippines in 2014
was premature--I agree with him--and that doing so has made it
difficult to resource our current efforts in that area. I
personally think it is time to reestablish a named operation.
What are your opinions on that?
Mr. Shanahan. Well, the violent extremists--I think this
falls in line with our policy with ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria] where we can find them, by, with, and through
others, we need to defeat them. If confirmed--and this is an
area where I will invest the time to understand our commitments
in terms of resources and our ability to undertake those types
of efforts.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that because we have for a long
while taken our eye off of that region, and they continue to
grow and develop in Southeast Asia. So I appreciate that.
As I am sure you know, our aircrews continue to experience
physiological episodes in high-performance aircraft, the F-22,
the T-45, F-18, and now the F-35. Yet, we still have not found
a fix for that.
This morning, the Air Force announced it was testing
sensors for the F-35 Alpha that actually monitor pilots?
inhale/exhale gases and automatically activates emergency
oxygen if there is a problem. This is something that I have
recommended to both the Air Force and Navy leaders in past
hearings. I am glad that they have actually taken action on
this item.
At Boeing, you were known as Mr. Fix-It, and I appreciate
that title. If confirmed, how are you going to fix this
particular problem? More importantly, how will you guarantee
that solutions are shared across aircraft and Service branches
so that we do not repeatedly see the same types of costly
problems that have been undermining our warfighting readiness?
Mr. Shanahan. You know, the culture at Boeing is that
safety and product integrity is the most important thing that
we do. So issues such as the oxygen flow is--if confirmed,
those are the type of safety items that will receive my highest
attention. That is how we have grown up. We solve these
problems, and then, to your point, they need to be implemented
quickly. It is not good enough to have the answer. They have to
be fully implemented. You have my assurance that I will support
doing that.
Senator Ernst. How will you communicate that between the
branches and the Services?
Mr. Shanahan. I suspect--and this goes kind of back to
Senator Hirono--there are many things I have to learn in terms
of actually navigating the Department of Defense. It will
either be through the technical leadership or through the
service secretaries. I am quite confident that when we do have
a solution, that we will be able to communicate it. It is going
to be how quickly do we actually get the solution incorporated
into the airplane. That will be really about acquisition and
getting these things on contract. That is the most important
thing we have to do.
Senator Ernst. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you for your
time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman McCain. Senator Peters?
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shanahan, thank you for being here today.
My questions really relate to the future of warfare and how
we will be preparing for a rapidly changing battle space.
Senator Reed asked you a question about the Third Offset
Strategy, which, as you know, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter
introduced in order to move the innovation process forward to
take advantage of incredible advances being made in the
commercial sector. In fact, I think that is something that has
changed pretty dramatically in recent years is that most of the
innovation that also has military applications is occurring in
the commercial side from artificial intelligence to 3D printing
to synthetic biology, I mean, go down the list of incredible
advancements.
My question for you, first off, is just a broad question. I
mean, what is your opinion of the Third Offset Strategy?
Mr. Shanahan. The majority of the details are classified,
so I have not received the classified brief. But from what
Secretary Work was able to share with me, the domains of
technology are very important. I plan to continue to support
those efforts. To me, it is about how do we validate that those
capabilities are the right ones in terms of conducting warfare.
This is the messy part about innovation. I mean, we are going
to have to make some bets and then we are going to have to do
some prototyping so we can test these concepts with the user,
with the warfighters.
Senator Peters. Well, we do. That leads to a question as to
whether or not the current model that we use where we have a
few very large defense contractors that do the vast majority of
the work, as Senator McCain has mentioned earlier in this
hearing, versus an ecosystem of small companies that are doing
incredible cutting edge research and perhaps in technologies
not directly related to the military but have dual-use
applications.
How do you work within that environment? Do we have to
rethink some of the paradigms we have operated in the past as
to where we procure and how we procure advanced technology?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, this is how I tend to think about
these things. The procurement is the second step. I think the
first step is our technical approach. The technical approach is
given these emerging capabilities, whether it is
electrification, added manufacturing, like you mentioned,
machine learning--given these emerging capabilities, how will
we scale, how we will use them? Based on that, we decide who
are the suppliers we want to grow? Who are the new people that
we want to scale up in our industry? I think the Third Offset
work will give us the foundation for those technologies, and
that is where we decide how to grow the tech base.
Based on who we pick, I think it is very straightforward to
go and change the procurement portion, you know, how we give
them money, how we fund them to do tests. You know, one of the
best things about working with the Department of Defense is the
resources, you know, when we think of the test ranges and the
users. I mean, I think we have to draw them into how we do our
business and having them outside the fence is a real
limitation. They need to learn how we do business, and then
they will inform us on what we need to change.
Senator Peters. How do you see using some of those internal
defense assets that you mentioned? For example, TARDEC [Tank
Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center] in
Michigan, my State, does incredible research work in autonomous
vehicles working also in partnership with some of the
incredible work being done in the auto industry as well. But
how do you see that model working where you have organizations
like TARDEC, which is a Department of Army facility, working
with private industry? How is that model working? Where do you
see that going in the future under your leadership?
Mr. Shanahan. A big portion of being able to pull on that
technology is educating the users inside the Department, not
the procurement team but the warfighters who need to think
differently about how to utilize this technology. There is a
lot of education that needs to take place so they can
understand the potential of this new technology. It is
remarkable what we will be able to do with autonomy. The people
that shape the strategy, the people that help decide what
capability or how we fight need to invest in educating them on
what these capabilities are and what they can do.
Senator Peters. Thank you for your responses. Appreciate
it.
Chairman McCain. Senator Perdue?
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Shanahan, Vice President Pence once said you cannot
fake great kids, and I think he is right. Thank you for
bringing your children here. It looks like you were very
successful.
I want to get to recapping the military because I think
that is going to be the number one crisis you are going to have
to deal with in this job.
I want to get at Boeing first, though, and your background
there. Boeing revenue is about $100 billion. Right?
Mr. Shanahan. Correct.
Senator Perdue. Just put it in perspective for the
Committee, we are dealing with a $600 billion-plus budget here
in DOD across a lot of different Services and platforms. At
Boeing, did you ever have a year where you missed supplying a
reviewed audit?
Mr. Shanahan. No.
Senator Perdue. Have you ever known a Fortune 500 company
that ever missed an audit?
Mr. Shanahan. No.
Senator Perdue. I want to make sure I understood your
answer just a minute ago. You have been through that process.
Audits require people at your level to deal with them. I know.
I have been there. The question I have for you is this. I want
to make sure I heard your answer earlier. You committed to the
Committee that you will start this audit in October. Is that
correct?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Senator Perdue. My question is this--we have been given
testimony. We have been asking this for several years,
obviously, since 1990 when the law was put in. This is not a
current question only.
My question is this. We have been given information from
services that they are not ready, that the systems do not talk
to each other, that the systems are not ready to be committed
to support an overall audit. Is an audit possible to be started
in October? If so, how long would it take to complete that
audit?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, so I do not know exactly how long it
will take to complete the audit.
Senator Perdue. That is fair.
Mr. Shanahan. But the commitment is to start, and we will
start in October. You have my commitment to, if confirmed, get
to the point where we can close the audit. To me, it is
hygiene. If we are going to get after cost, if we are going to
create a culture of affordability, we have to at least be able
to do an audit. An audit does not get you to the place where
you can actually do cost accounting, which then allows you to
actually make affordability decisions. My commitment to you is
that we will get to a place where an audit is not something we
are talking about.
Senator Perdue. Thank you. Where it becomes like breathing.
Right?
Mr. Shanahan. Right.
Senator Perdue. I want to get at the recap because this is
our biggest problem. We have a budget problem, obviously. We
are spending about 3 percent of our GDP on our military, and it
is 100 basis points less than our 30-year average. It is about
$200 billion today. The last time we had an estimate was from
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that it was over $150 billion
more than what we actually spent last year. We have a real
issue in terms of trying to meet the recap requirements of all
of our major platforms. The Navy alone says that they will need
$26 billion a year for the next 30 years. That is $800 billion
for rebuilding the surface fleet--or rebuilding the fleet from
275 to 355.
The question is now just how do we make it quicker,
shorter, better. It is how in the world are we going to find
the money to do that. In your role as COO--and that is what
this job is--what will you do to help us figure that out?
Mr. Shanahan. Two things. You know, the first is to be able
to come back to the Committee with a strategy that says here is
our force construct, here are our capabilities, these are the
assets that we need because I think that will be the baseline
to determine what do we modernize, what do we recapitalize.
The second piece of this--and then the strategy is so
important because if we do not lock in a strategy and we just
work to a budget, then we will never really be able to sustain
constant investment.
Senator Perdue. Were you part of the strategic planning
team at Boeing?
Mr. Shanahan. I was. I am steeped in----
Senator Perdue. I am sorry to interrupt. I believe that
because you would not have gotten into your position as Senior
Vice President (SVP) of Operations.
Let me ask you about your position. You have supply chain
and operations the way it reads officially. Is that basically
the COO? You report to the CEO [chief executive officer]. Is
that correct?
Mr. Shanahan. Correct.
Senator Perdue. Who else reports to the CEO?
Mr. Shanahan. The CEO? I mean, you have the traditional----
Senator Perdue. You have CFO [chief financial officer],
COO, which is you.
Mr. Shanahan. Right. So my role was all of operations and
supply chain----
Senator Perdue. Help me just understand the perspective
then. Who else reports to the CEO?
Mr. Shanahan. The CEO for commercial, the CEO for defense,
the CEO for services, chief counsel, head of HR [human
resources]----
Senator Perdue. Do you run operations across all those
divisions?
Mr. Shanahan. I have responsibility for operations across
all those divisions.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
The question I had was, as you look at this responsibility,
it looks like you are going from a COO of a $100 billion
business to a COO of a $600 billion business. That is done all
the time, but I wanted to put it in perspective.
I appreciate your willingness to step up and be available
for this service. Thank you.
Mr. Shanahan. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning and thank you for your willingness to serve
and your family's support for your willingness to serve. I am
glad to see they made it down yesterday by train I understand.
I know that you have discussed briefly your commitment to
recusing yourself from Boeing-related contracts and programs
and the commitment also to notifying or to seeking a waiver in
the event of any questions in that regard. Will you commit to
make public the recusal waiver if one is necessary?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Going to the issue of fair pay, as you may know, during
last year's NDAA process, I led the fight--it was successful--
to remove harmful provisions from the final bill that sought
inappropriately to limit the fair pay and safe workplaces
executive order from applying to the Department of Defense.
Boeing lobbied in support of efforts to curb this executive
order. It lobbied against having contractors disclose labor law
violations to the Government. I vehemently opposed the rollback
of the fair pay executive order earlier this year, and I
continue to feel strongly that we must do everything possible
to continue defending American workers in this way.
Approximately one in five Americans are employed by
companies that do business with the Federal Government. Every
year, tens of thousands of American workers are denied overtime
wages or unlawfully discriminated against in hiring or pay,
have their health and safety put at risk by Federal contractors
who may cut corners, or are denied basic workplace protections.
This is not to say Boeing engaged in any of these practices. It
was not directed at Boeing.
But my question to you is, do you believe that we should
ensure that taxpayer dollars go to defense companies who play
by the rules and uphold existing laws?
Mr. Shanahan. I believe they should. I mean, we need to
take care of our employees. We need to take care of the
workforce. I think that is the fundamental responsibility of
all companies.
Senator Blumenthal. Would you favor reinstatement of an
executive order that protected minorities, people with
disabilities, veterans from discrimination in the awarding of
defense contracts?
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, I do not know the particulars of the
changes that you are referring to, but I support providing the
protections that people need. If confirmed, I mean, that will
be something that I would investigate and spend time to
understand.
Senator Blumenthal. Would you commit to conduct a review of
the Defense Department policies so as to take action that
prevents that kind of discrimination or denial of overtime pay
and so forth on the part of defense contractors?
Mr. Shanahan. I would take that action to review that.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
On the defense industrial base, you are probably more aware
than any of us on the Committee about the need for skill
training and education to preserve and enhance and expand our
defense industrial base. You and I talked about it briefly when
we met. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you would do as
the Deputy Defense Secretary to make sure that we provide that
kind of skill training in places like Electric Boat or Pratt &
Whitney where we make some of the critical defense products.
Mr. Shanahan. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
Education is something I have a passion around. In
Washington, we were able to work with the superintendent of
public education for the State to get a math equivalency credit
for high school students so that they could get training to
allow them to go into either maritime, aerospace, or electrical
work. We worked with the community colleges to set up standard
programs to allow them to get certificates so that employers
could literally meet them upon graduation and give them jobs,
and they would step into those new jobs without having to go
through formal training. It was a cost reduction to the
companies. It was a benefit to the community colleges because
people were taking courses that really led to high paying jobs.
I would use the position to start to--this is something
that I really believe at a national level we can effect. There
are all of these jobs, due to demographics, where people are
going to retire out, and they are high paying. Whether it is
Electric Boat or the Boeing Company, the demographics are I
think something like 80 percent of the people can retire in the
next 5 years. It is a huge opportunity.
Senator Blumenthal. I hope you will come to Connecticut and
talk about this issue. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Shanahan.
Mr. Shanahan. Good morning.
Senator Rounds. I am happy to see in your testimony that
you focus on defense reform and innovation opportunities. I do
not think anyone in this room would argue the fact that the
Department of Defense has historically a poor track record in
acquisitions. Since the attacks on 9/11 through 2011, the DOD
has spent $46 billion on a dozen weapons systems that never
even entered production. In fact, a 2014 poll of almost 400 DOD
acquisitions employees revealed less than 30 percent were
confident in the process to deliver weapons to warfighters. In
a culture where ``critical'' means months, ``urgent'' means
years, and requirements span decades, this is no surprise to
those of us up here.
All the while, our adversaries are operating in smaller,
more agile innovation and acquisition cycles, both of which are
eroding the technological advantage that we have enjoyed for
generations.
There is one aircraft system right now that seems to be
kind of bucking that trend from what we are learning. I have
been impressed with the progress and the speed of the current
B-21 program. I understand that a large part of the program's
efficiency is that it is not in the normal defense acquisitions
pipeline. You may or may not have done any research yet. Is
there any opportunity to replicate some of the B-21 program
practices in order to make the most efficient use of every
taxpayer dollar that we have got? I am not sure how involved
you have been or how much research you have done in terms of B-
21 program as it sits right now, but if you would care to
comment, great. If you do not have a background in it yet, we
will move on.
Mr. Shanahan. I do not have a background in the B-21.
Senator Rounds. They have done some things in the B-21 that
I think have kept them on time and on target, and I have been
very pleased with the progress that we have seen. But it is an
innovative approach which is a little bit different for the
Department of Defense.
Let me continue on with another specific issue, and you may
or may not have a background in it but at least I will share it
with you and it might pique your interest as you move forward.
Okay?
I understand that you rose through the ranks at Boeing as
an engineer, a leading fabrication--or that you have led
fabrication divisions and that you have run aircraft assembly
lines. So I think you will appreciate my final thought.
I think there is a third piece overlooking the conversation
of how to buy and what to buy, and that piece is how to build.
Maturing of innovative manufacturing techniques and
capabilities are often overlooked. In fact, there is a company
in California that has recently 3D printed a small house, and
they did it in 24 hours.
Another incredible engineering breakthrough is called cold
spray. I am not sure if you are familiar with cold spray or
not. They have actually done some work in terms of the B-1B's
at Ellsworth Air Force Base using cold spray to make some very
quick repairs or very efficiently saved a lot of time and a lot
of money as well. It shoots metal particles through a heated
gas stream at supersonic speed to create a cross between
additive manufacturing and welding. It can be used to repair
broken parts or reinforce them so they do not wear down. I have
seen estimates that this could save the Department of Defense
over $100 million a year in parts replacement alone.
Now, a large supporter of cold spray is the Army Research
Lab where they are exploring ways to use it in ballistics and
to manufacture or repair things faster, safer, and cheaper. As
I was saying, it is kind of an ad here, but it was developed in
South Dakota. I am looking forward to see you and your team
look very seriously at the unique combination of opportunities
this particular new product might very well offer to the
Department of Defense.
I presume you have a background where you have looked at
innovative new products and techniques. Part of the job is to
move them on to the production lines in an efficient fashion.
Can you share with us the background that you have in that or
success stories that you have in that?
Mr. Shanahan. I was tracking very well with you around 3D
or additive manufacturing, which is really the future. When we
think about satellites of the future, we are going to print
them. When we think about unmanned vehicles of the future, just
like your house example, we will print them. We will have
modular payloads so that we can just stick them in. The
affordability of these new systems will allow us to lose them.
I mean, it just changes everything about cost. I am enormously
encouraged about all the new technology out there.
The issue that we are going to run into--and this is some
work that I was doing while I was at Boeing, and it manifests
itself at somewhere like DLA [Defense Logistics Agency]. It is
not that we cannot print the part that is structurally capable.
Our processes will not allow us to use it.
Senator Rounds. Right.
Mr. Shanahan. That is the work we have to do.
Senator Rounds. That is going to be your job.
Mr. Shanahan. Right, exactly, because the technology is
there and the cost savings are there. We have prevented it.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Warren?
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Shanahan, for being here and for taking the
time to meet with me last week in my office.
I want to pick up on a point made by Senator Reed on the
Third Offset Strategy to invest in the advanced technologies
that maintain superior capabilities against future threats.
Many of these technologies, though, are in the development
phase, and meanwhile, our near-peer competitors continue to
improve their capabilities.
I just wonder, Mr. Shanahan, if you could just say a word
about the level of your commitment to a strong research,
development, test, and evaluation account especially
investments in basic and applied research.
Mr. Shanahan. Senator, the future is dependent on how well
we innovate and integrate these new technologies because we are
at another point in time where the world is going to change.
My biggest fear is that a threat will manifest itself more
quickly than we have planned and we will not be ready. We will
rush to development and we will see all the risks of the past.
It is so important that we be making those investments now. It
takes time, and so we have to have patience. We have to
understand that not all the bets work. You know, it may be 3
percent in basic research, but that 3 percent will be a game
changer.
Senator Warren. That is right. Well, good. We need a strong
commitment here.
When you visited my office, we talked about the significant
technological advances that are actually happening over in the
commercial sector as well. One way that DOD is tapping into
those advancements is through the Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental, or DIUx, which partners with nontraditional
defense contractors with technology firms, with entrepreneurs
to accelerate the delivery of advanced technologies into the
hands of the warfighters.
Can you just say a word about your level of interest in
investing in DIUx and strengthening the partnerships between
DOD and the private sector that is driving this kind of
innovation?
Mr. Shanahan. I think that is more of the type of work we
will be doing because what these smaller companies do, they
unlock the creativity of the warfighter. They get exposed to
some initial technology, and then they say to these companies,
can you make these changes? Those companies can rapidly do
that. They do not have all the bureaucracy. There is not the
formal contracting mechanisms, so the development cycles are
very, very quick. I am a big proponent of doing that, but there
has to be some adult supervision. It cannot be everybody
indiscriminately going to work with these different groups. But
it is the fuel for the future.
Senator Warren. Good.
We have an amazing DIUx facility in Massachusetts, and I am
convinced that we need to continue to make these investments in
both the commercial sector and in our own research enterprise
to develop the kinds of game changing innovations that we are
going to need.
Now, Mr. Shanahan, in your response to advance questions
from this Committee, you said--and I am just going to quote
what you said--``It will be difficult to regain superiority
simultaneously in every warfighting domain, so I will
prioritize technologies based on their maturity, potential, and
ability to better advantage our warfighters.''
Could you say a word about what areas of technology
advancement you believe best meet those criteria and how you
think about prioritizing those demands?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes. I do not have the specific domains. The
comment there is really getting at the process that we must go
through to make choices. It is kind of back to your comment
about basic research. We will have to narrow the basic
research. There is only so much finite funding. But the key to
this is aligning it to a capability we want to mature. My point
there is that there are certain aspects of the Third Offset
that we will say this is something we need to anchor around.
This is the path we need to follow to achieve that.
Senator Warren. Good. I think this is powerfully important
that we sustain our investments in these leap-ahead
technologies that our future will depend on. So thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shanahan, thank you for being here and congratulations
on your nomination.
I never miss a hearing like this to bring up my favorite
prop when I talk about procurement. One thing that excites me
about your nomination is your extensive work in supply chain
operations transformation, and I want to get to that in the
time allowed.
But I want to acquaint you to the organization that you are
about to get confirmed to. It is an organization that can take
10 years and 680 pages to define the next generation handgun. I
know that at Boeing, one of the things that you set out to
improve and turn around the Dreamliner project was really
looking at the fundamental supply chains and the operations
process and trying better align it to address the issues so you
could get into the minor things like availability of fasteners
and a number of other things that you found, the flight control
development life cycle.
But do you have any sense of the nature of the organization
you are about to inherit in terms of its ability of having lean
processes implemented and a culture of lean design in it?
Mr. Shanahan. I do.
Senator Tillis. How would you assess it?
Mr. Shanahan. It is challenged, very challenged. Many
people have worked to streamline it, and we have not seen the
success we need.
Senator Tillis. By the way, I wanted to go back. I think
what you are looking at are some of the foundational processes
that have to change. I appreciated your answers to Senator
Cotton and others about recusing yourself from potential
programs. If you are doing your job, you are going to be far
removed from the day-to-day decision-making process and
recommendations on these programs, and you are fixing the
underlying processes so that next generation handguns is
probably 100 pages in a couple of years at the most. In the
more advanced weapons systems, you are going to scale the
supply chains and the processes to the technological challenges
of the product you are trying to produce.
How do you go about actually--your first year, what would
you do to actually try to figure out where you could put your
resources to have the greatest effect so that we do not
continue to have these hearings that I have participated in
over the last 2\1/2\ years that are clearly just operational
problems?
Mr. Shanahan. At a first blush, the three things that I
will focus on--number one is really getting that strategy in
place that gets at the future next generation capability so
that we are seeding it properly.
The second is--and this gets at the current business. I
think it is a failed effort to try to fix it all. That is like
boiling the ocean. To me, it is doing the value assessment.
Where is the most money that can be saved? What are the top 10
programs that we have to go capture real value tonight? From
that, what will fall out are these are the 6 or 10 things we
have to go fix if we want to prevent this going forward. But my
management style is more you have to put points on the board.
You cannot work a generic process improvement and say that 5
years from now we are going to be better. How are we doing that
tonight?
The other area is then, you know, in all these business
functions. How do we quickly work through all the governance
and people not wanting to share and really get to consolidation
and lower cost?
Senator Tillis. I think one of the challenges you are going
to run into--and I hope as you look at the transformation--is
having those who are in uniform that are in the DOD. Then, of
course, you have civilian and contractor content. But you
really have to do a critical assessment of whether or not they
have the core skills and education to do what you are
attempting to do.
I met with a class that is about to graduate from the War
College. The question I asked them, throughout your curriculum,
how much has been focused on business process transformation,
the operational side? It is not the warfighting side. I am
confident that on the warfighting side they are well qualified
for their jobs. But you really have to do a serious assessment
about the inventory of people who have the discipline--the
experience I should say--experience in the disciplines to
really transform this organization.
How do you go about doing that?
Mr. Shanahan. I mean, my technique in the past has been
find those big opportunities and understand who is leading the
performance. Pretty soon you will find out where the leadership
needs to be effected.
Senator Tillis. The last thing--I am out of time--is that
when you go through here, you need to very quickly identify the
self-imposed impediments. There are things that are within your
lanes that you can fix. You need to be prepared to come here
and tell us the things that we have to change that are
impediments to you actually achieving the transformational
results that we want. But there is no doubt in my mind that
there are a lot of obstacles you will run into along the way
that are going to require congressional action to get it right.
Thank you. I look forward to supporting your confirmation.
Mr. Shanahan. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shanahan, thank you again for your willingness to
serve. I appreciate your family being here. I appreciated the
meeting we had yesterday.
I am going to follow up on what I think you are seeing as a
theme here, which is people believe that you have a lot of
background in helping us address what is a very significant
challenge.
So give me a sense. At Boeing, how many 787's are you
producing a month there?
Mr. Shanahan. Twelve a month.
Senator Sullivan. We are trying to build one icebreaker for
the United States, and one of the estimates that has come out
of our services is it is going to take 10 years at a billion
dollars.
So there is a lot of focus. The chairman mentioned in his
opening statement about acquisition and acquisition reform that
we have tried to do here. But we also need people in the
building who understand how to get to efficiencies.
When you think about this, how do we go from--obviously, we
are not Boeing--but 12 aircraft a month that Americans can do
in our country to one ship, $1 billion, 10 years to develop?
What are some of the things that you need to be focused on and
we should be focused on to get us out of this sense where we
cannot build anything on time or have a 600-page RFP [request
for proposal] for a handgun?
Mr. Shanahan. Sure. I think Senator Tillis was on this
track. The leadership that has judgment that says 10 years and
a billion dollars seems like a long time.
Senator Sullivan. Do you think that seems like a long time?
Mr. Shanahan. It is a long time.
Senator Sullivan. Is it not that by the time you build a
ship that the technology of 10 years is completely outdated--
the ship you just built?
Mr. Shanahan. I can only imagine that it would be and you
would be spending another bunch of money to upgrade it.
Senator Sullivan. So what do we need to do? What
experiences can you bring to help us with that, help the
country with that? It is enormously important.
Mr. Shanahan. Yes. The two things that helped me the most
are you have to get good leaders in place. They just have the
judgment. It is like 300 pages. We do not need this for a
handgun.
Senator Sullivan. I think it is 600, but nevertheless. 680.
Mr. Shanahan. Then it gets back to why the audit is so
important. We need to have an understanding of our cost
baseline because whether you are in automotive or in aerospace,
what should it cost? It is back to the ship one. What should
this ship cost? It is just physics to weld it up. We can run
the math to say this is what it should cost in terms of
commercial practices. That will inform us. Should cost tells
you whether you are in the ball park or not, and if you are 2,
3, 5X, we need to stop the meeting and start over because that
is just an unacceptable answer.
Senator Sullivan. So you think the audit process will help
us have a much deeper understanding of why we have some of
these processes that to any obvious observer seem outrageous?
Mr. Shanahan. I think, as I spend time on the audit, it is
going to be where do we want to spend the money to make sure
that the data is accurate, and then how do we use that data to
inform us on our cost performance because there are things that
we have to do in the audit to pass it that maybe do not add
value, but there are other areas where it really gives us an
understanding of where we are inefficient or, in the case of
acquisition, this should cost is really doing the qualitative
analysis of what a similar ship--you can parametrically adjust
anything, but what would a similar type of commercial vessel
cost.
Senator Sullivan. Let me turn to another issue we talked
about yesterday, and that is the laydown of our forces in the
Pacific, which a number of us on the Committee, the Chairman,
myself, and others, have taken a lot of interest in because we
need to get this right. We have had a hard time getting it
right in terms of cost, in terms of strategic location of our
Marine Corps and Air Force and other Forces. Will you commit to
work with this Committee on making sure there is a united
effort and kind of joint cooperation between the Congress and
the Pentagon on making sure we get that correct?
Mr. Shanahan. I am committed to doing that.
Senator Sullivan. A final question. I noticed in your
background you have a lot of technical expertise on missile
defense. Just give me your sense on what you think our
priorities--I know you answered advance questions for this
hearing that dealt with missile defense. A number of us are
interested in it. What should be our priorities on Homeland
missile defense, not just missile defense for our allies in the
Asia-Pacific or the Middle East? Where should the priorities
be? Do you see the threat to the Homeland increasing? There has
been a lot of testimony over the last year from the top
military and intelligence officials that it is literally at our
doorstep, that North Korea is on the verge of an
intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile that can range the
continental United States. Give us a sense of your thoughts,
background, and priorities on missile defense.
Mr. Shanahan. Absolutely. My last time in the Department of
Defense was over 10 years ago running the GMD [ground-based
midcourse defense] program, ground-based midcourse defense, and
operationalizing it to defeat a launch of an ICBM
[intercontinental ballistic missile] out of North Korea. We
emplaced all of the interceptors. I think there are 40 of them
up in Alaska.
The North Koreans are learning quickly. I mean, 10 missile
tests this year is--you know, they are going to continue to
evolve their capability. We need to evolve our capability and
make sure we have sufficient inventory in Alaska and other
places to protect against a launch or a threat from the North
Koreans.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Mr. Shanahan, I want you to look at the
answers that you gave, the standard answers that were proposed
to you. Some of them were less than specific. At least one of
them and more were almost insulting.
I want to move forward as quickly as I can with your
nomination. I am concerned that 90 percent of defense spending
is in the hands of 5 corporations, of which you represent 1. I
have to have confidence that the fox is not going to be put
back into the henhouse.
Mr. Shanahan, I think you are a fine man. You have an
outstanding record. But when you answer a question about
defensive weapons for Ukraine as something that needs to be
examined before you reach a conclusion, that is not an informed
answer. This is not a new issue.
So take a look at your responses that you sent to this
Committee. Take a look at the responses that you gave to some
of these answers.
Somehow over the last several years, this Committee seems
to have been treated as sort of a rubber stamp. That is not the
role. That is not what the Constitution of the United States
says. The Constitution of the United States says that the
United States Senate would provide advice and consent.
The answers that you gave to the questions, whether
intentionally or unintentionally, were almost condescending.
Defensive weapons for Ukraine? Well, something we ought to
discuss. I wish you could have been with me in Ukraine on New
Year's Eve when President Petro Poroshenko gave a medal to the
mother of a young man who had just been killed by a Russian
sniper, and the tears coming down her face. I am not sure you
would have given the same answer that you gave in response to
those written questions, which were straightforward,
standardized, no different from anyone else.
I want to work with this administration. I want to work
with this President. I want to work with the new Secretary of
Defense, who I happened to be one of the most ardent admirers
of. But I have to tell you in a couple weeks, we are going to
mark up the defense authorization bill. The President has two
choices: either give us a strategy or we will put a strategy
that we develop into the defense authorization bill. We are
talking about shooting down airplanes in Syria. We are talking
about Afghanistan, that there is going to be X thousand of
increase. Yet, no one has informed the American people and this
Committee.
I have to say that I want some answers. I want some
straightforward answers. This town, you know very well, abhors
a vacuum. If they do not give us a strategy from the people
that I admire the most, we are going to put a strategy in. We
are losing in Afghanistan. We just had three Americans killed
in the last couple days. This is not an academic exercise.
Now, I understand the problems that they are facing. They
should be able to sort out those problems rather than say, hey,
we are going to do the following four things, by the way, and
we will expect the Congress to just rubber stamp it. We are not
going to. We are not going to.
Your job is one of the most important and key elements, and
frankly, I am not overjoyed that you came from one of the
corporations five corporations, 90 percent of the spending of
the taxpayers' dollars comes out of five different
corporations. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in
mind.
So look at the answers that you gave us--they were standard
questions that we ask of every nominee. It was nothing
unusual--and see if you want to abridge some of them. I want to
give the Secretary of Defense the team that he needs, but I am
not going to give him a team that I think is business as usual
of the last 8 years. Too many hundreds of thousands are
refugees--6 million actually. 400,000 are dead. We are not
talking about academic exercises.
Mr. Shanahan, take a look at those answers you gave, get
the answers back as quickly as you can. It is the desire of
this Committee to recommend you. It is the desire of us. It is
also our desire and obligation to the Constitution of the
United States which says advice and consent.
This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Patrick M. Shanahan by
Chairman McCain prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. Section 132 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, what duties do you expect the Secretary to prescribe
for you?
Answer. Secretary Mattis's top three priorities are to increase the
lethality of our Force, strengthen alliances and build partnerships
globally, and undertake business reforms in the Department. If
confirmed, I will be responsible for managing the Department in support
of each of the Secretary's priorities, particularly accelerating
acquisition and business reforms.
Question. What experience and qualifications do you have to manage
a large, complex organization?
Answer. I have over 30 years of leadership experience at a global
company in a highly-regulated industry. Boeing is one of the nation's
biggest manufacturing exporters, and as Senior Vice President, I
oversaw the design, production, and delivery of more than 4,300
commercial aircraft to customers around the world and, from 2011 to
2015, increased revenue from $23 billion to $60 billion. I was
responsible for approximately 60,000 employees at three separate sites
in the United States and managed 36,000 employees globally. My work
involved a global supply chain and complex technical systems where the
standards for reliability and safety were critical. In my experience
managing business operations, I have faced similar challenges to those
confronting the Department of Defense--it is a matter of scale.
Question. Can you outline how you have managed organizations and
issues similar in complexity to those you will be responsible for
managing if confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. In my three decades of experience, I have developed and
practiced a formula to create change at scale in large, complex
organizations. I believe leadership is essential to changing the status
quo--setting a compelling vision, establishing ambitious goals and
realistic intermediate objectives, and converting strategy into action.
There must be active change management processes to implement reforms.
These processes include diagnosing problems, setting priorities and
resourcing them, using cross-functional teams to re-engineer processes,
and replicating success across the organization. Finally, management
must engage employees, the leadership team, and external stakeholders
(such as the Congress) to make everyone part of the solution and vested
in the outcome.
I have demonstrated the application of this formula on complex
issues throughout my career, improving performance and producing
results when events seemed most dire.
This includes the 787 Dreamliner commercial aircraft, Army aviation
programs (AH-64D/Apache and the CH-47/Chinook helicopters), the MV-22
Osprey tiltrotor, and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.
Question. Do you believe there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. Yes--if confirmed, I will develop a strong network of
partners to implement change; this will include the Congress.
Question. What changes to section 132, if any, would you recommend?
Answer. I have no recommendations at this time. If confirmed, I
will keep the Committee advised if my views change.
department of defense reforms
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 significantly impacted the organizational structure of several key
elements of the Department of Defense. For example, it provided the
authority to set up cross-functional teams and a delivery unit, and it
significantly expanded the mission and authority of the Defense Health
Agency by giving it management and administrative responsibility for
military hospitals and clinics currently run by the Services. As a
result of management concerns, cost overruns, program delays, failed
audits, and growing bureaucracy, this Committee also has instituted
some of the most sweeping reforms at the Department of Defense since
Goldwater-Nichols. These reforms restructured the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, particularly with respect to the Under Secretary
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; returned more authority to
the Services for program management; reduced the number of general and
flag officers, senior civilians, and headquarters staff; and initiated
greater qualification standards amongst the senior leadership
positions. If confirmed, you will be implementing these reforms, and
managing the internal operations of the Department.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that the
Department conforms with, and implements, these reforms?
Answer. The reforms directed by Congress are essential enablers to
achieve a higher performing Department at better cost to the taxpayers,
and requires a clear implementation roadmap that aligns ends, ways, and
means across the Department. If confirmed, I will establish a
timetable, clearly define roles and responsibilities, and identify
relevant investments and authorities needed to ensure the Department
moves out with urgency to implement these reforms.
Question. In February 2017, Secretary Mattis announced his
intention to have the first cross-functional team focus on improving
mission effectiveness and efficiencies in the Department. What, in your
view, will be the Deputy Secretary of Defense's role in relation to
this team's work?
Answer. I have seen cross-functional teams used with significant
effect in my private sector experience. Leadership in the Department
must ensure such teams are dedicated to the priorities of the
Department and set clear expectations. The successful use of cross-
functional teams has the potential to deliver valuable results on tough
problems facing the Department. If confirmed, I anticipate being
integrated into this process as senior decision-maker on behalf of the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. What are your views on the potential focus areas and uses
for future cross-functional teams?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to do a first-hand
assessment; however, based on my experience, such teams can have
universal application across a range of problems facing the Department.
Initially, I see value in focusing on areas that improve the business
operations of the Department. This includes finding efficiencies in the
Department's overhead and freeing resources for the readiness and
modernization of the combat force. Once successfully proven, there are
other difficult challenges that could be addressed through the use of
cross-functional teams--bringing together the best people on the
hardest problems is a proven way to help create new solutions.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to these
reform-related statutory provisions?
Answer. I have no recommendations at this time. If confirmed, I
will keep the Committee advised.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. The Department today faces expanding security threats
globally. Within this context, the main task confronting the next
Deputy Secretary is to ensure our military has the right capability,
capacity, and readiness to succeed--at the most effective cost and
performance possible.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. The development of a strategy is the first step to
addressing these challenges. Achieving the buy-in of all relevant
stakeholders--internal and external to the Department--is the next
critical step, ensuring that all are aligned towards the same
priorities. Establishing clear lines of accountability for the
execution of the strategy will also be important. Finally, I will focus
on strengthening the culture of the Department to address these shared
challenges.
Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed,
with respect to issues that must be addressed by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Working in partnership with stakeholders in the Department,
in the Congress, and in the Executive Branch, my priority will be to
improve performance. This requires strong leadership across the
Department, operating as a team to achieve the same objectives. I will
also prioritize efforts to capture business reform opportunities and
accelerate innovation as the Department modernizes the military. This
includes focusing on the audit, Congressionally-directed
reorganizations of AT&L and the Chief Management Officer, and related
efficiencies, as well as building a leadership team that focuses on the
shared objectives of restoring readiness and enhancing the lethality of
our military.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the Department of
Defense's relationship with the Senate Armed Services Committee in
particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. I perceive the relationship between the Department and the
Senate Armed Services Committee as respectful, but marked by more
tension than what I consider normal and productive. I believe there is
insufficient communication on Congressionally-directed efforts and
priorities--to include budgetary issues and reforms. In general, the
relationship with the Congress needs to be strengthened, and especially
with the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will invest in the relationship with the
Congress. It is only through a strong partnership that we can achieve
our shared priorities. I will ensure that the relevant facts and data
will be provided to the Congress to inform the critical decisions ahead
of us. Central principles in my approach will be transparency and
inclusivity.
torture and enhanced interrogation techniques
Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the
Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated August 19, 2014, and
required by section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)?
Answer. Yes, I support using the standards for detainee treatment
specified in the referenced documents. Individuals in the custody or
control of the Government may not be subjected to any interrogation
technique that is not authorized by, and listed in, the Army Field
Manual, which is the standard.
continuing use of guantanamo as a detention center
Question. What are your views on the continued use of the detention
facility at Guantanamo?
Answer. In general, it is lawful to capture enemy combatants and to
detain them for the duration of a war. Regarding the detention facility
at Guantanamo, it is my understanding that the facilities are safe,
humane, and secure.
Question. Will you notify Congress if a decision is made to
transfer a detainee to Guantanamo before the transfer occurs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department keeps the
Congress appropriately informed regarding the transfer or release of
any detainee from Guantanamo Bay.
Question. In your view, should the U.S. Government continue the
current Periodic Review Board Process and the process of transferring
detainees to other countries, subject to the restrictions currently in
law?
Answer. I understand that the Department has processes for
reviewing detention and transferring detainees from Guantanamo. If
confirmed, I will assess the Periodic Review Board process and ensure
that the Department is acting consistent with the law.
management issues
Question. Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 created the position of Chief Management Officer (CMO)
of the Department of Defense effective in February 2018. Currently, the
Deputy Secretary serves as CMO.
In your view, how should the Department structure this new role so
that it is successful?
Answer. The CMO should be structured to migrate from its current
strategy and planning functions to be more responsible for implementing
and executing relevant consolidation of business operations and
functions. Doing so would drive better performance in the business
operations within the Department. If confirmed, I will seek to build a
leadership team that understands and can execute a plan to improve the
cost performance of the Department across its core business areas.
Question. Should this position have additional authorities related
to managing defense agencies and field activities? If so, which
authorities?
Answer. The CMO should have the resources and authorities needed to
accomplish the mission it is assigned. If confirmed, I will consider
whether more significant authorities are required and work in
partnership with the Congress to obtain them.
Question. What relationship do you anticipate the role of the
Deputy Secretary continuing to have with the new CMO position and with
the Department's business operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I view myself as accountable for the results
of improved cost performance of the Department, in which the CMO will
play a central role. The Deputy Secretary will provide a strong guiding
role in leadership decisions and governance to ensure the CMO can
perform most effectively. This will require a strong partnership with
the Service Secretaries and the Congress to succeed in achieving the
most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars possible.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the
statutory provisions establishing the position of CMO?
Answer. I have no recommendations at this time. If confirmed, I
will keep the Committee advised if my views change.
Question. In your view, what role do you believe this CMO should
play in coordinating with service CMOs and Deputy CMOs?
Answer. The CMO--jointly with the Service CMO and Service
leadership--is accountable for the performance of Department-wide
business processes. There must be a strong partnership with the Service
CMOs and Deputy CMOs to effect broad process change and create
efficiencies across the enterprise in core business areas.
defense agencies and field activities
Question. The defense agencies and field activities are largely
overseen by principals in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
Many have consistently experienced significant growth in personnel and
resources and have taken on additional missions.
What is your view on the current oversight of this community? Are
additional authorities needed in OSD or elsewhere?
Answer. I have a limited perspective on the interactions with and
among the defense agencies and field activities. If confirmed, I will
work with the CMO to examine agencies to and they are functioning
effectively and aligned properly.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
feedback from warfighters or customers is guiding the performance of
these agencies?
Answer. I understand that several of the agencies, those designated
as combat support agencies, are regularly reviewed for mission
effectiveness by both the sponsoring OSD staff and the Joint Staff. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the recommendations from those reviews
are acted upon, and will look for a similar review process for the
remaining agencies.
audit and financial management
Question. The Department of Defense is the only federal agency
unable to complete a financial audit in accordance with the law,
despite having invested billions of dollars over the past 16 years to
do so. This has led to concerns within Congress and in the public over
the stewardship of Department funds. It is not simply an abstract
statutory requirement that the Department produce auditable financial
statements showing where and how it spends its annual budget--the
accuracy of the financial information underlying the financial
statements is critical to the Department's ability to develop an
adequate defense budget and make important financial decisions in an
environment where every defense dollar counts.
Do you commit to meeting the upcoming statutory audit deadlines
requiring that the Department's financial statements be ready for audit
by September 30, 2017, and that the audit of the Fiscal Year 2018
financial statements be completed by March 31, 2019?
Answer. I support the Department's audit readiness goal. If
confirmed, I commit to doing everything possible to audit the
Department in fiscal year 2018.
Question. Under your leadership, when will the Department achieve a
clean audit opinion?
Answer. As the Department has not yet undergone a full financial
statement audit, it is difficult to predict what type of audit opinion
the Department will receive. What the auditors find, and how quickly
the Department can address these findings, will determine how long it
will take to achieve a clean audit opinion.
Question. Will you be prepared to meet with Members of this
Committee every quarter until this happens?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, you have my full commitment to this
effort and I will clearly communicate the Department's status on a
regular basis.
Question. Describe your knowledge of accounting and financial
management principles and your experience leading large-scale change
initiatives. Give specific examples of how you have applied this
knowledge and experience in previous positions.
Answer. As an executive in a publicly-traded GAAP-compliant
company, I have managed profit-and-loss for government programs using
cost accounting standards as prescribed by Federal Acquisition
Regulations and program and financial accounting for commercial
aircraft. I have regularly used this expertise to provide tangible
performance improvements across a range of programs, to include:
commercial aircraft models of the 737, 747, and 787; AH/64D Apache; MV-
22 tiltrotor; SM-3; GBI; and other programs throughout my 30-year
career.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's efforts to
achieve a clean financial statement audit to date? What specific
changes will you make to its approach?
Answer. My understanding is that some entities have been sustaining
a clean audit opinion for several years. If confirmed, I will invest
considerable attention, in partnership with the Comptroller, to make
sure the audit remains a top priority for all of the Department's
leaders and not just the financial management community.
Question. What incentives need to be in place to ensure senior
leaders in the military services and defense components--not just the
financial management community--are fully invested and engaged in the
process of achieving a clean audit opinion?
Answer. Achieving a clean audit opinion is dependent upon having a
range of incentives in place to build and sustain senior leadership
support. I am not aware of the incentives currently used or how
effective they are. If confirmed, I will review the incentives and make
necessary changes to ensure relevant communities remain actively
engaged.
Question. How will you hold senior leaders accountable if they do
not meet statutory deadlines for the Department's auditability?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting the statutory
deadline for the Department to commence an audit. I will make sure that
everyone involved understands their roles and responsibilities. I plan
to use the audit results and progress in fixing deficiencies as
measures to hold senior leaders accountable and to drive reform.
Question. What actions will you take to link financial information
to performance measurement and monitoring mechanisms to enable improved
decision making about the Department's investments?
Answer. I believe that the audit--and the financial clarity it
brings--will help accelerate business reforms. The annual audits will
highlight and validate areas for improvement. As the Department
improves its financial information, decision makers will have access to
more reliable and timely data and be able to benchmark a baseline. My
experience in the private sector is that audits operate in the
background and serve to enforce compliance and enable the organization
to obtain high-quality financial understanding. If confirmed, I will
emphasize the importance of using reliable financial information to
manage and guide the enterprise.
Question. Will you commit to a review of the Department of
Defense's financial operations structure, to include an independent
assessment of the continued need for the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service and how other federal agencies, which maintain clean audit
opinions, successfully use modern financial systems of the Department
of Treasury for non-military-unique financial transactions, accounting,
and reporting?
Answer. I am committed to leveraging best practices from across the
Federal government and the private sector. If confirmed, I am open to
evaluating the Department's efforts to simplify its financial
operations. Any such review should include an evaluation of the
Department's systems environment--benchmarking the Department's systems
against those used in comparable private sector enterprises.
business transformation
Question. Since 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has designated the Department of Defense's approach to business
transformation as ``high risk'' due to its vulnerability to waste,
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. However, GAO has recently found that
the Department's senior leadership has shown commitment to transforming
business system operations and has made progress in establishing
management oversight, including the creation of a Chief Management
Officer (CMO), and developing a strategic plan to guide transformation
efforts. Nonetheless, in GAO's view, the Department needs to take
additional action to further define management roles and
responsibilities and to strengthen strategic planning.
Do you believe that the Department needs to more clearly define
roles and responsibilities for key positions (such as the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, CMO, Chief Information Officer, and/or leaders in
financial management and acquisition), as well as relationships between
these posts and their associated governance structures?
Answer. Based on my experience, I believe clarity in authorities
and responsibilities is a key to achieving the mission. All leaders
must understand how they must contribute to achieve the Department's
objectives. If confirmed, I will assess the roles and responsibilities
among key Department positions and help where necessary.
Question. If so, what steps do you believe the Department should
take to achieve this objective? Which roles are most critical to
address?
Answer. Generally, assessment of performance depends on having
defined, measurable goals and associated metrics to measure
performance. Moreover, the Department's leadership--especially the
Deputy Secretary of Defense--must be prepared to hold leaders
accountable for performance. If confirmed, I would use this approach to
identify areas that require improvement and reform.
Question. What authorities do you believe that the new CMO will
need to successfully execute his/her mission of business transformation
within the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make a more detailed assessment of the
authorities. However, the CMO must be able to improve business
processes and reduce redundancy in core business areas in the
Department.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
further refine strategic goals, performance measures, and other
elements of the Department's strategic management plan?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has established business reform as
a major focus area for the Department. He has further indicated that in
considering those reforms, the Department should prioritize making the
force more lethal, and to eliminate unnecessary layers of management.
If confirmed, I will review the performance plans, measures, and
targets, making refinements where necessary. I would also conduct
regular reviews of progress, and ensure that the strategic management
plan is aligned with, and supportive of, the results of the revised
Defense Strategy.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to more
clearly define the Department's strategic planning process, including
mechanisms to guide and synchronize efforts to develop strategic plans;
monitor the implementation of reform initiatives; and report progress,
on a periodic basis, towards achieving established goals?
Answer. I think clear goals and metrics are essential to drive
progress. I would work with the CMO to ensure that we have metrics and
a regular review.
Question. Do you believe that the CMO (or current Deputy CMO)
should have control over funds for the components' business
transformation programs (including business systems) to ensure that the
components follow guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense
on the Department's business transformation efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consider whether there are areas that
would benefit from a different approach for funds management. In
general, if an office has responsibility for a mission, it must have
corresponding resources and authorities.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 provided the authority for the Department to set up cross-
functional teams, and Secretary Mattis has since laid out his intention
to have the first of these teams focus on business transformation in
the Department.
How do you believe this team, and future cross-functional teams,
should fit into the Department's larger business transformation
efforts?
Answer. Cross-functional teams can be an effective means for
identifying and developing a plan for improved staff processes. For
areas of significant change, these teams may provide the essential
foundation for reform.
Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
extend the Department's business transformation efforts and oversight
into defense agencies and field activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study the proper alignment and
oversight of the defense agencies and field activities, and consider
whether more significant authorities should be provided.
base realignment and closure
Question. For the past several years the Department of Defense has
requested another Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.
Do you believe another BRAC round is necessary? If so, why?
Answer. Yes, I believe periodic evaluations of an organization's
infrastructure are a necessary and prudent practice. My understanding
is that it has been more than a decade since the Department undertook a
comprehensive BRAC analysis. As much has changed since then, another
assessment seems appropriate.
It has been noted repeatedly that the 2005 BRAC round resulted in
major and unanticipated implementation costs and saved far less money
than originally estimated.
Question. What is your understanding of why such cost growth and
lower realized savings have occurred?
Answer. I was not privy to the BRAC discussions that took place in
the run up to the 2005 round, but my understanding is that the 2005
BRAC was used as a tool for defense transformation; cost savings were
not the only objective. If confirmed, and if Congress authorizes BRAC
as the Department is requesting, I will work with Secretary Mattis and
the Service Secretaries to ensure the primary objective is eliminating
excess infrastructure to maximize efficiency, reduce costs, and
reinvest savings into the joint force.
Question. How do you believe such issues could be addressed in a
future BRAC round?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department's BRAC request
includes language that responds to Congress's concerns over the costs
of the last round, while maintaining the integrity of the process. If
confirmed, I will work closely with Congress in an open and fair
process to weigh options and make informed decisions--ultimately,
excess infrastructure means fewer planes, ships, and battalions to keep
our Nation safe.
cyber
Question. How do you perceive the challenges we face in cyberspace?
Answer. We face significant and varied challenges in cyberspace. Of
primary concern are the threats posed by our key adversaries and
strategic competitors, whose activities are increasing in complexity,
severity, and frequency, and who seek to use cyber capabilities to
undermine U.S. military advantages. To confront these threats, we must
be vigilant and employ a whole-of-government approach to ensure that
our nation's security interests are protected in the challenging and
dynamic cyber domain.
Question. Briefly describe what policy objectives we should seek to
achieve and the strategy you think is necessary to address these
challenges.
Answer. I strongly support Secretary Mattis's position that we must
develop a whole-of-government policy that addresses both our response
to cyber aggression and the hardening of our information networks and
critical infrastructure. In that regard, I agree that the Department
should endeavor to build the forces and capabilities necessary to
protect our nation's cyber security and that deters our adversaries
from conducting cyber-attacks. In short, we must strengthen our
offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, enhance our attribution
capabilities, and ensure that we are recruiting and training military
and civilian personnel needed to serve as our nation's sentinels in
this challenging and highly technical domain.
Question. What are your views about elevating U.S. Cyber Command to
a unified command and about maintaining or ending the ``dual hat''
relationship where the Commander of Cyber Command also serves as the
Director of the National Security Agency?
Answer. I currently support the elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to
a unified combatant command, as provided by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. I understand that a joint
certification by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff is required before a change to the current dual-hat relationship
can be implemented. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with the
Secretary, the Chairman, the Director of National Intelligence, and
Congress to ensure that any decision carefully considers all relevant
national security implications.
Question. Do you believe we are deterring our adversaries in
cyberspace? If not, what do you believe will be necessary to deter our
adversaries in cyberspace?
Answer. I agree fully with Secretary Mattis's assessment that we
must do more to deter our adversaries in cyber space. We must convince
our adversaries that they will suffer consequences that outweigh any
potential gains from conducting cyberattacks. I understand that the
Department is participating in an interagency review to develop options
to improve our nation's cyber security. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that this review develops an effective, integrated, and whole-
of-government approach to deter our adversaries from threatening our
interests in this dynamic domain.
Question. What do you believe would constitute an act of war in
cyberspace?
Answer. My understanding is that the President evaluates such acts
on a case-by-case basis. Malicious cyber activity, however, does not
require being deemed an ``act of war'' to warrant a response. I believe
that context is important and that threatening cyber activities should
not be viewed in isolation. If confirmed, I will review how the
Department addresses malicious cyber activities and work with my
counterparts in other Departments and Agencies to develop an effective
national strategy for responding to challenges in the cyber domain.
strategy to defeat the islamic state of iraq and syria (isis)
Question. On January 28, 2017, National Security Presidential
Memorandum-3 was issued, which states: ``It is the policy of the United
States that ISIS be defeated'' and directs the Administration ``to
develop a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS'' with the Secretary of
Defense as the lead of the interagency effort.
How would you define success in the defeat of ISIS?
Answer. I would consider success in defeating ISIS to be when the
threat the group poses has been degraded to a point where it is
localized and periodic and when it can be addressed as a law
enforcement issue by partner nations and forces without extensive
assistance from the United States.
Question. What do you view as the role of the United States
military in the strategy to defeat ISIS?
Answer. Ultimate victory over ISIS requires integration of both
military and non-military capabilities. The Department should provide
capabilities and leadership for a comprehensive military campaign that
is fully integrated with other U.S. departments and agencies' whole-of-
government efforts to defeat ISIS--with our coalition partners playing
a vital role.
Question. In your opinion, what are the major lessons learned from
the fight against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere over the
last 2\1/2\ years?
Answer. The key lesson is that there is no substitute for constant,
dedicated U.S. leadership and engagement in areas of the world where
there is an enemy that seeks to do us harm. The results of U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq and Libya were unsurprisingly disastrous, not just
for U.S. interests, but for those of our allies and partners as well.
This lesson is particularly relevant now as the United States considers
its regional posture in the Middle East after ISIS is defeated--which
it will be--in Iraq and Syria. It is also relevant in Afghanistan
policy discussions, where the easiest course of action is to abandon
America' s longest war would, I believe, likely result in greater
threats in the future. Where an enemy seeks to do us harm, we must
confront it aggressively. We must stay engaged in the fight and not
walk away, because, as hard as it is, the alternative is worse.
It is also evident that the military instrument of power alone is
insufficient to defeat ISIS. The Department' s efforts must be nested
within and supportive of a whole-ofgovemment approach. The Department
must work in concert with local partners to make lasting gains against
ISIS. Also, even as gains are made against ISIS in Iraq and Syria,
there must be simultaneous focus on ISIS globally--to include its
ability to operate in cyberspace and develop affiliate networks around
the world. More effort in particular needs to be focused on ISIS
globally even as the Coalition squeezes its geographic so-called
caliphate in Iraq and Syria. There are likely operational lessons
learned from the conflict, to include DOD's efforts in the cyber realm,
but I have not received classified briefings from the Department on
such matters.
Question. What non-military activities by the United States
Government will be important for achieving a lasting defeat of ISIS?
Answer. There are a number of non-military activities by the U.S.
Government that are integral to achieving a lasting defeat of ISIS. The
most pressing need is a sufficient stabilization effort to consolidate
military gains in the Middle East and elsewhere. Although the U. S.-led
military Coalition and its local partners are succeeding in retaking
territory from ISIS in Iraq and Syria, consolidating these gains
requires non-military resources to help stabilize the areas to and to
achieve its lasting defeat.
In addition to stabilization efforts, public diplomacy to counter
violent extremism, information operations, and cyber strategies must be
employed to isolate and delegitimize ISIS and its ideology. We must
also continue efforts to cutoff or seize ISIS's financial support,
including financial transfers, money laundering, oil revenue, and human
trafficking.
Question. After Mosul and Raqqa are liberated from ISIS control,
the next major military campaign will likely occur in the Euphrates
River valley.
What is the strategy needed to accomplish United States objectives
in Iraq and Syria after Mosul and Raqqa are liberated from ISIS?
Answer. In Iraq, I believe there will be an enduring requirement
for a U.S. military presence in partnership with the Government of Iraq
after Mosul is liberated in order to prevent a repeat of events in
2011-2014--that is, when the absence of strong American leadership and
support of our partners left a security vacuum that ISIS exploited. An
enduring presence will be required to continue the counterterrorism
mission against ISIS in areas where it maintains a presence. A United
States Military presence will also be required to build off of the
gains made in supporting and developing the Iraqi and Kurdish security
forces. As to specific next steps, if confirmed, one of my top
priorities is supporting the Department's efforts to accelerate the
defeat of ISIS wherever we find it. I would also seek the details on
the required size and composition of an enduring presence in Iraq. I
assess key missions would include training, advising, and assisting the
Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, counterterrorism, logistics support,
intelligence support, and other activities.
In Syria, it will be important to use the momentum generated by the
capture of Raqqa to continue to improve conditions on the ground--
completing the annihilation of ISIS and building leverage for a
political solution that limits Iranian influence, checks Russian
ambitions, and leads to a stable governing arrangement that Syrians
view as legitimate. There is significant work required after ISIS is
defeated in Mosul and Raqqa on the diplomatic and humanitarian front.
In particular, there must be a concerted effort to prevent Syria or
Iraq from being a continued safe haven for other extremist groups that
may emerge after ISIS is defeated. This means addressing root causes of
Sunni political disenfranchisement in Iraq, managing Kurdish ambitions
in both Iraq and Syria, and developing a strategy in Syria to end the
civil war and prevent it from becoming a safe haven in the future.
Question. What steps should be taken to prepare for the next phase
in the campaign after the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa?
Answer. See answer above.
syria
Question. What are the key United States national security
interests in Syria and how would you describe the strategy to secure
them?
Answer. Many U.S. national interests come together in Syria. We
have an interest in preventing Syria, like Afghanistan prior to
September 11, 2001, from becoming a safe-haven for extremists to launch
external attacks against the United States and its allies and partners.
We have an interest in preventing Syria from becoming a platform from
which adversarial powers such as Iran and Russia can project malign
influence in the Middle East. We have an interest in preventing the
proliferation and further use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria
or outside ofit. And we have an interest in bringing the horrific
conflict in Syria to an end, halting the destabilizing out-flow
ofrefugees, and beginning to stabilize the country through a political
solution that is viewed as legitimate by the Syrian people. It appears
to me that U.S. strategy must align ends, ways and means to change the
situation on the ground, reduce the violence, and create conditions for
diplomacy to succeed.
Question. How does the strategy address the residual threat from Al
Qaeda in Syria and their associates?
Answer. From publicly available information, it is clear that
destroying ISIS is the primary focus of the U.S. military in Syria, but
the strategy to address the residual threat is not clear. I am
concerned that some of the underlying root causes of instability in the
area--particularly Sunni political disenfranchisement, Assad's
continued brutal rule, and Russia's indiscriminate military
operations--will remain in place even after ISIS is defeated. If these
broader factors are not addressed, they will likely sow the seeds for
continued violence, refugee flows, radicalization, and terrorist
recruitment.
Question. How would the defeat of ISIS impact the civil war in
Syria?
Answer. Defeating ISIS could create opportunities for a political
solution in Syria. This will not happen without changing conditions on
the ground and international pressure bringing all parties to the
table. Russia in particular has not played a constructive role in
ending the conflict. To the contrary, its assault on Aleppo and other
parts of Syria has further radicalized the opposition to Assad and
empowered ISIS, al-Qaida, and other violent extremist organizations. We
should not allow a security vacuum to develop in Syria after the defeat
of ISIS. Instead, we should work with our partners to ensure that
extremist organizations cannot find safe havens in a post-ISIS Syria.
Question. Do you believe a political resolution to the civil war in
Syria is necessary to address the underlying conditions that enable
violent extremists like ISIS and Al Qaeda to take root?
Answer. Yes. Only a stable, inclusive government in Syria that can
exert control over its territory will be able to secure these areas
against violent extremist organizations.
Question. What are the key strategic interests and objectives of
the Russians in Syria?
Answer. Moscow intends to prop up the Assad regime, re-assert its
regional influence, and establish a long-term military presence in
Syria. Russia claims that its primary motivation in Syria is to fight
violent extremists, but its actions have been focused onsupporting
Assad. This was true from the day Russia intervened, and it remains
true now.
Question. Discussing the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power with
reporters in March 2017, the United States Ambassador to the U.N. said:
``Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No . . . .''
Has the previously stated goal of removing Bashar al-Assad from
power in Syria changed, and if so, what is the new objective and what
are the benefits to United States national security interests of
changing it?
Answer. While I am not a part of current interagency discussions on
Syria, I believe that Bashar al-Assad must go.
As I understand it, the primary U.S. military objective in Syria
remains the defeat of ISIS. Additionally, as the U.S. strike in April
demonstrates, the United States will not passively stand by while Assad
ignores international law and employs chemical weapons against his own
people. I support a political resolution to the civil war in which the
Syrian people decide the future of their country, but such a resolution
will only be achieved once conditions on the ground are changed. The
defeat of ISIS in Raqqa could create important momentum to pursue such
a broader strategic approach to the horrific situation in Syria.
Question. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been adamant
that the People's Protection Units (YPG) of the Syrian Kurds should not
receive United States and coalition support in their efforts to
liberate Raqqa.
If the United States chooses not to support the YPG in operations
to liberate Raqqa, what alternative forces could be used and how would
their use affect the timeline and logistical support of the operation?
Answer. I understand that the Syrian Democratic Force, which
includes YPG elements, is the force most capable of seizing Raqqa
within the current timeline. I also understand that the Department
maintains a focus on recruiting and training more members of the Syrian
Arab Coalition (SAC), the Arab component of the SDF, to help retake and
hold historically Arab regions. Ifconfirmed, I will ensure that the
Department continues to discuss how to advance the defeat-ISIS campaign
with Turkey, a key NATO ally, as well as how best to protect Turkey's
interests as we move forward.
iraq
Question. What are the key United States national security
interests in Iraq and how would you describe the strategy to secure
them?
Answer. Our national security interests in Iraq are to defeat ISIS
and to enable Iraq to provide for its own security, allowing for a
stable and sustainable political environment. A stable Iraq is central
to a stable Middle East. The United States and the Coalition will
continue to work by, with, and through the Government of Iraq to enable
the Iraqi Security Forces to deliver a lasting defeat of ISIS in Iraq.
Question. Do you believe that an enduring United States military
presence is needed in Iraq? If so, what should be the missions and size
of the enduring U.S. military presence?
Answer. Based on the information I have received so far, I do
believe enduring U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq. Any enduring U.S.
force presence should be focused on countering terrorist organizations
and ensuring our Iraqi partners are sufficiently organized, trained,
and equipped to avoid a repeat of the scenario that unfolded in 2014
when ISIS swept across the country following the complete withdrawal of
U.S. Forces in 2011.
The United States and Iraq are committed to improving the Iraqi
Security Forces and dealing ISIS a lasting defeat. Even after the
liberation of Mosul, ISIS will still have a presence in certain parts
of Iraq, and the Government in Iraq will still require long-term
assistance and support from the United States. Ifconfirmed, I will work
closely with our military commanders and the Government of Iraq to
ensure the size, scope, and timeline of a U.S. military presence is
sufficient to achieve U.S. goals and succeed in our mission.
Question. How would you characterize Iran's influence in Iraq today
and what is the strategy to limit that influence in the future?
Answer. Iran's sectarian approach to Iraq contributes to extremism
and instability and reinforces ISIS ' s appeal among select Sunni Arab
populations. Iran is using its long-standing political, cultural, and
religious ties to deepen its involvement in the Iraqi State. The best
strategy to limit Iranian influence is to work with the Government of
Iraq to strengthen Iraq's security institutions and promote Iraqi
national sovereignty.
iran
Question. What is your assessment of United States national
security interests associated with the growth of Iranian influence in
the Middle East?
Answer. Iran is a significant destabilizing force in the Middle
East and its policies and actions pose a substantial challenge to
United States interests. Iranian regional destabilizing activities in
the region threatens the free flow of commerce, aggravates sectarian
tensions, and threatens our allies and partners both directly and by
proxy.
Question. How would you describe our strategy to counter Iran's
malign influence and other activities throughout the Middle East, and
more specifically, Iran's proxy networks?
Answer. We must continue to employ a whole-of-government strategy
to counter Iran's destabilizing activities and proxy networks. This
includes providing support to our partners and allies, remaining in a
position to respond to Iranian aggression, and ensuring that the
Department retains the ability to respond to any contingency
threatening stability in the region.
yemen
Question. What are the United States national security interests in
Yemen?
Answer. United States national security interests in Yemen are
countering terrorism, including the Islamic State in Yemen and al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula, and denying those violent extremists safe
havens from which to attack United States and partner regional
interests. Other interests also include maintaining freedom of
navigation in the Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea and facilitating
a return to the UN-sponsored political negotiation process.
Question. In your opinion, should we be doing more to help the
Saudi coalition in its efforts to find a solution to the conflict in
Yemen, and if so, what steps would you recommend?
Answer. I believe current levels of targeted United States military
assistance in support of Saudi efforts to defend its borders are
appropriate. At the same time, we should urge all parties to return to
UN-sponsored peace talks.
afghanistan
Question. What are the key United States national security
interests in Afghanistan and how would you describe the strategy to
secure them?
Answer. There are several U.S. interests in support of a stable and
secure Afghanistan, but foremost is to prevent Afghanistan from being
used as a safe-haven for terrorists and violent extremist organizations
to attack the U.S., our interests, or our allies and partners. If
confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense and the interagency
process as it finalizes and executes a strategy to promote a stable and
secure Afghanistan.
Question. In a hearing on Afghanistan before this Committee in
February 2017, General Nicholson said that we are in a stalemate after
more than 15 years of fighting.
Do you agree with General Nicholson that we are in a stalemate in
Afghanistan, and if so, what strategic changes would you recommend?
Answer. I agree with General Nicholson. We must provide adequate
resources in terms of troops and enablers for the commander to
prosecute the counter-terrorism fight and to continue to train, advise,
and assist Afghan forces as they fight to secure their country. We must
also find ways to help and encourage Pakistan to prevent terrorist
organizations from having freedom of movement to go back and forth
between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Fundamental to all of this i? a coherent strategy that aligns
resources with desired endstates in Afghanistan and can be articulated
to Congress. I have not seen such a strategy, if one exists, and, if
confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense in his evaluation
and implementation of potential changes regarding our policies and
military approach in Afghanistan and the broader region.
Question. Do you agree with General Nicholson that there is a need
for additional coalition troops in Afghanistan?
Answer. Based on the publicly available information that I
currently have access to, I agree with General Nicholson. It is clear
the Taliban continues to gain ground, and has been making steady
progress against Afghan forces.
The military advice of the commander on the ground is important,
and I believe the Department's civilian leadership should consider and
weigh such advice appropriately. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Combatant Commander, and our other leadership to ensure that our
commanders on the ground in Afghanistan have sufficient forces and
other resources to succeed in their mission.
Question. What key Afghan capabilities need to be enhanced to
promote long-term strategic stability?
Answer. As stated previously, the military advice of the commander
on the ground is important. General Nicholson has noted that the Afghan
National Defense and Security Forces need to enhance close air support
capabilities, develop their leaders, and counter internal corruption. I
understand General Nicholson has emphasized the need for enhanced
Afghan aviation capabilities--an investment that seems reasonable given
the threat. If confirmed, I will examine these recommendations and
consider what additional Afghan capabilities are necessary to promote
long-term strategic stability.
Question. What is the role of United States and coalition military
operations in promoting reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban and
other insurgent groups?
Answer. If Taliban leaders believe they are winning on the
battlefield Taliban, they have no incentive to seriously negotiate. The
Afghan security forces must first tum the tide militarily against the
Taliban in order for reconciliation to be viable. The role of U.S. and
coalition military operations to support Afghanistan' s military is
critical to this effort.
Question. What is your view of Russian claims that they are in
discussions with the Afghan Taliban to promote reconciliation and also
to partner in the fight against ISIS?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Mattis that Russia has chosen to be
a strategic competitor of the United States. In general, I view Russian
activities in Afghanistan and in Syria largely destabilizing and
contrary to stated U.S. objectives. Russia has consistently undermined
U.S. and coalition interests in both theaters.
With respect to Afghanistan, I believe that all regional states,
including Russia, should respect and work within the framework of an
Afghan-led peace process.
Question. Do you agree that the sanctuary for extremist forces in
Pakistan is a key factor affecting the stability and security of
Afghanistan? If so, what recommendations would you have to end this
sanctuary?
Answer. Yes. Sanctuary for the Taliban and other militant networks
inside Pakistani territory continue to negatively affect security
conditions and stability in Afghanistan. The U.S. should help and
encourage Pakistan to do more to prevent terrorist organizations from
finding sanctuary in Pakistan. Ifconfirmed, I will work with the
Secretary and our Commanders to find ways in which we can deny
extremist forces sanctuary in Pakistan.
Question. Do you agree that any future reductions in the Afghan
National Defense and Security Forces from the 352,000 troop level
should be based on the security conditions in Afghanistan at the time
the reductions would occur?
Answer. I believe that recommendations on force structure should be
based on security conditions on the ground. If confirmed, I will
examine carefully any proposals on force level reductions in the Afghan
National Defense and Security Forces and listen to the recommendations
from the commanders on the ground in order to provide informed advice
to the Secretary of Defense.
pakistan
Question. What is your view of the current state of the United
States-Pakistan security relationship?
Answer. It is important for the United States to maintain a
constructive relationship with Pakistan that advances mutual interests.
But, the United States should also demonstrate its serious concerns
about Pakistan expanding its nuclear program and providing safe-haven
for militant groups.
Question. What policy changes, if any, would you recommend for
United States relations with Pakistan, particularly in terms of
military-to-military relations?
Answer. The United States should continue the military-to-military
relationship with Pakistan, and build the trust necessary for it to be
an effective partnership. If confirmed, I will be prepared to examine
what policy changes, if any, I would recommend for the United States
military-to-military relationship with Pakistan.
Question. United States security assistance and other support to
Pakistan is designed to foster greater cooperation in areas of mutual
security interest.
Do you support this as a construct for future assistance?
Answer. It is important for the United States to maintain a
constructive relationship with Pakistan that advances mutual interests.
If confirmed, I would assess whether the current model for United
States security cooperation with Pakistan is a useful construct for
future assistance.
Question. What areas do you consider to be of shared security
interest between the United States and Pakistan?
Answer. The United States and Pakistan have some common interests,
including countering terrorism and maintaining regional stability. In
addition, Pakistan has cooperated in operations against al-Qaida and
its associates and against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan
Province.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in security
assistance to Pakistan?
Answer. Security assistance to Pakistan should further United
States national security interests. If confirmed, I would assess what
changes, if any and consistent with our national security interests,
should be considered for security assistance to Pakistan.
china
Question. From your perspective, what effect does China's expanding
economy and growing military having on the region at-large and how does
that growth influence the United States security posture in the Asia-
Pacific region?
Answer. I believe that China's rapid rise, growing assertiveness,
and expanding military capabilities create uncertainty and tension in
the region. I agree with Secretary Mattis that we should seek to engage
and collaborate with China where possible, but also be prepared to
confront inappropriate behavior if China chooses to act contrary to our
interests. If confirmed, I will thoroughly examine the full impact of
China's growing influence on our United States security posture in the
region in the context of the overall security dynamic in the Asia-
Pacific region.
Question. What can the United States do, both unilaterally and in
coordination with allies and partners, to counter the increasing
challenge posed by China in the East and South China Seas? In your
view, what should be the Administration's overall strategy on the East
and South China Seas?
Answer. China's aggressive behavior has caused countries in the
Asia-Pacific region to look for stronger United States leadership. If
confirmed, I will evaluate if the United States can implement any
policies unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally to address the
challenge China poses in the East and South China Seas. If I am
confirmed, I will work with the Department of State to reassure our
partners, uphold our alliance commitments, and steadfastly protect the
rights and freedoms of the international community to fly, sail, and
operate wherever international law allows.
Question. Given that China's land reclamation in the South China
Sea demonstrates a disregard for international rules and norms, do you
support the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? Do you believe the
United States should ratify the convention?
Answer. I believe it is essential to United States economic and
national security interests that we uphold freedom of navigation and
overflight as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. I also
understand the Law of the Sea Convention, to which China is a signatory
party, reflects customary international law. If confirmed, I will work
with the Department of State to support policy measures intended to
preserve and protect the global mobility of United States forces.
Question. China's defense budget seems to be increasing at an
alarming rate year after year. However, China's plans and strategies do
not seem aimed at military domination outside of its immediate
neighborhood. How do you explain this discrepancy? Why is China engaged
in such a massive military build-up?
Answer. China's military reforms seek to enhance its ability to
conduct joint operations and improve its ability to fight short-
duration, high-intensity regional conflicts at greater distances from
the Chinese mainland. China's global interests are growing, and its
military will increasingly be called upon to safeguard China's trade,
investments, and citizens abroad. The Chinese base construction in
Djibouti reflects this growing interest that is beginning to reach
beyond China's immediate neighborhood.
north korea
Question. In your view, what should be the United States strategy
to mitigate the threat posed by North Korea to South Korea, to our
allies in the region, and to the United States?
Answer. I agree fully with Secretary Mattis that the United States
should cooperate closely with our allies in the region, in particular
the Republic of Korea and Japan, to seek a denuclearized North Korea.
We should also work with other states with important interests in the
region, including Russia and China. In addition, we should strengthen
our defensive capabilities and work with our allies to deter and, if
necessary, respond to aggression by North Korea. If confirmed, I will,
in my role as Deputy Secretary, work to ensure the United States
military is appropriately prepared to support diplomatic action.
Question. What is your assessment of the current security situation
on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. It is apparent that North Korea is a near-term threat to
our national security interests. The North Korean regime has no regard
for its international obligations and is intent on developing a
ballistic missile system capable of delivering a weapon of mass
destruction against our allies and the United States Homeland. If
confirmed, I will support a whole-of-government approach, work with our
allies and partners, and ensure our military is prepared for any
potential contingency.
Question. The deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) missile system to South Korea is a good first step. What other
steps is the Administration prepared to take to ensure the safety and
security of South Korea and United States forces stationed in the
region?
Answer. It is my understanding that the deployment of the Terminal
High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to the Republic of Korea is a
highly visible, concrete action the United States is taking to counter
the North Korean ballistic missile threat. If confirmed, I will work
with the Secretary of Defense to evaluate any other defensive options
that will improve United States force posture and promote the safety
and security of United States and allied personnel on the Korean
Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific region more broadly.
russia
Question. Senior United States military officials have said Russia
is the number one threat to the United States.
What are the challenges to United States national security
interests from Russia and what are the key principles that must
underpin a successful strategy to protect our interests?
Answer. Russia has chosen to be a strategic competitor with the
United States and our allies. The challenges to our interests stem from
its efforts to undermine global norms, fracture the cohesion ofNATO,
and extend a sphere of influence over the countries on its periphery.
Russia's provocative behavior also includes alarming messages regarding
the use of nuclear weapons; treaty violations; the use ofhybrid warfare
tactics to destabilize neighboring countries; and aggressive cyber and
information warfare. Buttressing NATO will be fundamental to meeting
these challenges, as will unified action across the U.S. Government to
counter both traditional and emerging threats.
Question. Should the United States condition its military
engagement with Russia on certain changes in Russian behavior, and if
so, what conditions if any, would you recommend?
Answer. I understand that, in response to Russia's aggressive
actions in Ukraine, the Department suspended military-to-military
cooperation with the Russian Federation, both as a matter of policy and
due to legal constraints laid out in Section 1232 ofthe Fiscal Year
2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In order for the legal
restrictions to be lifted, Russia must ``cease its occupation of
Ukrainian territory and its aggressive activities that threaten the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.'' I do not envision a scenario in
which I would recommend a waiver given Russia's continued aggression in
Ukraine.
Question. Do you agree with General Scaparrotti that our current
force posture in Europe is ``inadequate'' to deter Russia? What changes
to our force posture would you recommend?
Answer. I do agree with General Scaparrotti. The Department has
taken some steps to enhance the readiness and responsiveness ofU.S.
forces in the European theater, as well as to buildup the military
capacity ofthe Baltic States. These include both near-team enhancements
to the U.S. defense posture through European Reassurance Initiative
(ERI) funding as well as longer-term investments in advanced power
projection capabilities. I understand the Department has increased its
request for ERi funding in its fiscal year 2018 budget.
Question. Do you support continued United States security
assistance to Ukraine and, if so, how would the provision of such
security assistance fit within the broader United States strategy for
stability within the region?
Answer. Yes, I support continued security assistance to Ukraine,
including lethal defensive assistance. Security assistance should be
one part of a larger whole-of-government approach for supporting
Ukraine and deterring further Russian aggression in the region.
Question. Do you support providing lethal defensive security
assistance to Ukraine as in the interest of the United States?
Answer. Yes. I support lethal defensive security assistance to
Ukraine. The United States must do more to counter Russia's aggressive
behavior and support the people of Ukraine.
Question. In your view, what are the key elements of a strategy to
counter Russian hybrid tactics that employ both hard and soft power and
present attribution challenges?
Answer. The presence of credible and capable U.S. forces continues
to help deter Russia's hard power efforts to undermine our interests
around the world. Increased awareness and improved resiliency are a
good start. The forward deployment of U.S. personnel to the Baltics and
Poland also signals a strong intent. If we do not already have
classified capabilities and ongoing operations to disrupt Russian
influence networks, I would advocate for these types of measures if
confirmed.
Question. What is your assessment of the Russian malign influence
threat and what recommendations, if any, would you have for the role of
the United States Government, and the Department of Defense in
particular, in countering this threat?
Answer. Russia's actions pose a serious threat to the United
States, its allies, and its partners. Their disinformation campaign is
part of a broader approach to undermining global security that also
involves elements of cyber operations, manipulation of information, and
espionage. It is a persistent and growing threat. Any strategy to
respond should account for these dimensions through an integrated
cross-governmental approach and should explore both defensive and
offensive measures.
north atlantic treaty organization (nato)
Question. In your opinion, does the NATO Alliance benefit the
national security interests of the United States?
Answer. Yes, absolutely. NATO is a major source of political will
and operational capability that enables the United States to deter and
counter threats to our security interests.
Question. What are the major strategic objectives of the NATO
Alliance in the coming years?
Answer. I believe NATO's strategic objectives include deterring
aggression and, if necessary, defending allies against strategic
competitors; improving the resilience of the alliance; more equitably
sharing the burden of collective defense; enhancing its operational
capabilities in the fight against terrorism; and, if necessary,
projecting power to counter emerging threats.
Question. In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges for
NATO and the most important capability improvements that the Alliance
must make to deal with the accelerated and growing threats it faces?
Answer. In my view, the greatest challenge for the NATO Alliance
will be the need to confront aggressive Russian actions and related
threats to the security of its members. The Alliance will also need to
maintain solidarity on issues related to deterrence, defense, and
projecting stability.
To deal with the growing threats the Alliance faces, I believe NATO
should emphasize increased burden sharing; improved readiness; missile
defense; counter anti-access/area-denial capabilities; and enhancements
to combat enablers such as command and control systems, precision
munitions, and joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities.
Question. What is your perspective on accusations that our NATO
Allies do not carry their fair share of the security burden?
Answer. At the 2014 Wales Summit, all 28 Allies pledged to halt
cuts in defense spending and agreed ``to aim to move towards'' spending
2 percent of GDP on defense--with 20 percent going to major equipment
purchases--within a decade.
I fully agree with Secretary Mattis' calls for our NATO Allies to
live up to the Wales Pledge, and I am encouraged that Allies made
additional commitments in that regard at the NATO Leaders' Meeting on
May 25, 2017.
Question. In your view, is there a continuing requirement for U.S.
nuclear weapons to be deployed in NATO countries?
Answer. Yes, I believe there is. NATO has a well-settled commitment
to be a nuclear alliance. In fact, our NATO Allies reaffirmed this
stance at the Warsaw Summit in July 2016, and I support the conviction
that to maintain an adequate deterrent, NATO must deploy an appropriate
mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defense capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, will you support making the F-35 dual
capable for the Block 4 configuration for the United States and its
allies in the shortest feasible time?
Answer. I fully agree with Secretary Mattis that our nuclear and
extended nuclear deterrence posture must maintain the capability to
forward-deploy strategic bombers and dual-capable aircraft. If
confirmed, I will take a careful look at this issue and consult with
the Committee as appropriate.
balkans
Question. How would you describe today's threats to the security
and stability of the Balkans?
Answer. Although intra-state and state-on-state conflict are no
longer the primary threats to security and stability in the Balkans,
complex ethnic-based challenges continue to threaten the region's long-
term stability. These challenges include corruption, organized crime,
fragile rule of law, and malign Russian influence. Russia uses ethnic,
historic, and religious ties to the region to promote an anti-NATO and
anti-United States agenda; meanwhile, violent extremist organizations
exploit the region's relative poverty and fragile rule of law to
recruit and to transit fighters from and through the region.
Question. What do you see as the role of NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR)
and what conditions are required before that presence can be reduced or
eliminated?
As the only institution universally supported by all ethnic
communities in Kosovo, KFOR remains critical to ensuring freedom of
movement and a safe and secure environment throughout Kosovo. KFOR is
the ``third responder'' to security incidents, behind the Kosovo Police
(first responder) and the European Union Rule of Law Mission known as
EULEX (second responder). The key conditions that will allow a
reduction in KFOR is for Kosovo to have trained, professional, and
multi-ethnic security forces to provide both domestic security and
territorial defense, and for Kosovo to have good relations with its
neighbors, including neighbors that do not recognize its independence.
africa
Question. What is your assessment of the current counterterrorism
efforts in Africa? What are the associated policy objectives?
Answer. The Department's current counterterrorism efforts have had
largely positive effects and serve as an example of how a combination
of strategic patience, targeted investments, and strong partnership can
achieve the associated U.S. policy objectives to protect the Homeland
and western interests.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend?
Answer. We should continually assess and look for ways to improve
our efforts there. If confirmed, I will look into this and ensure the
Department has the right balance of investment in enabling partners
and, in limited cases, unilateral action.
navy shipbuilding
Question. The Navy recently announced a requirement for 355 ships,
up from 275 ships today, in order to meet its operational requirements.
What is your view of the Navy's assessment that produced the
requirement for 355 ships?
Answer. An increase in the number of ships is consistent with the
Secretary of Defense's priority to grow both the capacity and lethality
of the joint force. If confirmed, I believe the Defense Strategic
Review will help determine the appropriate goal for the Navy's fleet.
However, growth would require repeal of the Budget Control Act caps and
a substantially higher topline over the coming decades to pay for
increases in procurement as well as in maintenance, operations, and
associated manpower necessary for a larger fleet.
Question. In the 1970s and 1980s, the United States procured the
current Ohio-class SSBN submarines within the Navy's shipbuilding (SCN)
account. In 2015, Congress created a special fund, the National Sea-
Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), for procurement of Columbia-class SSBNs,
the replacements for the Ohio-class SSBNs.
Do you have a view on how the cost of Columbia-class SSBNs should
be funded-- solely from Navy resources, from a combination of Navy and
other-than-Navy (e.g., OMB and other Defense) sources, or with a
different approach? If so, please explain.
Answer. The Columbia-class SSBNs represent the future of the most
survivable leg of our nuclear deterrent. Funding this program is
critical. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense in
working with Congress to ensure this program is fully funded as part of
the overall recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise.
nuclear weapons and stockpile stewardship
Question. What is the role of U.S. nuclear weapons?
Answer. The U.S. nuclear deterrent remains the bedrock of our
national security and is a no-fail mission. The fundamental role of
nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States
and our allies and partners. In addition to deterring a nuclear attack,
a robust, flexible, and survivable U.S. nuclear arsenal underpins our
conventional capabilities. Nuclear weapons provide the President with
credible options to maintain deterrence and extend deterrence to our
allies, which discourages them from developing their own nuclear
weapons.
Question. The President's June 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy
affirmed that the United States will maintain a nuclear triad, noting:
``Retaining all three Triad legs will best maintain strategic stability
at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems
or vulnerabilities.''
Do you agree that modernizing each leg of the nuclear triad and the
Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex is a critical national
security priority?
Answer. Sustaining all three legs of the triad best maintains
strategic stability and responsiveness, and is the surest way to
maintain effective nuclear deterrence. I understand that the ongoing
Nuclear Posture Review is looking at all elements of the force to
ensure that our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to deter evolving
threats. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing in depth the
recapitalization plans for the triad.
Question. Do you support the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and
its timely replacement of the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile?
Answer. I understand that the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is
looking at all relevant capabilities to ensure the continued
effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. If confirmed, I will carefully
review this program and report back with a more informed answer.
cooperative threat reduction program
Question. What are your views of the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program?
Answer. The DOD CTR Program, which is an important component of the
Department's countering strategy to counter weapons of mass
destruction, has a more than two decades-long track record of working
cooperatively with foreign partners to dismantle and destroy weapons of
mass destruction, prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, and detect and report outbreaks of diseases of
security concern.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure it is capable of meeting
its mission to roll back the threat of weapons of mass destruction?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the DOD CTR
Program effectively accomplishes its mission of mitigating threats from
weapons of mass destruction.
russian violation of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces (inf)
treaty
Question. In your view, what are the consequences for United States
national security of Russia's actions in violation of its obligations
under the INF Treaty?
Answer. The Russian Federation's violation of the Intermediate
Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty poses a direct threat to our allies
and threatens United States Forces and interests. Russia's actions in
violation of the INF treaty, if unchecked, could lead to doubt in the
stability of current and future arms control agreements and
initiatives.
Question. What do you believe would be appropriate responses for
the United States to take in order to: 1) convince Russia to return to
compliance with the INF Treaty, or 2) ensure that United States
national security is maintained if Russia does not return to
compliance?
Answer. While I understand that the Administration is reviewing a
number ofpotential response options, it seems clear that the United
States is operating with one hand tied behind its back since we are the
only party to the treaty that is following the rules. The treaty
permits the development of ground-launched missiles with ranges in
excess of 500 kilometers. In light of Russia' s violation of the
treaty, I do not believe that the United States should continue to
constrain ourselves from taking steps that we have every right to do.
Indeed, such actions could generate diplomatic leverage for the United
States and put pressure on Russia to return to compliance. However, if
diplomatic means to reestablish Russian adherence to the treaty fail,
the United States should be prepared to withdraw from the treaty.
ballistic missile defense
Question. The United States Homeland and its deployed forces enjoy
a measure of protection against ballistic missile threats from rogue
nations such as North Korea and Iran, yet the threat continues to grow.
During the past year, North Korea conducted several missile tests and
continued development of mobile long-range missiles. Likewise, Iran
continues to test ballistic missiles of increasing range. Russia and
China also continue to deploy ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic
missiles that threaten United States forces, allies, and the United
States Homeland.
What are your priorities for U.S. missile defense capabilities in
the following areas: 1) Homeland missile defense; 2) regional missile
defense; 3) improved discrimination and sensors; 4) next generation
missile defense; and 5) defense against cruise and hypersonic missiles?
Answer. The missile threats to the Homeland, our forward deployed
forces, and our allies and partners are exponentially increasing. Our
top priority should be to defend the Homeland and protect our forces
abroad, and we should invest accordingly. We should then work with our
allies and partners to help them build their own defenses. If
confirmed, I look forward to participating in the Ballistic Missile
Defense review and ensuring that we appropriately invest and innovate
in this important capability.
Question. Do you believe that the United States should encourage
our regional allies and partners to increase their missile defense
capabilities to contribute to regional security and help reduce the
burden on U.S. forces and requirements?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed I will look for opportunities to
encourage allies to invest in missile defense capabilities that
contribute to regional security.
test and evaluation
Question. Congress has understood the need for adequate
developmental and operational testing of weapon systems. At the same
time, there was a risk that in the past, with limited time
criticalities to deploy a system and decades-long technology
development cycles, the level of testing may not have been constrained
by cost or schedule.
In an era where the changes in the threat and our technology needs
and cycles are now measured in months, what is the appropriate balance
between reducing acquisition cycle times and the need to perform
adequate testing?
Answer. The Department needs to execute enough testing to ensure
warfighters are equipped with what they need to win, in the timeframe
required, and with the best cost performance possible. A one-size-fits-
all answer is not advisable. Large, new complex systems which need to
work under stressful combat situations require different types and
degrees of testing compared with smaller scale upgrades or new payloads
on existing systems which may have to function under less demanding
situations. That said, my experience suggests that it is best to
develop smaller increments of capability that can therefore be tested
more quickly.
readiness funding
Question. After more than 15 years of combat operations, each of
the military services faces a rising bill for maintenance and repair,
while balancing the need for new procurement. The Army reports that
only one-third of its brigade combat teams report a ready status. The
Navy currently has 275 ships, yet the Chief of Naval Operations is
calling for growth to 355 ships, which would require the Navy to
obligate shipbuilding funding while maintaining the current fleet. The
Marine Corps reports that only 43 percent of its aircraft are ready for
combat, partly stemming from backlogs of the F/A-18 Legacy Hornets
within the organic industrial base. The Air Force is short more than
3,500 maintainers while reporting only half of its fighter squadrons
are ready to fight. While each service has its individual concerns, as
a whole, flying hours for pilots are at historical lows and training
continues to be diminished.
What balance do you believe should exist between maintaining the
equipment currently in inventory while leveraging procurement funding
to modernize the force?
Answer. The Department must strike the appropriate balance between
maintenance and modernization, optimizing investments to succeed in
current operations and a range of future challenges. Maintenance is
essential to continued success in our current operations. The current
level of global operations in which the Department is engaged demands
that we keep the equipment we already own in the highest state of
readiness--fully mission capable and outfitted with the best available
capabilities. We know that the demands on our forces are growing, not
subsiding, while the capabilities and technologies of our potential
adversaries continues to advance. Therefore, modernization remains
important; we cannot afford to mortgage the future for today. For both
of these objectives, maintenance and modernization, stable and
predictable funding is the key. Conversely, disruptions such as
continuing resolutions introduce unnecessary risk to our personnel and
our materiel investment and disrupt the delicate balance between these
two objectives.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to address
maintenance backlogs and ensure that the military departments request
adequate funding for reset, reconstitution, and other maintenance
requirements?
Answer. Secretary Mattis has made the Department's improving
readiness a priority. If confirmed, I plan to work with the Services to
monitor their readiness recovery plans and maintenance backlogs, and
ensure that the Department places appropriate urgency on this high
priority, to achieve its objectives.
personnel and entitlement costs
Question. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, military
personnel costs, as a percentage of the overall Defense Department
budget, have remained consistent for the last 2 decades at 30 percent
while the size of the force continues to decrease. As a result, the
one-third of the budget devoted to military personnel buys far less
today than it did yesterday, despite the overall defense budget being
significantly higher. In 1980, Active Duty end strength was 2.1
million; this year, it is approximately 1.3 million, a drop of over 60
percent.
If this percentage remains constant as overall defense spending
flattens, or even declines in real terms, what would be the impact on
the size of the force and the Department's ability to execute the
national defense strategy?
Answer. The health and sustainment of the All-Volunteer Force is a
national priority. I agree with Secretary Mattis that we must support
our force, and structure our pay and benefits in a way that continues
to benefit recruiting and retention--but the best support we can give
servicemembers is to train and equip them properly. Moreover, as the
Secretary has said, we owe it to the American people to field a force
that can win. However, if the defense budget flattens or declines,
defending the nation's vital interests will involve increasing levels
of risk.
Question. In your view, what would be the impact on other areas of
the Department's budget if military personnel costs continue to rise
while the overall defense budget remains flat, or even declines in real
terms?
Answer. People are the Department's most valuable asset and we must
ensure that military pay and benefits attract and retain a high-quality
All-Volunteer Force. However, the Department must continually balance
the costs of this pay and benefits package against other investments
that are critical to achieving the Department's strategic goals. If
confirmed, I will examine this question in detail, but clearly
personnel costs must be measured in conjunction with other critical
needs of the force.
Question. What actions do you believe can and should be taken to
control the rise in personnel costs and entitlement spending?
Answer. I am aware that in the past few years, the Department has
submitted several military compensation reform proposals and Congress
has enacted some significant reforms. If confirmed, I will work to
explore options that can further control costs while properly
compensating the members of our fighting force.
personnel authorities
Question. Do you believe that more flexibility is needed in the
military personnel system? If so, what ideas do you have to achieve a
system that is both flexible to the needs of servicemembers and
adaptable to future national security challenges?
Answer. I believe it is good business practice to periodically
review an organization's administrative and personnel management
systems to identify areas of improvement. If confirmed, I will review
the military personnel system to identify areas of concern before
recommending any modifications to the Secretary. A guiding principle of
this review must be that any recommended changes are consistent with
maintaining the highest level of readiness for the force.
Question. What is your opinion on the health of the current
Department of Defense civilian workforce? What is your plan to recruit
the talent needed by the Department in order to best support the future
warfighter?
Answer. In my experience, the Department's civilian workforce is
generally highly skilled and dedicated to achieving the Department's
mission. However, I also understand that it is the intent of Congress
that the headquarters elements within the Department are reduced. If
confirmed, I will look carefully at the Department's staffing and needs
to ensure the most efficient recruitment and retention of the civilian
workforce.
Question. Based on your experience in the private sector, what are
human resource best practices that you would be interested in bringing
to the Defense Department to make military or civil service a more
attractive option for talented Americans?
Answer. As with the military personnel system, I believe it is good
business practice to periodically review an organization's personnel
management systems. If confirmed, I will review the civilian employee
systems to identify areas of concern before recommending any
modifications to the Secretary. A guiding principle will be to ensure
the Department's recruitment and hiring practices are efficient and
target highly skilled talent to support the Secretary's goals of
improving readiness and restoring lethality to the force.
costs of medical care
Question. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
Department of Defense requested $47 billion in operation and
maintenance funding for the military health system in 2016, about 9
percent of the total funding requested for the Department's base
budget. CBO has calculated that those costs will reach $64 billion by
2030 if their growth reflects anticipated national trends in health
care costs.
What is your assessment of the long-term impact of the Department's
health care costs on military readiness and overall national security?
Answer. We must balance rising health care costs with the need to
fund military readiness. If confirmed, I would look at ways to reduce
waste and inefficiency in the direct care facilities as well as in how
the Department purchases health care from the civilian sector in order
to maintain the balance between benefits and readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to mitigate the
effect of the Department's rising medical costs on its budget top-line
while simultaneously implementing programs to improve health outcomes
and to enhance the experience of care for all beneficiaries?
Answer. We need to look at all possibilities to improve the
Department's health care delivery. That includes looking at the costs
of the direct care facilities, how the Department buys health care from
the civilian sector, and promoting healthy life styles among our
beneficiaries to reduce the demand for health services. The bottom
line, however, is that we must take care of our people.
military health care reform
Question. Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 transferred direct oversight and management of
military hospitals and clinics from the military services to the
Defense Health Agency (DHA). In March 2017, this Committee received the
Department of Defense's preliminary draft interim report on section
702, which described the Department's intent to develop a component
model to administer and manage military treatment facilities. Under
this component model, the Department would establish service
intermediary commands, and those commands would be subject to two
separate lines of authority--the DHA and the Services.
In your view, how would a component model streamline the
administration and management of military treatment facilities?
Answer. Presently, the three Service Medical Departments and the
Defense Health Agency (DHA) have four separate headquarters functions
dedicated to the administration and management of the Military
Treatment Facilities. It is my understanding that Department's proposed
component model centralizes the Services' headquarters functions under
DHA, which will be the single organization responsible for the Military
Treatment Facilities in the specific areas identified in the fiscal
year 2017 NDAA.
Question. In your view, how would a component model achieve the
Committee's goal to eliminate multiple inefficient layers of management
and bureaucracy in Department of Defense medical operations?
Answer. I understand that the Department's component model will
eliminate the Service Medical Department headquarters functions
responsible for the administration and management of healthcare in the
Military Treatment Facilities and align them within DHA, which may lead
to greater efficiencies. However, I am not sufficiently familiar with
the details of the Department's component model to determine whether
this will achieve the Congress's goal to eliminate bureaucracy. If
confirmed, I will review the model and make an assessment on its
potential effectiveness.
Question. In your view, how would a component model eliminate the
current stove-piped medical command structures of the Services?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the
Department's component model to determine whether it would eliminate
existing stove-pipes within the Services' medical commands. If
confirmed, I will review the model and make an assessment on its
potential effectiveness.
Question. If confirmed, will you reevaluate the Department's
decision to proceed with a component model to implement section 702?
Answer. It would be premature, at this stage, to comment on whether
the Department's decisions should be reevaluated. However, if
confirmed, I will remain open to reevaluating the Department's
approach, if it is warranted.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure a rapid and efficient
transfer of the operations of the military medical facilities to the
DHA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the leaders of the
Department to meet the fiscal year 2017 NDAA timelines and if there are
any concerns with the timelines, I will inform the Congress.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Services
reduce their medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure (including
regional command staffs and infrastructure) to reflect the changing
scope and size of their health care missions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will actively oversee the development of
the section 702 implementation plan and ensure the Department meets the
intent of the fiscal year 2017 NDAA requirements.
mental health care
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
sufficient mental health resources are available to servicemembers in
theater and to servicemembers and families upon return to home station
locations with insufficient community-based mental health resources?
Answer. The health and sustainment of the all-volunteer force is a
national priority. As Secretary Mattis has said, we have a moral
obligation to sustain the mental health of the force as well as
servicemembers' families. If confirmed, it will be a priority to ensure
that the Department is devoting appropriate resources to mental health,
and working effectively with the Department of Veterans Affairs to
identify issues and close any gaps in coverage. I will advise the
Committee if more resources are required.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to ensure that robust
mental health resources are available for Guard and Reserve members and
their families?
Answer. I include the Guard and Reserve in my assessment that the
health and sustainment of the all-volunteer force is a national
priority. Understanding the uniqueness of their service, I will work to
ensure members of the Guard and Reserve and their families are included
in the equation and that the appropriate amount of resources are
available to support their mental health care.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Services have in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. Sexual assault is a crime--and the only acceptable outcome
is zero. If confirmed, I will examine the adequacy of the training and
resources currently in place to get the Department to zero.
Question. What is your assessment of the potential impact, if any,
of proposals to remove the disposition authority from military
commanders over violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
including sexual assaults?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the complex legal and
readiness impacts of removing from military commanders the authority to
dispose of allegations of violations of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. If confirmed, I would closely examine this issue, even as I
focus on reducing the number of sexual assaults to zero.
Question. What is your assessment of the military's protections
against retaliation for reporting sexual assault?
Answer. The Department must do more to ensure Servicemembers can
report any crime, including a crime involving sexual assault, without
fear of retaliation. If confirmed, I intend to examine the early
implementation of the Department's efforts in this area and assess
whether improvements are needed.
sexual harassment
Question. Department of Defense annual sexual assault reports
consistently document that sexual assaults are more common in units
where sexual harassment is prevalent. Section 579 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 required the Secretary
of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to
sexual harassment in the Armed Forces and to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
no later than 1 year after January 2, 2013, setting forth a
comprehensive policy. This Committee still has not yet received this
report.
Do you agree with the premise that units with a command climate
that tolerates sexual harassment is more likely to have increased
incidents of sexual assault?
Answer. I cannot say definitively whether there is a cause-effect
relationship. However, zero tolerance for sexual harassment is the only
acceptable stance. A zero tolerance mindset must start with senior
leaders and commanders that set the command climate.
Question. What is the reason the Department has not complied with
the requirement to develop a comprehensive sexual harassment policy?
Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to be able to
answer the question. However, if confirmed, I will evaluate why the
Department has not complied with this Congressional requirement and
address the Committee's concerns.
Question. If confirmed, will you assure this Committee that the
Department will promptly promulgate a comprehensive policy to prevent
and respond to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces and to submit this
policy to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives, as directed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013?
Answer. Yes, I will.
suicide prevention
Question. If confirmed, how would you maintain a strong focus on
preventing suicides in the active and reserve components and in their
families?
Answer. While suicide is an issue in society in general, zero is
the only acceptable outcome for the Department. We must do more to
remove the stigmas associated with mental health issues. If confirmed,
I will bring the broad resources of the Department to bear on this
problem and will not hesitate to recommend relevant outside expertise
as well.
religious accommodation in the military
Question. In your view, do Department of Defense policies
concerning religious accommodation in the military appropriately
accommodate the free exercise of religion and other beliefs, including
individual expressions of belief, without impinging on those who have
different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. Yes. My understanding is that the rights of our
servicemembers to observe their individual religious beliefs are well
protected. As Secretary Mattis has said, the religious practices of our
servicemembers should be accommodated in a manner consistent with our
obligation to maintain operational readiness, good order and
discipline, and unit cohesion. If confirmed, I will monitor the issue
to ensure the Department's policies remain consistent with our
principles.
role of national guard and reserves
Question. As the active forces have been drawn down, the reserve
components have been mobilized more in order for the military to meet
the requirements of the National Military Strategy.
In your view, what is the appropriate relationship between the
active forces and the reserve components?
Answer. The Reserve Components are an integral part of our Total
Force, providing the skills and capacity to help support current
operations while also maintaining the strategic depth needed for major
crises.
Question. In your view, do the reserve components serve as an
operational reserve, a strategic reserve, or both? Which role should
they occupy going forward?
Answer. As Active Duty force structure has been reduced, it is
important that the Reserve Components serve as both a strategic and
operational role going forward.
Question. If Active Duty end strength is increased, what specific
parameters would you use to most appropriately determine what a
corresponding reserve component end strength should be set at in order
to support those Active Duty Forces?
Answer. I expect the defense strategy currently under development
in the Department will help set parameters to guide the size, shape,
and missions of the Reserve Component relative to the Active Component.
If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the defense strategy and
achieving the right mix from a Total Force perspective.
department of defense schools in the continental united states (conus)
Question. Some have questioned the continuing need for Department
of Defense-operated schools for military dependent children within
CONUS.
In light of past administrations' requests for additional Base
Realignment and Closure authorities and the Department's current fiscal
constraints, should the Department update its criteria for the
continued operation of Defense Department schools within CONUS?
Answer. It is worth considering whether the Department should
continue running schools within the continental United States. If
confirmed, I will review how to provide educational options to military
families.
Question. If confirmed, how would you approach the task of
eliminating some Defense Department-operated schools in CONUS?
Answer. Military dependents' education plays an important role in
the success, stability, readiness, and retention of our servicemembers
and their families. Military families bear an extraordinary burden for
our freedom, and the availability of quality education options is a
critical quality of life factor. If confirmed, I will work with all
stakeholders, in collaboration and consultation with the Military
Departments and Congress, to review the best options for providing
education support for military families.
commissary and military exchange systems
Question. What is your view of proposals to consolidate, eliminate,
or privatize commissaries and exchanges in certain areas where they are
duplicative of services readily available at reasonable cost in the
community?
Answer. I believe the quality of life value of these benefits is of
great importance to our servicemembers and their families. If
confirmed, I am open to assessing whether the value provided by the
commissary or exchange systems could be more effectively provided by a
private party.
As for consolidation or elimination, if confirmed, I will look into
opportunities for the commissary and exchange systems to achieve
operating efficiencies through enhanced collaboration and the
development of common business systems and practices.
Question. If confirmed, would you approve a pilot program to test
privatization of the defense commissary system?
Answer. If confirmed, I am open to assessing whether the value
provided by the commissary system could be more effectively provided by
a private party.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
the Department of Defense, reports of abuses of rank and authority by
senior military and civilian leaders and failures to perform up to
accepted standards are frequently received. Whistleblowers and victims
of such abuses often report that they felt that no one would pay
attention to or believe their complaints. Accusations of unduly lenient
treatment of senior officers and senior officials against whom
accusations have been substantiated are also frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Abuses of rank or grade and authority have no place in the
Department. Moreover, senior military and civilian leaders should be
held accountable for failing to perform up to accepted standards. If
confirmed, I would apply these standards in performing my duties as the
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders within the Department are held accountable for their
actions and performance?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that appropriate standards are
in place to promote a culture of professionalism, ethical behavior, and
high levels of performance. In addition, I will ensure that appropriate
procedures are in place to address substantiated allegations.
Question. What changes, if any, would you propose to whistleblower
laws to strengthen protections for whistleblowers within the Department
of Defense, including those in the military, the civilian workforce,
the intelligence community, and contractors?
Answer. Whistleblower laws are important to ensure the effective
operation of the Department and protect its military and civilian
workforce. If I am confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, and if I
determine that whistleblowers in the Department are inadequately
protected, I will examine the existing laws and propose appropriate
changes.
guam
Question. Section 132 of title 10, United States Code, states in
part: ``(e) Until September 30, 2020, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
shall lead the Guam Oversight Council and shall be the Department of
Defense's principal representative for coordinating the interagency
efforts in matters relating to Guam, including the following executive
orders: (1) Executive Order No. 13299 of May 12, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg.
25477; 48 U.S.C. note prec. 1451; relating to the Interagency Group on
Insular Affairs); and (2) Executive Order No. 12788 of January 15,
1992, as amended (57 Fed. Reg. 2213; relating to the Defense Economic
Adjustment Program).''
What is your view of the broader Asia-Pacific realignment of United
States forces including Guam, Japan, and South Korea?
Answer. I share the Secretary of Defense's view that the Asia-
Pacific region is likely to remain the most consequential region for
the United States for decades to come. If confirmed, I will work with
the Secretary to appropriately resource our critical priorities and
continue to develop a regional force posture that is geographically
distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable.
Question. Do you believe that you will be able to implement the
Guam provisions, which are critical to the realignment of forces from
Okinawa, Japan?
Answer. The Secretary has stated clearly that we will remain
steadfast in our efforts to realign United States forces in Japan,
especially on Okinawa. I understand that the realignment of Marines to
Guam is essential to establishing a more geographically dispersed,
operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture in
the Asia-Pacific region and that the overall program remains executable
within the guidelines set by law. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary and our Japanese allies to continue implementation of this
important program.
technological superiority
Question. We have heard for the past several years that the U.S.
military-technical advantage is diminishing. Recent secretaries and
deputy secretaries have undertaken a variety of initiatives to address
this strategic problem, ranging from new technology investments to
creating new acquisition organizations and attempting acquisition
reform.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that the U.S.
military continues to enjoy technological superiority over increasingly
capable near-peer competitors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will set clearer policies to incentivize
investments by the national labs, Services, and industry. It will be
difficult to regain superiority simultaneously in every warfighting
domain, so I will prioritize technologies based on their maturity,
potential, and ability to better advantage our warfighters. I will also
look closely at how to take advantage of the new AT&L organization, and
expect to empower the new R&E.
Question. What specific technological areas should the Defense
Department prioritize for investment in order to develop next
generation operational capabilities?
Answer. Our historical approach to projecting military power over
transoceanic distances will not work in the future. Among many other
areas, we will need to invest in better and more munitions, learn how
to operate when under attack, leverage machine learning, increase
autonomy, and harden our information pathways. When published, the
revised Defense Strategy will provide a more comprehensive guide. More
important than technology will be exploring new operational concepts
and organizations. Experimentation and risk taking should be
encouraged.
Question. Are you satisfied with the quality of the Department of
Defense research, laboratory, and engineering workforce and
infrastructure, especially relative to its industry and academic peers,
and global competitors?
Answer. My impression is that the Department's RDT&E possesses
considerable advantages in many areas relative to peer and competitor
institutions. Certainly, our adversaries think so, which is why they
work so hard to steal our intellectual property. My experience in
industry suggests there will be ways to improve upon what is already a
strong base. I believe the challenge is not so much on the quality or
extent of original research, increasingly less of which is done by the
government. The challenge is more on transitioning new technology into
the field, where it can be used.
acquisition reform and innovation
Question. To what extent do you believe that the Department of
Defense's technological superiority challenges are a function of
internal factors such as organizational design, process, leadership,
and culture?
Answer. The technological superiority challenges facing the
Department are due to a wide range of internal and external factors.
Strong leadership and strong partnerships, geared to a shared
objective, create high-performing organizations. If confirmed, I will
assess the impact of internal factors on technological superiority and
make recommendations to the Secretary and the Congress.
Question. How do you view the current state of the defense
acquisition system and what changes will you seek to implement, as part
of the acquisition reorganization process, to enable the system to
better support innovation for the warfighter?
Answer. Like most experts and most citizens, my impression is that
the acquisition system too often delivers late to need and at higher
than expected cost. What I will do, if confirmed, is bring to bear my
industry experience on this problem, with which I have some experience
in the private sector. I am under no illusions about the probability of
both reforming the present system to be more responsive while
incorporating more innovation. Even modest improvements will require
difficult changes, and the assistance of Congress. If confirmed, I will
work with Congress, the Secretary, the Department's technology and
acquisition professionals, warfighters, and leaders within industry to
promote innovation in the entire defense acquisition process.
Question. What role do you believe you should fulfill, if
confirmed, in leading the creation of the offices of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the new organizations are
established in a manner consistent with section 901 and 902 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. I would work
closely the leadership of the Department and the Congress to ensure
these offices have the authorities and resources they need to be
successful.
Question. How will you, if confirmed, simultaneously support
technological innovation and ensure that the Department of Defense
delivers large programs on time and on budget?
Answer. I view these as separate and distinct opportunities.
Critical to do both will be a strong partnership with leaders inside
and outside the Department to make sure the basics are in place to
deliver on the reforms called for by Congress. For technological
innovation and the establishment of the Under Secretary for Research
and Engineering, this will require dedicated leadership focused on
ensuring technical excellence and shortening the innovation time
constant to match and beat the pace in the commercial sector and of our
adversaries. For excellence in acquisition and the establishment of the
Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment, it will require
increased expertise and major concentration on the high-value, near-
term payoff improvements in acquisition that can be captured quickly
and deliver results.
acquisition accountability
Question. In your view, what role should the Services and Service
Chiefs have in delivering acquisition programs on time and on budget
and who should be responsible for large-scale acquisition failures?
Answer. I believe responsibility ultimately lies with the decision
authority who must ensure there are realistic requirements, achievable
technologies and need dates, a realistically affordable plan, and
highly capable people with the resources to successfully execute. The
Services and Service Chiefs have a strong role in setting these
conditions, and sustaining them. There must also be careful monitoring
of execution, and a willingness to adjust course if circumstances
warrant.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve acquisition
accountability?
Answer. There is a need to shift from lagging indicators of
performance to leading indicators of performance. Holding leadership
accountable to leading indicators will affect what can be controlled.
operational energy
Question. In his responses to the advance policy questions from
this Committee, Secretary Mattis talked about his time in Iraq, and how
he called upon the Department to ``unleash us from the tether of
fuel.'' He stated that ``units would be faced with unacceptable
limitations because of their dependence on fuel'' and resupply efforts
``made us vulnerable in ways that were exploited by the enemy.''
Do you believe this issue remains a challenge for the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Yes. The delivery of energy to globally deployed forces is
challenged by distance, geography, anti-access and area-denial threats,
and our own demand for energy. These challenges are relevant across a
range of scenarios, from Afghanistan to the Asia Pacific to Europe.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to unleash the military
from the tether of fuel?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe the Department should reduce the
dependence of our forces on vulnerable fuel supply chains by increasing
the operational reach of our warfighting platforms as well as ensuring
sufficient and survivable logistics and infrastructure to move the
needed volumes of energy to deployed forces. To do so, we must consider
the risks of dependence on fuel across the full range of innovation,
requirements, acquisition, planning, and programming processes used to
develop, deploy, and sustain military capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish for
Defense investments in and deployment of operational energy
technologies to increase the combat capabilities of warfighters, reduce
logistical burdens, and enhance mission assurance on our installations?
If confirmed, I would prioritize operational energy investments by
the same standards used in other Department decisions, namely their
direct contribution to the Department's primary warfighting missions
and their contribution to enhancing readiness and combat effectiveness.
In doing so, I will look to both our Combatant Commands and the
Services to identify relevant operational risks, and seek out
Department, whole-of-government, and private sector sources of
innovation.
energy and acquisition
Question. How can our acquisition systems better incorporate the
use of energy in military platforms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure our acquisition systems address
the use of energy in military platforms. Additionally, I would
certainly seek support from outside organizations like academia and the
private sector to improve military capability through changes in our
use of energy.
energy resiliency in the fight against isis
Question. Back in July 2016 after a coup attempt, the Turkish
government cut off power to Incirlik Air Base, which is the primary
platform for launching coalition airstrikes in the fight against ISIS.
For roughly a week, deployed units had to operate off backup
generators, which is expensive and not the preferred method of
operation given the demanding tempo of sorties against ISIS.
If confirmed, specifically how will you address and make energy
resiliency and mission assurance a priority for the U.S. military, to
include acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable energy assets
to improve combat capability for deployed units on our military
installations and forward operating bases?
Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize energy resiliency and
mission assurance efforts according to their effects on the
Department's primary warfighting missions and their contributions to
enhancing readiness and combat effectiveness. In general, I believe
that the Department should explore new concepts, technologies, and
renewable energy sources that are reliable, cost effective, and capable
of mitigating the risks of dependence on vulnerable energy supplies.
Where appropriate to the mission, I also would continue the
Department's effort to take advantage of third party financing to
enhance energy resilience at our permanent installations.
Question. To what extent, if any, are Title 10 training exercises
and wargames dealing with energy outages? If not, why?
Answer. As I understand the issue, Service wargames have identified
energy as a significant constraint. If confirmed, I will ask for a
complete update on the role of energy disruptions and outages in
exercises and wargames.
Question. Do you support the J-4's enforcement of the energy
supportability key performance parameter in the requirements process?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I intend to consult with the
Department's subject matter experts on this issue, including the Joint
Staff J-4 and J-8. As an indicator of energy supportability under
combat conditions, the ``energy key performance parameter'' provides an
important tool for improving the capability of the future force.
Question. Section 2805 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 gave the Defense Department new authority to plan
and fund military construction projects directly related to energy
resiliency and mission assurance, and to help address and mitigate
against incidents like Incirlik, not to mention secure micro-grids to
help prevent cyber-attacks.
If confirmed, will you commit to use section 2805 to support
mission critical functions and address known energy vulnerabilities
with projects that are resilient and renewable?
Answer. Yes. Section 2805 grants the Department authority to expand
the energy conservation investment program to include energy resiliency
and energy security projects. This expanded authority enhances our
ability to fund energy resiliency projects (that could include
renewable technologies) that support our energy resilience strategy,
ensuring our military installations are prepared for and are capable of
recovering from energy disruptions that can affect mission assurance.
environment
Question. If confirmed, will you comply with environmental
regulations, laws, and guidance from the Environmental Protection
Agency?
Answer. Yes
Question. If confirmed, will you make the same level of investment
for the Defense Department's Environmental Research Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will give the Department's Environmental
Research Programs a careful review.
Question. If confirmed, will you work with the Department of
Interior and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to find cooperative ways
to ensure military readiness and protect the environment on and around
U.S. military installations?
Answer. Yes.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. I agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
Committee, or designated Members of this Committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. I agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee, or
designated Members of this Committee, and provide information, subject
to appropriate and necessary security protection, with respect to my
responsibilities as the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this Committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Answer. I agree to ensure that appropriate testimony, briefings,
and other communications of information are provided to this Committee
and its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner.
Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with this Committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
such documents?
Answer. I agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
a duly constituted committee, and to consult with this Committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
such documents.
Question. Do you agree to answer letters and requests for
information from individual Senators who are Members of this Committee?
Answer. I agree to respond appropriately to letters and requests
for information from Members of this Committee.
Question. If confirmed, do you agree to provide to this Committee
relevant information within the jurisdictional oversight of the
Committee when requested by the Committee, even in the absence of the
formality of a letter from the Chairman?
Answer. I agree to respond appropriately to letters and requests
for information from Members of this Committee.
------
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
force strength vs. global threats
1. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, do you expect the global threat
environment to become more or less complex over the next decade?
Mr. Shanahan. I expect the threat environment to become more
complex over the next decade as our adversaries develop capabilities
and techniques to disrupt our operations and freedom of movement.
Therefore, we must continue to leverage technological advances in order
to stay ahead of our adversaries and maintain our operational
advantage. This will require developing new capabilities, inventing new
concepts of operation, and accelerating our acquisition cycle. We need
to reform existing business processes while also developing new ways of
doing business to maintain our military advantages.
2. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, do you expect the operational
demands on the Armed Forces to decrease over the next decade?
Mr. Shanahan. No. Over the past decade and a half, the Department,
along with our allies and partners, has continuously engaged in the
fight against terrorism. It is difficult to predict where conflicts may
arise in the future, but the Department must be prepared for a wide
range of possibilities including terrorism, conventional conflict, the
threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, and cyber warfare.
3. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, do you believe our military needs
to be postured to fight two major theater conflicts near-
simultaneously?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes, I believe our military needs to have the
relevant capacity, capability, and readiness to defend U.S. global
interests. In recent decades, this has required a military that has
sufficient capacity to deter opportunistic aggression if we are engaged
in a major operation in a different theater. I think being prepared for
two simultaneous conflicts in separate theaters has served the United
States well, but the Defense Strategy Review currently underway will
review the force-sizing construct relative to threats, interests, and
resources required. I look forward, if confirmed, to contributing to
the strategy review to assess the options available to the Department
and the costs associated with those options.
readiness
4. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, how do you plan to restore
readiness to our Armed Forces . . . how do we regrow it, maintain the
equipment that has been through 2 decades of war, and train that force
to meet national security requirements?
Mr. Shanahan. As Secretary Mattis testified earlier this month, it
took us years to get into this situation and it will take us years to
get out of it. Readiness recovery can only be accomplished through
higher, stable, predictable funding along with sufficient time to train
our fighting forces. Funding is required to maintain equipment, pay
training costs, and increase manpower levels. Time is required to
properly reset the force and to get units through the training
pipeline. I believe another important factor in readiness is
modernization. The Department must remain cognizant that it cannot
mortgage modernization for near term readiness. If confirmed I will
support the Secretary's efforts to stabilize readiness recovery, and
will work to identify and eliminate any internal impediments.
russia
5. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, what lessons is Russian President
Vladimir Putin learning from Syria and Ukraine?
Mr. Shanahan. It is difficult to know for sure what President Putin
has learned, but military action in Ukraine has clearly helped him
further his goals to destabilize Russia's neighbors, undermine the
cohesion of NATO, and challenge the United States' influence in Europe.
In Syria, bolstering the Assad regime through military means has
simultaneously secured a Russian ally in the Middle East and further
challenged the credibility of the United States to exercise leadership
in this strategic region.
6. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, what concerns should the United
States have about how those lessons will play out in the future?
Mr. Shanahan. Such lessons could encourage Russia to undertake
further actions that are in direct opposition to United States
interests and United States leadership. I am concerned Moscow may
misjudge American resolve, generating further crises that increase the
likelihood of military confrontation between the United States and
Russia.
taiwan
7. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979,
along with the ``Six Assurances'', form the cornerstone of United
States-Taiwan relations and affirm our commitment to maintain Taiwan's
self-defense capability. How do you plan to implement the security
partnership that the United States has with Taiwan?
Mr. Shanahan. Our security partnership with Taiwan is of great
importance. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States
makes available defense articles and services necessary for Taiwan to
maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. This robust security
cooperation relationship also incorporates training on the operation,
maintenance and logistics support of the equipment that we provide. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department maintains substantive,
objectives-based defense engagements with Taiwan that bolster their
defensive capabilities and improve deterrence to maintain peace and
stability in the region.
eod equipment modernization
8. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Shanahan, the Department of Defense (DOD)
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) warfighters across the Military
Services require modernized equipment and updated technology. How will
you ensure our EOD warfighters continue to have the most current
equipment and technology?
Mr. Shanahan. The EOD community continually assesses capabilities
and emerging threats. Critical to this effort, DOD acquisition programs
and science and technology organizations invest in technologies that
leverage commercial market advances to ensure that our EOD warfighters
have the most current and capable equipment.
If confirmed, providing EOD warfighters with the best equipment
possible will be a high priority for me. I will work with Congress, the
Secretary, the Department's technology and acquisition professionals,
warfighters, and leaders within industry to promote innovation and
implementation of technology in this area as well as in the entire
defense acquisition process.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
technology innovation and acquisition
9. Senator Nelson. Mr. Shanahan, can you describe your experience
in streamlining the technology development process from innovation all
the way through to production?
Mr. Shanahan. During my time at Boeing, I had experience driving
technology innovation in both the commercial and defense sectors. On
the commercial side, most recently, it has been the deployment of
advanced robotics to automate composite wing manufacturing for the 777X
and the aluminum fuselage (previously a manual operation). I helped
lead the introduction of metallic and polymer 3D printing for
commercial aircraft which ultimately will transform cost and
customization for the industry. In addition, I have led an enterprise
effort to transform design and manufacturing methods for Boeing's
second century of operation which has concentrated on new engineering
techniques that will yield both high technical performance and
significant cost reductions. On the defense side, I led developments
involving low observables, directed energy, man/unmanned teaming of
rotary wing aircraft, common avionics and mission systems, and
structural optimization. My experience is broad-based in terms of
technology. I have transitioned technology from concept to full-scale
production in as short as 3 years on major production lines in
commercial aircraft at high production rates. If confirmed, I am
confident that my decades of experience in execution management will
allow me to successfully advise the Secretary in addressing the
challenges the Department faces.
10. Senator Nelson. Mr. Shanahan, how do you plan to apply those
experiences in this role?
Mr. Shanahan. If confirmed, I will bring a technical and management
background to the Deputy Secretary position. I believe the key to
success will be in focusing and motivating the Department's leadership
while setting demanding goals that experience tells me are achievable.
If confirmed, I will work quickly to get the new Under Secretaries for
Research & Engineering and Acquisition & Sustainment established so
they can, in turn, focus on getting advanced technologies into our
weapons systems faster. Incorporating new approaches and technologies
requires close collaboration among the technology developers, the
engineer/designers, and the users. Building trust and confidence early
in the process, with a total commitment to excellence, sets the
conditions for success. If confirmed, I will work with the S&T
community, the acquisition community, and the warfighters to make sure
we get the best ideas through the process and on to the battlefield.
cybersecurity
11. Senator Nelson. Mr. Shanahan, your predecessor in this role--
current Deputy Secretary Robert Work--has testified before this
Committee on the need to develop stronger cyber deterrence, as well as
the need to improve cyber defenses, including greater cyber hygiene
among DOD personnel to prevent network exploitation. What are your
specific plans to continue to build upon these efforts?
Mr. Shanahan. Effective cyber defenses are a critical component of
strong cyber deterrence. If confirmed, I will seek to build upon
ongoing efforts, including: continued development of cyber mission
focused teams; ensuring better tools and processes to mitigate threats;
continuing to recruit and train the forces and develop capabilities
that support the Department's missions in and through cyberspace;
hardening our most critical military systems, to include weapons
systems, networks, and information to ensure military effectiveness;
conducting training to increase workforce capabilities; supporting the
development of whole-of-government approaches to deter malicious cyber
activity; and partnering with other commercial institutions that are
investing significant sums of money in order to survive (e.g., large-
scale software developers like Microsoft, global securities companies
and international banking institutions). The threat will continue to be
dynamic and to be rapidly evolving, so the Department must focus on
ways to speed up the innovation and acquisition clock in support of
more rapid adaptation.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
acquisitions
12. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Shanahan, what are the major elements
that need to be addressed in order to fix our defense acquisition
system?
Mr. Shanahan. Opportunity exists on two time horizons: today and
for our next generation capability. For today, in my view,
strengthening technical and procurement skills in the Department would
have high-payoff. Aligning common procurement categories at the DOD
level vice military department would allow for more competitive bidding
and negotiations, flow-reduction for time to contract, develop a
stronger physics-based should-cost model versus historic parametrics,
reduction in overhead and oversight burden, and working-capital /
inventory management improvement. The most critical work for the future
is technology maturation, systems architectures and engineering, and
development of a robust supplier network. This work will reduce risk
and complexity for our defense acquisition system with a result being
significantly lower life-cycle cost, cycle time and greater capability.
Engineering drives the acquisition system more than anything else. If
confirmed, I will ensure the Department's model for acquiring
technology platforms is consistent with practices that produce superior
outcomes on the commercial market to the fullest extent appropriate.
Technical performance, cost and speed will carry equal priority.
cybersecurity and supply chain
13. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Shanahan, what are your thoughts on
cybersecurity, specifically in how we, as the U.S. Government, could do
more to integrate the private sector into our overall National
Cybersecurity Structure?
Mr. Shanahan. We face significant and dynamic challenges in
cyberspace. The threats are rapidly evolving and continuously threaten
our ability to match them. Of particular concern are the threats posed
by our adversaries and strategic competitors, who seek to use cyber
capabilities to undermine our military advantages. If confirmed, I will
support Secretary Mattis' efforts to develop a whole-of-government
approach in confronting these threats and protecting our national
security interests. This includes the critical infrastructure in the
United States, much of which is privately held, including: energy,
telecommunications, healthcare, and other core services critical to the
everyday lives of the American people. Given this reliance and the
threats we currently face, there is a need for more extensive public-
private partnerships to promote cybersecurity and expand the ways that
the Federal Government and private sector can work together, including:
enhancing situational awareness, expanding information and threat
sharing, exchanging best practices, and coordinating on both incident
response and vulnerability mitigation.
third offset
14. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Shanahan, what efforts related to the
Third Offset Strategy hold the most promise for quick innovation and
deployment to the field? Please provide a classified answer if
necessary.
Mr. Shanahan. The Third Offset hopes to combine advanced emerging
capabilities and technologies with new operational concepts to provide
dramatically improved warfighting and battlefield performance. Some
emerging concepts being explored include the Army's Multi-Domain
Battle. This concept would allow land-based forces the ability to
provide lethal and non-lethal effects against targets in all domains,
enabling freedom of maneuver for the entire Joint Force. Combined with
the Navy's distributed lethality operating concept, and the Air Force's
manned-unmanned teaming experiments (the pairing of high-end platforms,
with low-cost, disposable autonomous systems), these concepts hold
promise to countering advanced anti-access/area-denial networks. As I
understand, the initial technological focus areas of the Third Offset
include autonomous learning systems, artificial intelligence and big
data, advanced manned and unmanned teaming, and network-enable systems
hardened to operate in a future cyber/electronic warfare environment.
While I do not currently have access to the classified details of
the Third Offset Strategy, I believe these types of technology
initiatives are critical. If confirmed, I plan to support these efforts
and I will conduct a thorough review of the initiatives to assess the
maturity of the different efforts and talk to warfighters about the
potential benefits to them, with a view to getting the best
capabilities acquired and in the field at speed. Getting our innovation
and acquisition process right is my top priority.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
department of defense organization
15. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Shanahan, the 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act requires an up to 25 percent reduction in DOD
headquarters staffs. How do you intend on achieving this mandate while
meeting the administration's goal to grow the military and increase
procurement?
Mr. Shanahan. My experience has been that these two goals are not
mutually exclusive. The search for savings and efficiencies is ``basic
hygiene'' for good business. If confirmed, I will continue the
Department's efforts to reduce the size of major headquarters
activities and seek other opportunities to consolidate business
operations--with the ultimate goal of applying any savings to programs
that increase the lethality of the military. I will also look to use
the Congressionally-directed reorganization of AT&L to streamline
procurement processes and reduce layers in the Department.
small business
16. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Shanahan, what recommendations do you have
to improve the acquisition process to support small businesses working
on innovative technologies and transitioning these efforts into full-
rate production?
Mr. Shanahan. The bicycle makers from Dayton, Ohio, showed how they
could out maneuver whole nations attempting to develop flying machines.
The Wright Brothers have always been an inspiration and reminder to me
to have a critical eye for new thinking or ideas. Small businesses and
technology emerging from our universities are critical not only to the
U.S. economy broadly but also specifically to the defense industrial
base. Successes I had at Boeing came about by transplanting Boeing
personnel with the small business or research institution thus learning
how not to be encumbered by big business or big process. This unlocked
velocity, reduced risk and most importantly enhanced user/company
knowledge transfer such that the small businesses could more easily
understand how the technology could be more effectively tailored.
Additionally, performance goals need to be set. My experience is that
without goals and assessments of progress lots of little projects are
achieved but a robust process in not developed. At DOD, the recent
extension of the Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business
Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs could facilitate the
development and transition of innovative technologies. If confirmed, I
will review these and any other programs as part of a broader effort to
support small business participation in the acquisition process.
acquisition
17. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Shanahan, major acquisition programs can
take years, or even decades, to field a weapon system and we often find
that technologies provided in those systems are obsolete by the time
the systems are delivered. What are your recommendations for improving
the acquisition process to get new, innovative technologies out to the
field more rapidly?
Mr. Shanahan. Fundamentally, as a Department there must be a shift
from large, complex, customized systems to modular architectures that
support on-demand software updates, swapping out major components,
standards that allow choice, and multiple supply sources. This
engineering approach defines speed, cost, acquisition effectiveness and
obsolescence/innovativeness. In concert with creating more modular
software, hardware and system elements, I believe, the learning curve
traditionally associated with defense production can be eliminated
through simulations and automation. Advances in software and
affordable, adaptive automation will unlock new industrial capability.
The acquisition system will become increasingly transactional as the
engineering becomes simpler. Engineering transformation unlocks
acquisition streamlining.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
underinvesting in test ranges
18. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, a number of us have expressed
concern that DOD isn't investing in the infrastructure at our Nation's
test ranges, which are used to validate new weapons and delivery
systems. How important is it that new military technology has modern
infrastructure and instrumentation for its testing?
Mr. Shanahan. My experience is to continuously invest in test
ranges and ensure they are fully utilized. Proper testing is a critical
part of quickly getting new technology into the hands of warfighters.
New technology demands improved test infrastructure. If confirmed, I
will review DOD's current test infrastructure and recommend changes I
believe are necessary.
19. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, it's my understanding that DOD
has a funding model where one Military Service is responsible for
upkeep and modernization of a test range, even though each Military
Service utilizes the range. For example, White Sands Missile Range is
managed by the Army, and the Army is expected to fund all modernization
projects there, but it is a test range that the Air Force, Navy, and
Army all utilize. If confirmed, will you take a closer look at DOD's
ability to adequately resource our Nation's test ranges and make
reforms where appropriate?
Mr. Shanahan. If confirmed, I will review the Department's resource
methodologies. Test infrastructure is critical to the entire DOD
enterprise and if current funding models are insufficient I will
explore alternate options.
transitioning technology
20. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, I was pleased to see your
opening statement emphasize that you have experience in converting
technologies into operational capabilities. Can you talk about that
experience a little and explain how you, as Deputy Secretary of
Defense, would facilitate transitioning technologies out of
laboratories into the field?
Mr. Shanahan. My experience has been varied across many technical
domains: hardware, software, engineering, manufacturing, kinetic energy
weapons, directed energy weapons, airplanes, helicopters, manned/
unmanned machines, and others. Multi-disciplinary teams, technical
leadership and operating outside the controls of the enterprise have
been key drivers to success. Leadership must have a tolerance for
failure and must help navigate difficult problems. Perseverance and
sweat are foundational. If confirmed, I will partner with the Under
Secretary of Defense for AT&L (and subsequently the USD R&E) to
establish hard goals for operational capabilities (teams do better than
they ever think they can), have a transition timeline such that ideas/
efforts don't stall and fund progress to the plan. Part of my role that
adds fuel to the effort is a passion for technology and recognizing
talent such that they won't quit until they are successful.
21. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, a number of my colleagues and I
think this is an area that is primed for directed energy weapon systems
like high energy lasers and high power microwaves. Can I have your
commitment to take a close look at these next-generation-weapon-systems
and see how you can play a role in their transition?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes. I am committed to evaluating these next-
generation weapons and determining how they can support the Department
and, where applicable, transition to operational use. If confirmed, I
will review the Directed Energy Strategic Roadmap when it is completed
and assess the potential contribution of the different Directed Energy
systems to our warfighting capabilities.
russia threat
22. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, senior United States military
officials have said Russia is the number one threat to the United
States. Just last week, Secretary Mattis said, ``absolutely'' there
should be consequences for undermining our democratic process. Do you
believe Russia is a significant threat?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes.
23. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, do you believe there should be
consequences for undermining our democratic process?
Mr. Shanahan. Yes. I believe Russia should be held accountable.
pentagon bureaucracy and decision making
24. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, former Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates used ad-hoc task forces in the Pentagon to accelerate the
delivery of equipment and capabilities, because he knew that the
bureaucracy and acquisitions process would take too long. He also noted
that it routinely required his personal involvement to keep the
bureaucracy from smothering ad-hoc task force's efforts. If confirmed,
do you expect to face the same challenges in terms of bureaucracy?
Mr. Shanahan. I do expect there to be challenges as the Department
undertakes its modernization efforts, especially in accelerating the
delivery of warfighting capabilities that increase our technological
edge at the best price possible. In my experience, I have found that
bad processes--not necessarily bad people--are often the biggest
impediments to innovation and speed. If confirmed, I will use the
priorities established in the forthcoming National Defense Strategy to
align internal and external stakeholders to support the priorities for
force structure, capabilities, and investments. Having a strategy,
aligning all parties to the strategy, and clearly defining roles,
expectations, and accountability will be key elements in overcoming any
bureaucratic obstacles
25. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, to what extent will you use
your personal involvement to make decisions and move programs forward?
Mr. Shanahan. My style is a ``hands on'' approach because I believe
leadership is the essential element needed to change the status quo.
Leadership sets ambitious goals, actively provides change management to
implement reforms, and engages all stakeholders to achieve shared
goals. If confirmed, one of the chief responsibilities I envision as
Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer to Secretary Mattis is to
align resources to the strategy. Doing so at the required speed and
cost will require strong leadership and personal involvement from the
Deputy Secretary.
26. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Shanahan, last year, this Committee
authorized cross-functional teams to help get at this problem. Will you
commit to setting up these teams to strengthen the decision making
process?
Mr. Shanahan. I understand Secretary Mattis has already taken
advantage of the Committee's guidance on cross-functional teams and, if
confirmed, I also intend to make use of these teams. They are critical
to achieving real change. Most of my experience has been operating in
an environment composed of cross-functional teams. The most impactful
changes come from the interaction of multi-disciplines. On the
battlefield it is called joint. DOD needs to have the same mindset with
internal operations.
------
[The nomination reference of Mr. Patrick M. Shanahan
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 7, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the
Committee on Armed Services:
Patrick M. Shanahan, of Washington, to be Deputy Secretary
of Defense, vice Robert O. Work, resigned.
------
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Patrick M. Shanahan, which
was transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Mr. Patrick M. Shanahan
Education:
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of
Government (Cambridge, MA)
- 2004
- Program: ``Senior Executives in National and International
Security''
Stanford University, Graduate School of Business,
School of Engineering (Stanford, CA)
- 1996
- Graduate Certificate: ``Product Development and Innovative
Manufacturin''
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA)
- 1991
- Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
- Master of Business Administration, Sloan School of Management
University of Washington (Seattle, WA)
- 1985
- Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Employment Record:
The Boeing Company: March 1986 to June 7, 2017
Chronology of positions held:
- April 2016 to Present
- Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Operations
- Mukilteo, WA
- Description: a member of the Boeing Executive Council,
responsible for oversight of the company's manufacturing operations and
supplier management functions, including implementation of advanced
manufacturing technologies and global supply chain strategies. Also
leads Boeing's Environment, Health & Safety and Intellectual Property
Management organizations.
- January 2009 to April 2016
- Senior Vice President & General Manager, Airplane Programs
- Everett, WA
- Description: Managed over 36,000 employees globally with P&L
responsibility of $60 billion. Responsible for the profitability,
design, assembly and delivery of the 737, 747, 767, 777 and 787
airplanes. Executed 20 production rate increases to deliver over 4,300
airplanes on revenue growth from $23 billion to $59 billion.
- October 2007 to January 2009
- Vice President & General Manager, 787 Dreamliner Program
- Everett, WA
- Description: Managed over 8,000 employees globally with P&L
responsibility of $4 billion. Responsible for all aspects of design,
test, certification, deployment of a globally-distributed supply chain
and development of follow-on derivatives.
- December 2004 to October 2007
- Vice President & General Manager, Missile Defense Systems
- Arlington, VA
- Description: Managed 4,200 employees in nine locations with
P&L responsibility of $2.8 billion. Responsible for development and
deployment of advanced missile defense technologies and systems. Key
programs included Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Airborne Laser.
- April 2002 to December 2004
- Vice President & General Manager, Army Programs
- Philadelphia, PA
- Description: Managed 10,000 employees between Ridley Park,
PA and Mesa, AZ with P&L responsibility of $2.9 billion. Responsible
for the design, production and profitability of the RAH-66 Comanche,
AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook helicopter programs.
- February 2000 to April 2002
- Vice President & General Manager, 757 Program
- Renton, WA
- Description: Managed over 1,400 employees with P&L
responsibility of $1.6 billion. Responsible for the design, production
and profitability of the Boeing 757 family of airplanes.
- March 1999 to February 2000
- 767-400ER Program Manager
- Everett, WA
- Description: Responsible for the development, certification
and delivery of the Boeing 767-400ER.
- July 1997 to March 1999
- 767 Manufacturing Business Unit Director
- Everett, WA
- Description: Managed 1,200 person business unit with an
annual budget of over $150 million. Oversaw factory operations
including body structure assembly, systems installation, final body
join, functional test and interior installation.
- December 1995 to July 1997
- Manufacturing Business Unit Manager, Fabrication Division
- Auburn, WA
- Description: Managed 1,500 person, 500,000 square foot
autonomous business unit with an annual budget of over $200 million.
Responsible for engineering, manufacturing and procuring detail-
production and assembly tooling. Accomplishments include: 80 percent
improvement in delivery; 57 percent reduction in pickups; 50 percent
reduction in lost time accidents; and meeting budget.
- September 1995 to December 1995
- Tooling Superintendent, Fabrication Division
- Auburn, WA
- Description: Managed tool engineering and fabrication
operations composed of 850 employees and over 300,000 square feet of
design and manufacturing facilities.
- February 1995 to September 1995
- Tool Engineering Manager, Fabrication Division
- Auburn, WA
- Description: Managed Tool Engineering organization composed
of 215 employees (115 tool designers, 50 manufacturing engineers, 40 N/
C programmers and 10 supervisors). Accomplishments include: 100 percent
improvement in delivery; 40 percent cost reduction; and 25 percent
improvement in productivity.
- January 1994 to February 1995
- General Supervisor, Fabrication Division
- Auburn, WA
- Description: Managed 250,000 square feet of manufacturing
facilities with 400 employees (350 union represented, 15 managers and
35 support). Responsible for the design, N/C programming, machining and
assembly of sheet metal and composite tooling. Accomplishments include:
40 percent decrease in cycle time; virtual elimination of all order
shortages to customers; 25 percent improvement in productivity; and 50
percent reduction in accidents.
- March 1993 to January 1994
- Major Assembly Manager, 77'7 Division
- Everett, WA
- Description: Responsible for the assembly of Boeing 777 rear
spar. Managed crew of 15 mechanics who installed all major flight
control and landing gear support fittings. Accomplishments include:
reduced rejection tags 75 percent; reduced pick-ups 50 percent; and
consistently delivered assembly under budget and ahead of schedule.
- July 1991 to March 1993
- Tooling Supervisor, Fabrication Division
- Auburn, WA
- Description: Managed 37 hourly toolmakers and machinists
responsible for designing, N/C programming, machining and assembling
sheet metal tools. Determined applicability, appropriateness and
comprehensiveness of an automated shop floor control system for
Commercial Airplane Group tooling organization. Developed project
strategy, functional requirements and implementation plan.
- June 1989 to July 1991
- Graduate Student, MIT
- Cambridge, MA
- Description: Obtained two Masters Degrees, one in Mechanical
Engineering, one in Business.
- November 1988 to June 1989
- Senior Engineer, Boeing Computer Services
- Seattle, WA
- Description: Directed a data processing staff responsible
for the operation and maintenance of an eleven-node VAX network.
Performed systems engineering, capacity planning, budget forecasting,
and user consulting.
- March 1986 to November 1988
- Engineer, Boeing Computer Services
- Seattle, WA
- Description: Developed integrated simulation of Stealth
bomber fuel system using DEC, CDC and Cray computers. Used simulation
models to evaluate air vehicle performance for contract specified
flight missions.
Honors and Awards:
- 2016 International Honor Award: Society of Manufacturing
Engineers (SME) Eli Whitney Productivity Award
Affiliations.
- Chair, University of Washington Board of Regents
- Member, Washington Roundtable
- Fellow, Society of Manufacturing Engineers
- Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Mr. Patrick M.
Shanahan in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed, use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
part a--biographical information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in Committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearing and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Patrick M. Shanahan.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
June 7, 2017.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.
5. Date and place of birth:
1962, Palo Alto, CA.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Not Married.
7. Names and ages of children (if over age 18):
Kayla Shanahan, William Shanahan
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of
Government (Cambridge, MA)
- 2004
- Program: ``Senior Executives in National and International
Security''
Stanford University, Graduate School of Business,
School of Engineering (Stanford, CA)
- 1996
- Graduate Certificate: ``Product Development and Innovative
Manufacturing''
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA)
- 1991
- Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
- Master of Business Administration, Sloan School of
Management
University of Washington (Seattle, WA)
- 1985
- Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
The Boeing Company
- Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Operations
- April 2016 to June 2017
- Mukilteo, WA
The Boeing Company
- Senior Vice President & General Manager, Airplane Programs
- January 2009 to April 2016
- Everett, WA
The Boeing Company, Vice President & General Manager,
787 Dreamliner Program
- October 2007 to January 2009
- Everett, WA
The Boeing CompanyVice President & General Manager,
Missile Defense Systems
- December 2004 to October 2007
- Arlington, VA
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
University of Washington, Officer, Board of Regents.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Fellow, Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
Member, American Helicopter Society International.
Fellow, The Royal Aeronautical Society.
Member, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Member, Boeing Management Association (I have resigned
from this Association effective June 7, 2017.)
Member, Seattle Golf Club
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) if you have ever been a candidate for or have been elected or
appointed to a political office, list the name of the office(s), wether
you were elected/appointed/candidate, the year(s) the election was held
or the appointment was made, and the term of office (if applicable).
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all individual political contributions of $100 or more
to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political
action committee, or similar entity for the past 5 years. List each
individual contribution and not the total amount contributed to the
person or entity during the year.
As an employee of the Boeing Company, I contributed to the
Boeing Political Action Committee through a recurring bi-weekly payroll
deduction. My contributions for the last 5 calendar years were:
2017 - $2,112
2016 - $4,992
2015 - $4,992
2014 - $5,000
2013 - $4,992
2012 - $4,992
I have also contributed to the following:
Senator Patty Murray (2016) - $500
Governor Jay Inslee (2016) - $1,000
Representative Elise Stefanik (2016) - $500
King County Executive Dow Constantine (2016) - $1,000
Representative Frank Chopp (2014) - $250
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
2016 International Honor Award: Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Eli Whitney Productivity Award
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years of which you have
copies and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitments regarding nomination, confirmation, and service:
(a) If confirmed, will you adhere to applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Yes.
(b) Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?
No.
(c) If confirmed, will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
Yes.
(d) Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to Congressional requests?
Yes.
(e) Will you promise to enforce or ensure whistleblower protections
foR all those witnesses?
Yes.
(f) Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request
before this Committee?
Yes.
(g) Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
a duly constituted Committee, or to consult with the Committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
such documents?
Yes.
------
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the Committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the Committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Patrick M. Shanahan
This 8th day of June, 2017
------
[The nomination of Mr. Patrick M. Shanahan was reported to
the Senate by Chairman McCain on June 28, 2017, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 18, 2017.]
[all]