[Senate Hearing 115-904]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-904
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF RICHARD
V. SPENCER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-918 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TIM KAINE, Virginia
TED CRUZ, Texas ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
BEN SASSE, Nebraska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
july 11, 2017
Page
To Consider the Nomination of Richard V. Spencer to be Secretary 1
of the Navy.
Members Statements
McCain, Senator John............................................. 1
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Virginia, Retired........... 2
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 4
Witness Statements
Spencer, Richard V., to be Secretary of the Navy................. 6
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 35
Questions for the Record....................................... 58
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 74
Biographical Sketch............................................ 75
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 76
Signature Page................................................. 78
(iii)
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF RICHARD V. SPENCER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2017
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz,
Graham, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Blumenthal,
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman McCain. The Armed Services Committee meets today
to consider the nomination of Mr. Richard V. Spencer to be
Secretary of the Navy.
To begin with, I would like to acknowledge the tragedy in
Mississippi yesterday. The 16 servicemembers who lost their
lives in the crash of a Marine Corps KC-130 from Cherry Point,
North Carolina remind us that these brave men and women put
themselves in harm's way every day, at home and abroad, in
training and in combat in service to our Nation. We are all
keeping their families in our hearts and prayers.
Mr. Spencer, we thank you for joining us this morning. We
also welcome your family and friends with us today. As is our
tradition, at the beginning of your testimony, we invite you to
introduce those who are joining you.
It is the standard for this Committee to ask certain
questions in order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities. It is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress be able to receive
testimony, briefings, and other communications of information.
I am going to ask you the standard questions we ask every
nominee before this committee.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Spencer. 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. Spencer. I will.
Chairman McCain. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Spencer. I will.
Chairman McCain. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Spencer. They will.
Chairman McCain. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this Committee?
Mr. Spencer. I do.
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. Spencer. I do.
Chairman McCain. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Spencer. I have not.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
The next Secretary of the Navy will assume this role during
a time of immense importance for U.S. seapower.
I note the presence of one of our most distinguished
Members and dear friend of every Member of the Committee,
Republican and Democrat, and perhaps it would be more
convenient for us to hear from Senator Warner before I proceed
with my opening statement. Senator Warner, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA,
RETIRED
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed, and
Members of the Committee, particularly Jim Inhofe and Bill
Nelson and Mr. Wicker.
It is a very humbling experience for me to appear here on
behalf of this distinguished nominee. If I ever reflect on this
great Committee, I just think about the marvelous traditions it
has established for the entirety of the Senate throughout its
long existence. I say to the new Members of the Committee I
wish you well, and I am confident as you pursue your careers in
life, that you will always look back on your membership on this
Committee as a very special privilege because after all, the
function of this Committee is to provide care for the men and
women of the armed forces of the United States, together with
their families.
Now, I know the Chairman is anxious for me to be brief, and
I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. But I would like to say that on
my left is Mr. Spencer, his lovely wife, and they will be a
magnificent team in my humble judgment to serve America and to
serve the men and women of the armed forces, most particularly
the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Mr. Spencer has a very interesting and broad career. He is
quite adept and knowledgeable on all aspects of finance, not
only domestically here in our country but globally. Together
with his other achievements in life, which are manifold--and
you have got all the papers before you. But I point out that he
served on the Department of Defense (DOD) Business Board for
some 6 years showing his interest in national security for
those years. Then he was chairman of the Marine Corps Heritage
Foundation. So he has kept all of his priorities carefully in
tow throughout his life.
I would like to say that he achieved something that I
always wanted to achieve. Our distinguished Chairman got the
Navy wings of gold and he got the Marine Corps wings of gold
and spent one whole tour, several years, as a pilot of the
helicopters, the rotary. But he did his fixed wing time, I am
sure, before he got there.
He loved the Marine Corps and he loved the military life,
and he looked forward to that day when he might be able to
return and become more active. This is one of the most
interesting and wonderful positions in our entire establishment
of the Federal Government is Secretary of the Navy.
I would like to say that I am not a stranger to the
proceedings we are undertaking, but there is an aspect of this
particular confirmation proceeding that I have never
encountered before. On his own initiative, he reached out and
counseled with ten Secretaries of the Navy to ask of them what
they thought of the challenges of today, how best he might be
able to fulfill those challenges. We have with us today--Will
Ball was one of them, John Dalton, Richard Danzig, Gordon
England, John Lehman, Sean O'Keefe, Sean Stackley who is acting
Secretary, Jim Webb, Don Winter, and yours truly. I want to be
very careful in my summary, having talked to all of them about
this moment where I sort of represent the gang. We do not wish
to be presumptuous. So we couch our words in the following
sentence, and that is we believe this fine man and his lovely
wife are most worthy of being here today and being given the
opportunity to appear before you as you perform your
constitutional duty of advice and consent.
With that, I conclude my remarks. Semper fi, my good
friend. You are on your own.
[Laughter.]
Chairman McCain. Senator Warner, you bring unique
credentials to this body, having served as both Secretary of
the Navy and Chairman of this Committee. I and the Members on
both sides of the aisle take your words with the utmost
seriousness. We thank you for your return, thank you for your
leadership, thank you for the many years that you spent with me
helping me in my responsibilities as a Member of this
Committee. We thank you, sir.
Senator Warner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for our long
personal friendship. I recall so well when I became Under
Secretary of the Navy prior to being Secretary, how your
father, then commander-in-chief of all forces of the Pacific,
together with your extraordinary mother, reached out to help me
as a young man, very young man. I think I was about the
youngest that time, and I took on these responsibilities in
1969, many years ago. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCain. Thank you, Senator Warner.
The next Secretary of the Navy will assume this role during
a time of immense importance for U.S. seapower. Some of the
greatest threats and challenges of the future will be in the
maritime domain, and it is critical that our Navy and Marine
Corps are prepared to fight and win decisively.
The Secretary has broad authority and responsibility for
all affairs of the Department of the Navy, including the
manning, training, equipping, and maintaining of naval forces.
As we heard from the Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant
of the Marine Corps last month, their forces face significant
readiness shortfalls and the urgent need to grow and modernize.
This Committee looks forward to hearing how you would
address the challenges confronting the Navy and Marine Corps:
more than $15 billion in readiness shortfalls and unfunded
priorities, plans to achieve the larger Navy and Marine Corps
service leaders say we need, and delivering acquisition
programs at cost, on schedule, and with the promised
capability.
The sad truth is in recent years we have not given our
sailors and marines what they need to succeed. As we have asked
ever more of them, we have failed in our responsibility to
provide them with the necessary resources, training, and
equipment. This puts their lives in greater danger every day,
and we can waste no time in reversing course.
Restoring readiness, rebuilding capacity, and modernizing
to regain the technological advantage of our naval forces will
require clear vision and strong leadership from the next Navy
Secretary. Mr. Spencer, I look forward to discussing your plan
to approach these demands, if confirmed.
This Committee is grateful both for your prior service, as
well as your willingness to serve again. As a U.S. marine and
as a member of the Defense Business Board, you have
demonstrated your dedication to this Nation. I am confident
that your decades of experience leading large, complex
operations and businesses has prepared you to take on this
role, if you are confirmed.
In closing, this Committee honors the service and sacrifice
of all of our sailors and marines. Mr. Spencer, we look forward
to hearing your testimony about how you plan to lead the
Department of the Navy during this crucial time.
Senator Reed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
join you in welcoming Mr. Spencer to the Committee and thank
you for willingness to serve as Secretary of the Navy. Also let
me thank your family for the support they provide to you.
Let me also recognize Senator Warner. Senator, your example
continues to inspire this Committee. We will get there
eventually to your level, but we are trying we assure you.
I too want to join the Chairman in recognizing and paying
tribute to the servicemembers and their families in the Navy
and Marine Corps. We are saddened by loss of life during the
recent incident on the USS Fitzgerald and just last evening
with the crash of the KC-130 Marine Corps tanker. Our prayers
go out to the crews and families of those two units. This
accident serves as a humbling reminder of the perils that our
servicemembers endure daily, whether they are deployed to
combat zones or conducting routine operations.
Mr. Spencer, if you are confirmed to this position, you
will be faced with a number of critical issues that confront
the Department of the Navy.
The Navy and the Marine Corps have historically had to deal
with the day-to-day strains of deployment and high operating
tempos. With concerns about supporting the readiness of our
deployed and non-deployed forces, the next Secretary's efforts
in managing improvements in the force and its supporting
structure will be critical.
As a first priority, it seems to me that the Secretary of
the Navy should focus on improving readiness of the existing
forces. For example, it seems very shortsighted to me for the
Navy to have allowed the diving certifications for the USS
Boise to expire and then have to tie that boat to a pier for
more than a year when combatant commanders' demands for
submarine services are unmet. Our global threat environment
dictates an increased need for advanced platforms like the
Boise to be utilized for our national security instead of
docked due to administrative shortcomings.
While readiness is very important, the next Secretary must
also confront other challenges that face our Navy. For a number
of years, many of us have expressed concern about the size of
the Navy fleet and the number of ships we are building each
year. Last December, the Chief of Naval Operations released an
updated force structure assessment which recommended a total
fleet of 355 ships.
However, as challenging as it may be to increase the number
of ships in the fleet, numbers alone are not enough. This past
May, the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] also released a paper
titled ``The Future Navy,'' in which he said in part ``more
platforms are necessary but not sufficient. The Navy must also
incorporate new technologies and new operational concepts.'' I
echo the CNO's sentiments about modernizing our fleet and
operational concepts, but it is a goal that you will find faces
many obstacles.
By implementing the Packard Commission recommendations
years ago, Congress and the Department took the service
secretaries out of the chain of command for major defense
acquisition programs. The service secretary, however, plays a
critical role in the budget and requirements decisions that
drive the acquisition programs. As we begin procurement funding
for the Columbia-class program this year, I believe the
Secretary of the Navy will play an integral role in guiding
this critical program.
The challenges that the Navy faces are further exacerbated
by the budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act.
Left unaddressed, these challenges will limit the Navy's
ability to field, train, and equip a modern Navy required to
confront the global threats to our country.
I look forward to hearing your testimony on how we can
modernize our fleet and improve our cost efficiency of our
acquisition process.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I look
forward to supporting this nomination and working with Mr.
Spencer in the future.
Chairman McCain. Mr. Spencer, welcome. As I mentioned
earlier, if you would like to introduce members of your family
who are here today, please proceed so we can interrogate you as
quickly as possible.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF RICHARD V. SPENCER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
First, I would like to thank Senator Warner for his
eloquent introduction and his unending service to our country.
I would also like to thank Secretary Mattis for his support
and the President for his continuing confidence in nominating
me for this position.
At this time, I would also like to introduce my wife Polly,
my daughter Averil, my son Pierce, my step-son Joseph who are
here with me today.
I too would like to reflect for a minute. The Navy/Marine
Corps team was struck last night with a tragedy. Fifteen
marines, one sailor perished. I would just like us all to keep
their loved ones and their families in our thoughts and prayers
as we conduct our business today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, Members of
this Committee.
Thirty-six years ago to the month, I was driving through
the tomato fields surrounding the landing pads at Marine Corps
Air Station, Tustin, California. My trustee steed at that time
was a beige 1968 VW bug that carried me out of the gates for
the last time as I ended a tour with Marine Helicopter Squadron
161. Headed northbound to the entrance of the Pacific Coast
Highway, I can tell you without hesitation that the thought of
me sitting before this august group being considered as
Secretary of the Navy was not to be found even in the most
remotest parts of my mind.
However, during those 36 years, I was educated in financial
and operational management, increasing in scope as I progressed
through my career. The leadership skills developed in the
Marine Corps were strengthened and honed through various
positions I held in both public and private sector. I was a
student and then practitioner of disruptive technology while
being respectful of industrial science. The journey from the
gates of Tustin to here has, I believe, provided me with the
knowledge and the skill set to tackle the issues at hand.
It truly is a great honor for me to appear before you
seeking the confirmation as the 76th Secretary of the Navy. The
honor to be here today is magnified by the current state of
play in the world today, which is nothing less than a perfect
storm. We have been at war for the past 16 years with the
operational tempo of the various conflicts in which we are
engaged denying us the needed time and resources for
modernization and maintenance. Add to that the growing
requirements generated by the combatant commanders who are
facing continually evolving threats from all corners of the
globe, and you have a Navy/Marine Corps team that has been
continually engaged and stretched thin.
At the same time, the impact of the Budget Control Act,
which gave birth to sequestration, coupled with the inability
to produce consistent sources of funding in the form of annual
budgets, has produced an environment where, as Secretary Mattis
has said, we are no longer managing risk. We are now gambling.
We must immediately commence the heavy lifting needed to
buttress the effects of the storm in order to build fleet
readiness in the near term and to increase the Navy/Marine
Corps capability and capacity in the near future.
Before I answer your questions addressing my ability to
lead the Department of the Navy, let me briefly provide you
with my views of naval matters.
First, people are our most valuable and most expensive
resource within the Navy. The Marine Corps/Marine Corps team,
their families, and their civilian teammates have never failed
our Nation and they never will.
However, I believe that we are failing them through such
actions as the Budget Control Act and continuing resolutions.
Due to their determination and patriotism, they have and
continue to do more with less. I also believe their diligence,
attention to duty, and commitment to putting the Nation and
their teammates above themselves has not been reciprocated in
all instances. If confirmed, I do not want to stifle their
``can do'' attitude. I do not want to do that in the least. But
I also do not want to send the signal that we are taking it for
granted. It is not the Secretary of the Navy nor the Department
of Defense nor Congress that is bearing the brunt of this
situation. Rather, it is the sailors, marines, our citizen
soldiers in the Reserves and their families who are squarely
shouldering the burden. All the while, there is a growing
demand from the private sector to employ our sailors and
marines which puts more pressure on readiness and retention. We
must work together to find the resources and the solutions
necessary to make the Navy a preferred career.
Second, I believe that U.S. naval superiority is a
cornerstone for the foundation of American security and global
stability. A maneuverable, forward-deployed Navy/Marine Corps
team is an integral element that increases the options
available for a whole-of-government solution to situations
around the globe. In order to support that mission, we must
address the capability and capacity of our fleet forces. I
believe the nuclear triad is one of America's more effective
threat deterrents, and the Navy owns the most survivable leg of
that weapons system. Therefore, it owns the task to maintain
and modernize its component of the triad.
As the Navy steps out to act upon the intent of the
President and the Secretary of Defense, it must do so with a
renewed rigor and effectively apply the resources granted by
you, the Congress, with an enhanced sense of urgency. The
organization must analyze all its existing systems and
platforms to extract all additional efficiencies while, at the
same time, it incorporates the advantages provided by both
internal research and development and advancements developed by
the private sector. Urgency must be the theme as we enhance our
readiness and existing capabilities in order to fight beyond
our present capacity, all the while addressing the future
build-out of the fleet.
Finally, I believe the organizational construct needed to
deliver the aforementioned goals is one that is flat, lean, and
agile. It is an organization where those who face and manage
critical situations have the ability to make decisions with the
full understanding of the responsibility and accountability
associated with the outcome.
My business career has been well served by the credo that
accountability starts at the top and then permeates throughout
the organization. I have also learned that each member of an
effective organization must be empowered to put forth changes
that will enhance its operational efficiencies. To adapt in the
face of competition, the whole Navy team must be engaged. If I
am confirmed, I would use a tag line borrowed from the
Department of Homeland Security and that I have paraphrased as
my guiding principle to change the organization: ``If you see
something, suggest something.''
In closing, let me say that I do not come before you with a
preconceived agenda to address the issues facing the Navy and
the Marine Corps. I come before you ready to expeditiously
assess the current situation, develop the tools needed to
enhance its ability to fight, and to deliver on the
responsibilities of the office of the Secretary of the Navy, as
delineated in title X. If confirmed, I will accomplish this by
coordinating the efforts of the Chief of Naval Operations, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, the secretariat and the
Senators and Members of Congress through leadership that is
grounded in transparency and accountability.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mr. Richard Spencer
I would like to thank Senator Warner for his very gracious
introduction and for his unending service to our country. I would also
like to thank Secretary Mattis for his support and the President for
his confidence in nominating me for this position.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed and Members of this
Committee. It is a great honor for me to appear before this you seeking
confirmation as the 76th Secretary of the Navy. The honor is
specifically magnified by the current state of play in the world today,
which is nothing less than a perfect storm. We have been at war for the
past 16 years with the operational tempo of the various conflicts in
which we are engaged denying us the needed time and resources for
modernization and maintenance. Add to that the growing requirements
generated by the Combatant Commanders who are facing continually
evolving threats from all corners of the globe, and you have a Navy
Marine Corps team that has been continually engaged and stretched thin.
At the same time the impact of the Budget Control Act, which gave birth
to sequestration, and the inability to produce consistent sources of
funding in the form of budgets, has produced an environment where, as
Secretary Mattis has said, ``We are no longer managing risk, we are now
gambling.'' We must immediately commence the heavy lifting needed to
buttress the effects of this storm in order to build fleet readiness in
the near term and increase the Navy's capability and capacity, both of
which are needed to satisfy the Combatant Commanders requirements.
Before I answer your questions addressing my ability to lead the
Department of the Navy, let me briefly provide you with my views of
naval matters. First, people are our most valuable and most expensive
resource within the Navy. The Navy Marine Corps Team, their families
and their civilian teammates have never failed our Nation and they
never will. However, I believe that we are failing them through such
actions as the Budget Control Act and Continuing Resolutions. Due to
their determination and patriotism they have, and continue to, do more
with less. I also believe their diligence, attention to duty and
commitment to putting the Nation and their teammates above themselves
has not been reciprocated in all instances. If confirmed, I do not want
to stifle their ``can do'' spirit in the least, but I also do not want
to send the signal we are taking it for granted. It is not the
Secretary of the Navy, nor the Department of Defense, nor the Congress
that is bearing the brunt of this current situation. Rather, it is the
sailors, marines, our citizen soldiers in the Reserves and their
families who are squarely shouldering the burden. All the while, there
is a growing demand within the private sector to employ sailors' and
Marines' which puts more pressure on retention. The Navy must boost its
efforts to compete with Corporate America and focus on delivering
exceptional educational opportunities and professional challenges in
order to keep this high performing Navy Marine Corps team in place. We
must work together to find the resources and the solutions necessary to
make the Navy a preferred career.
Second, I believe that U.S. Naval superiority is a cornerstone of
the foundation for American security and global stability. A
maneuverable, forward deployed Navy Marine Corps team is an integral
element that increases the options available for a whole-of-government
solution to situations around the globe. In order to support that
mission, we must address the capability and capacity of our fleet
forces. I believe the nuclear triad is one of America's more effective
threat deterrents, and the Navy owns the most survivable leg of that
weapons system. Therefore, it owns the task to maintain and modernize
its leg of the triad. As the Navy steps out the act upon the intent of
the President and the Secretary of Defense, it must do so with renewed
rigor and effectively apply its resources with an enhanced sense of
urgency. The organization must analyze its existing systems and
platforms to extract all additional efficiencies, while, at the same
time, it incorporates the advantages provided by both internal research
& development and advances developed by the private sector. Urgency
must be the theme as we enhance our existing capabilities in order to
fight beyond our present capacity while also focusing on increasing the
size of the fleet.
Finally, I believe the organizational construct needed to deliver
the aforementioned goals is one that is flat, lean and agile. It is an
organization where those who face and manage situations have the
ability to make decisions with the full understanding of the
responsibility and accountability associated with the outcome. My
business career has been well served by the credo that accountability
starts at the top and then permeates through the organization. I have
also learned that the each member of an effective organization must be
empowered to put forth changes that will enhance its operational
efficiencies. To adapt in the face of competition, the whole Navy team
must be engaged. If I am confirmed, I would use a tag line borrowed
from the Department of Homeland Security, and that I have paraphrased,
as my guiding principle to changing the organization: ``If you see
something, suggest something.''
In closing, let me say that I do not come before you with a
preconceived agenda to address the issues facing the Navy and the
Marine Corps. I come before you ready to expeditiously assess the
current situation, develop the tools needed to enhance its ability to
fight, and to deliver on the responsibilities of the office of the
Secretary of the Navy as delineated in Title X. If confirmed, I will
accomplish this by coordinating the efforts of the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Secretariat and the
Senators and Members of Congress, through leadership that is grounded
in transparency and accountability. Thank you, and I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman McCain. Well, thank you, Mr. Spencer.
I was just on a trip with several of my colleagues, Senator
Warren, Senator Perdue, Senator Graham, Senator Whitehouse, and
among other places that we spent the Fourth of July, as I have
for many years, in Kabul and outside of Kabul with the men and
women serving in the military, among a number of events that we
do with them for Fourth of July was to do a town hall meeting
with a large number of men and women who are in uniform.
Senator Graham, as happens once every decade, asked a very
astute question. He asked how many in the room were there for
more than the first time in Afghanistan. The majority raised
their hands. He said how many have been here more than twice.
The majority raised their hands. He said how many have been
here three times. A significant number raised their hands.
In other words, to me it was something that was a graphic
demonstration of the incredible burden that our Active Duty
military has been bearing over the last 15 or 16 years. They
are brave. They are proud. They are the best maybe we have had
in a long, long time. But they are not fully equipped and they
are not fully trained and they are not given the authority and
responsibility that they need in order to win this conflict.
The fact is in Afghanistan we are not winning. We are not
winning. No less than our military commander in Afghanistan
will tell you that is a fact.
That has to be turned around. We cannot ask these young men
and women to keep going over there with a strategy that in
order to defend an ANA, Afghan National Army, garrison--in
order to defend itself, it has to have permission from somebody
in the White House on the National Security Council staff. I am
exaggerating a bit, but the fact is that if you ask any of
these young men and women who have been there and there and
there, they will tell you that they can win this fight but they
have got to have both the equipment and the authority to do so.
It is not that they are not well led. They are. It is not that
they are not capable. They are. But it is a ``don't lose''
strategy which is epitomized by the former President's speech
at West Point where he said we are going to surge and we are
going to increase the number of troops there, and we are going
to win. By the way, we are leaving on a certain date. If you
are Mr. Baghdadi and you hear that, I think the conclusions you
draw are obvious.
We have got ships that are stuck at the pier, two nuclear
submarines that have been sitting at the pier for over a year
because of lack of spare parts. Sixty percent of our F-16's are
grounded. The list goes on and on and on and on. It has got to
do with the Budget Control Act, one of the greatest acts of
cowardice ever enacted by the Congress of the United States.
How serious do you think the problem is, and what do you
think we need to do?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I believe it is probably one of the
most serious issues that we are facing right now for national
security. The Budget Control Act has wreaked havoc with our
readiness, the impacts on the lives of our sailors and marines.
Doing the office calls that I had with you all, I find
great comfort and excitement in the fact that everyone is
leaning in on this issue. There is a lot of heavy lifting that
has to be done. There is a lot of cheese moving that has to be
done. We have to streamline processes. We have to address
capabilities. I believe that is number one on the issue. If you
look my priorities, they are people, capabilities, and process
to address these and provide--apply the resources that we have
for the down payment on readiness and move forward into
building out the fleet.
Chairman McCain. Well, on your third one, the process,
probably the greatest source of frustration to Members of this
Committee on both sides is the continued cost overruns
associated with acquisition. A few years ago in 2013, I asked a
former Chief of Naval Operations who was responsible for the $2
billion--$2 billion--cost overrun on the USS Gerald R. Ford. He
said he did not know. When I asked a former Air Force Chief of
Staff about the F-35 cost overruns, he did not think anyone had
been fired.
What are we going to do about this?
Now, 2 years in a row now, we have held people accountable.
We put the service chiefs in the mix and made them responsible.
We have taken a number of measures to hold people responsible.
But how is it we have reached a point where you can have a $2
billion cost overrun on an aircraft carrier, one ship--one
ship, a $2 billion cost overrun--and no one is responsible?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, my career has been steeped in
accountability, and I can tell you right now that the
accountability starts right here. The way that we address this
is through behavioral management. You reward positive events,
and you have other tools at your disposal to take care of
projects that are not performing. You make this very
transparent. I am going to be coming before you all asking for
resources, but I also have to have my decks clean to make sure
those resources and the treasures of the American taxpayer are
put forth in a fiduciarially prudent manner.
Chairman McCain. Do you know of anyone who has been fired
from their job because of cost overruns?
Mr. Spencer. Not yet, Senator.
Chairman McCain. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, again for your service already and
your commitment to serve the Navy.
You reflected in your opening statement the critical nature
of the triad and the fact that the Navy is the leading edge of
that with the Columbia-class program. The CNO has called it the
Navy's top modernization priority. I assume you feel the same
way?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator.
Senator Reed. I think in the spirit of the conversation you
had with the Chairman is that one of the things we want to do
is make sure that program stays on schedule and on budget or
below budget. Both General Dynamics and Ingalls have done a
remarkable job with the Virginia-class, keeping them ahead of
schedule with each new boat and making sure the budget is
sound. We want that same tradition, and I know you want that
same tradition with Columbia.
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
As I mentioned before, not only do we need more ships, but
we need new operational concepts and new technologies. I wonder
if you have given any thoughts from your discussions with the
former Secretaries or with the CNO about what areas you see
that you could collaborate with the CNO on.
Mr. Spencer. I have, Senator, starting out with just the
acquisition process itself. I think if you heard what I laid
out in my priorities, we now have I believe--we did a study at
the Defense Business Board--32-plus layers of people needed to
sign off on an acquisition process. That did not involve major
platforms. We have to allow the people who have the education
and the intelligence to make acquisitions and to face off
problems to provide the solutions. They have to know and be
responsible for the outcome and be accountable for it. I think
that is one of the biggest steps forward we make right off the
bat.
Senator Reed. Are there any technologies--given your
extensive experience with the Defense Business Board, any
technologies that you think could be--sort of break the mold
and a leap-ahead approach?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator. People have asked
what do you think of the 355-ship Navy, and I said it is a
great goal to have. I cannot tell you what the construct of
that would be sitting here today because I think unmanned, both
below the water, on the water, and in the air, is an area we
are just beginning to chip away at. That is going to provide
some great yield for us.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
There is another aspect of this whole technology, that is,
to operate more efficiently. One of the major constraints going
back to the age of steam is fuel, so energy efficiency from an
operational standpoint would seem to be a critical aspect. Are
you going to continue the efforts of the Navy? They have done
some remarkable things in terms of alternate energy, fuels, et
cetera.
Mr. Spencer. It is, I believe, if confirmed, my
responsibility as the Secretary of the Navy to explore any and
all avenues that provide us longer legs, less of a tether to
fuel sources. That goes across the board for technologies also.
Senator Reed. We have all indicated--I do not know what the
right word is--the discomfort, if you will, with the Budget
Control Act. But I think it has reached a point now where our
complaints are important, but do you think it would be helpful
if the President made a major address to the country and a
major proposal of how to resolve this? I do not recall very
much of his comments on the BCA.
Mr. Spencer. I believe we all have to come together as a
country to address this. It is devastating what it is doing to
us. If we look back at when it was created, it was in my eyes a
bluff card that was to bring everyone together, and all of a
sudden, the bluff was called and BCA was put into place. We all
have to get behind this. I look forward to working with all of
you and doing whatever we can to educate the American voters as
to what is going on with the BCA and how it is affecting us.
Senator Reed. I concur. Again, the bully pulpit is one or
at least one major one. I think we need some direction, some
guidance not just an exhortation to do better but a plan to
actually get it done.
Mr. Spencer. Agreed.
Senator Reed. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. As I said in my
comments, I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman McCain. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Whatever happened to the 1968 beige
Volkswagen?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I wish I could keep it. It would
probably be worth more than the car I am driving now.
Senator Inhofe. You know, one of the things that I have
been very proud of our uniforms is the fact that they are, for
the first time at least in my years that I have spent here both
in the House and the Senate--they are talking about the threat
that is so real out there. You and I talked. By the way, thank
you for the time that you gave not just me but everyone I have
talked to has had a long visit with you. We all know pretty
much where you are coming from.
I mentioned this to you in my office that it is the first
time that I have seen the uniforms come out and talk about this
unprecedented threat that we are facing right now and why it is
a threat. When we stand on the stump and talk about this, we do
not have the credibility of someone in uniform. It goes all the
way up to the Secretary level. I am sure that you are going to
be talking about that. You are not going to shy away from the
reality of the level of threat that we have.
The news reports that North Korea has successfully tested
an ICBM capable of ranging to the United States, coupled with
the nuclear program. It now poses an imminent threat to the
United States. In one of our hearings, we had General Stewart,
DIA Director, going so far as to say it is not a matter of if,
it is a matter of when.
I would hope that you would elaborate as much as some of
the rest of them are in joining in because we are not going to
get the attention. We all are talking about sequestration. We
are talking about the problems that we are having. We remember
when in 1964 that 52 percent of the entire budget was defending
America, and it has been steadily going down since that time.
So it is going to take a kind of resurgence of people at the
top letting them know that times are not the way they used to
be.
Right now, we have a mentally deficient individual running
a country that is totally unpredictable. We have had hearing
after hearing, and that is the one thing that the top people in
the military say that it is totally unpredictable.
In our Readiness Subcommittee that we had in January, going
back to January, Admiral Moran said that the Navy has as
readiness debt that will take years to pay down.
In your advance policy question response, you wrote our
highest priority is to address the fleet-wide readiness by
strengthening and leveraging our capabilities. Is there
anything you want to say about that now that has not already
been said in response to the questions from my predecessors?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I will tell you that shying away from
issues at hand is not something that I do well. If I am
confirmed, I truly believe the whole focus of my work would be
the pointy end of the spear, and we are going to stand up and
make sure that not only working with you all here in this
chamber but going out into America and letting Americans know
what the real issue is.
Senator Inhofe. I would like to ask you a question on
shipyards and depots. The Navy's recent aviation readiness
challenges have been well documented. As the Chairman said, we
have--what--62 percent of our F-18's are unavailable due to
maintenance problems. How do we solve this? We are looking into
the future and we are looking right now at a problem that is
there today. Do you have any ideas on the first thing you are
going to do?
I also want to mention the whole idea of maintaining an
organic capability--I remember when I was first elected, we
talked about it was an arbitrary 50/50. I thought surely we can
do better than that, but no, we are still 50/50. Quite frankly,
I think it has worked pretty well. What do you think about the
handling of the depots and about our organic capability?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, it is a very interesting balancing
act, I believe, that we have to address. When it comes to
industrial capability, I can separate aviation and
shipbuilding, and I will address shipbuilding first where we
have lesser of numbers of providers. I do not say we glad hand
people at all, but industrial science says that the most
efficient way to produce is to have a clear line of sight to
resources. In this chamber, I believe we can address that. We
have to work outside the chamber I think to work with some of
our providers to ensure that they are providing us the best
long-term, sustainable relationship we can have to deliver
equipment in the most cost effective, quick manner we can.
Senator Inhofe. Lastly, I would just say that you addressed
the 355-ship issue, and I am sure you have given some thought
to what would be the appropriate personnel end strength for a
fleet of 355. Looking into the future, I would assume that you
would be starting to address that now while we are addressing
the great threat that currently faces us.
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator. If we take the full gambit of
what is available to us to tackle the 355-ship goal, we should
be thinking outside the box. We should be thinking possibly
bringing things out of the ready reserve. We should be looking
at ways to construct better, faster, cheaper. We will be
looking at a frigate down the road. All of this capacity
increase will require manning. So there will be some numbers
that have to be adjusted going forward for end strength.
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman McCain. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, welcome to the Committee.
I think you will be pleased to know that an amendment was
adopted during our recent markup of the defense bill sponsored
by myself and Senator Cotton, affectionately known as the King-
Cotton Amendment, that calls for the unconditional repeal of
the Budget Control Act. So this Committee is on record. I
think, following up on Senator Reed's questions, it would be
very helpful if you could, in your capacity as Secretary,
assuming you are confirmed, to work with the administration to
impress upon them the importance of this issue and the really
critical role that it is playing in undermining the readiness
of our forces. I commend that to you as a suggestion.
You used the term ``disruptive technology,'' and then later
on you mentioned in your work on the Defense Business Board
that there were 32 layers of the acquisition process. How in
the world do you incorporate disruptive technology having to go
through 32 layers of approvals?
Mr. Spencer. It dies fairly early probably on layer 2,
Senator. So you have to actually address, as I call it, the
behavioral management of how we are going to think and act in
our actions. If in fact you provide people the latitude to make
decisions and the span of control actually expands and
hierarchy contracts, but again you have to tie this to
accountability and responsibility.
Senator King. Following up on the Chairman's questions and
his concern about this issue, I would urge you to get together
with your colleagues and step back and really look at the
acquisition process in a fresh way given the imperative of
technological incorporation in a speedy way and think about how
do we get on a war footing when we were making destroyers one
every 2 weeks and airplanes one every 15 or 20 minutes, as we
were during World War II. How do we get a sense of urgency into
this process? I think you would be a great person to lead that
given your experience.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, my analogy that I have been using
just in talks prior to this meeting is that we are looking at
October of 1957 and Sputnik has just flown over our head. The
technological gap and our production gaps are shrinking
compared to our one-on-one competitors, and we need to get a
sense of urgency, get on the forward foot and use all resources
available to us. This is what makes this job exciting in my
eyes.
Senator King. One of the lessons from that era--for
example, President Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on
the moon in 10 years--is to have goals even though they may be
audacious, but to have specific goals and say this is what we
are going to achieve.
A different line of question. Do you have any idea of the
retention rate in the Navy, what our loss rate is of these
highly trained sailors and marines?
Mr. Spencer. I do not know the exact number, Senator, but I
know it is of concern.
Senator King. It seems to me that might be an area of rich
usefulness to investigate because if we can retain someone
rather than recruiting and training new people, that would be
saving taxpayers' dollars and it would also be retaining the
expertise that we need. I commend that to you as an area of
focus.
Mr. Spencer. Another great area of excitement in my eyes,
Senator. As I stated in my opening statement, the human capital
section of our budget is our most expensive and our most
valuable, and we have to work and extract the best practices
from the private sector in areas of how we can keep people and
make the Navy----
Senator King. Every pilot and mechanic we can retain is one
that we do not have to spend $1 million to train.
The final area. We talked a bit about procurement and cost
overruns. We have had multiple hearings before this Committee
on the Ford, on the F-35, on other programs. One of the things
that comes through is trying to build things before they are
fully designed and before the design is mature and tested. We
just approved a 15-ship multiyear for the DDG Flight III, which
the Navy wants, we want, everybody wants. The question is is
that design fully mature. Not one has yet been built. I hope
that is an area that you will look at in your work. I,
representing a State that builds these ships, want them built
as soon as possible, but I also do not want to repeat some of
the mistakes that we have seen with the Ford and the F-35.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, on behalf of the Navy, I would like
to thank your efforts, Senator Collins' efforts, everyone's
efforts in this building for providing us an increased
capacity. If you would allow me the time to spool up and get up
to speed on the direct issue at hand, I look forward to coming
back to you with a granular answer.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for joining us today. I truly do
appreciate it and your testimony.
I would like to start by just asking you some simple yes or
no questions, if I may.
Do you commit to cutting wasteful spending and making it a
priority?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Senator Ernst. Do you commit to working with me to combat
and prevent military sexual assault and retaliation in the Navy
and the Marine Corps?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely.
Senator Ernst. Will you provide me with advance notice
should changes to the gender integration policies be
considered?
Mr. Spencer. I will.
Senator Ernst. Do you commit to upholding an unbiased and
transparent approach throughout the acquisition process?
Mr. Spencer. I do.
Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Thank you so much.
I appreciate the fact that you took some time last night--
excuse me--last month to sit down and visit with me about the
needs of the Navy and the Marine Corps. One thing that I was
very encouraged about is the fact that you said in order to
move the needle, we are going to have to perspire a little bit.
I do not want to speak for other Members in Congress, but I
will say that I think here on this Committee we are ready to
perspire a little bit and get things moving.
If you could, if you are confirmed, how do you envision the
Department's relationship with Congress and what is your plan
to enhance that relationship? How do we work together to move
that needle?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, from the time I left the Marine Corps
and entered the private sector, I have reported to either,
quote/unquote, my bosses, and then as I progressed on my career
and ran companies, I still reported to a board of trustees or a
board of directors or an executive committee. That is the way I
have been trained. It works the best. It has been proven to
work the best.
I look to you all as the board of directors. You are my,
quote/unquote, partners in this--senior partners I agree--and I
look to you for guidance and direction. We are going to have to
work together in lockstep to tackle the problems that we have.
We are going to be asking for a tremendous amount of resources.
We are going to be moving a lot of cheese. We are going to be
trying to streamline an organization all simultaneously. We
might all off the bicycle every now and then. I will be
completely transparent and tell you when we have fallen off the
bicycle and hopefully tell you before we do. But I mean I want
to manage expectations in an open, transparent manner.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that very much.
As you know, we did talk a little bit about this, but I am
sure you know that 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. A few weeks ago, the Air Force announced it was
testing sensors for the F-35 Alpha that actually monitor
pilots' inhale/exhale gases and automatically activate
emergency oxygen if there is a problem.
This is something that I have recommended to both the Air
Force and the Navy leaders in past hearings. I am very pleased
that they are finally taking action.
If you are confirmed, do you commit to finding solutions to
this problem, and how would you ensure that these solutions are
shared across aircraft and service branches so that we do not
repeatedly see the same costly problems undermining our
warfighting capabilities?
Mr. Spencer. I will commit to you, Senator, it will be a
top priority. To address the second part of your question, our
studies at the Defense Business Board--one of the things that
became readily apparent, at least in my career on the board,
was the building is an amazing problem-solving machine. Some of
the problems that result from the problem-solving is no one
either sunsets the solution or they do not actually share the
solution amongst the building. It is fairly siloed. I believe
that working with my fellow service secretaries, if confirmed,
that is one of our key issues is to start sharing best
practices.
Senator Ernst. Very good.
Finally in my remaining time, we have talked a little bit
about the number of ships. I guess I am not so concerned about
the number of ships, just to ensure that those platforms are
doing what they should be doing. But the types of ships are
important as well in making sure that we have an optimal Navy
and a Navy that will also support our Marine Corps. We know
that the Marine Corps has been playing a critical role most
often in an infantry type role. We see them in the desert quite
frequently. But amphibious ships seem to be an afterthought.
Can you just explain to me what your direction might be in
making sure that amphibious ships are included in the
discussion when it comes to the number and type of ships that
we have?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator. If you look at what
the Navy/Marine Corps team is inherently, it is our forward-
deployed force. To effect that forward deployment in the most
effective manner, we have to have the amphibious ships for the
Marine Corps.
Senator Ernst. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Spencer. I applaud you for your nomination and
congratulate you for it. You are very qualified for this
position. I look forward to supporting you. My friend, John
Warner's support for you did not dissuade me from my initial
inclination. I look forward to working together with you.
Before I ask you a question or two, I just want to put on
the record a concern I have. As Secretary of Navy, you will set
a tone and one of the tones you have to set is that everybody
who comes before us is scrupulously candid in answering
questions.
At the most recent hearing of the Seapower Subcommittee, a
public hearing that we held just within the last couple of
weeks, I asked Admiral Lesher a question. There had been a
Bloomberg article about the President's budget coming to us
with funding for a second LCS, and the Bloomberg article that
came out on the 19th or 20th of June said that part of the
funding for the second LCS was going to come through a $325
million reduction of funding for aircraft carrier overhaul.
I asked Admiral Lesher this question in that public
hearing. I am a big LCS fan, but my understanding from the
article is part of the funding for that second LCS is going to
be reducing aircraft carrier overhaul by $300 million. Is that
accurate? If that is so, give me context as to why that is a
good idea and what it would mean.
His answer, Admiral Lesher, yes, sir. I will not speculate
on what will be in the OMB submission to you, but I will tell
you that what you just cited is inaccurate. It would not be a
source coming out of aircraft overhaul.
Are you familiar with the Bloomberg piece that he just
referenced? As far as you now, is that not an accurate article?
Admiral Lesher, correct. That was his testimony to me.
I was very surprised just a week after the hearing to get
the President's budget submission, June 29th, and $325 million
is being moved from aircraft carrier reactor to support a
second LCS. I think that is exactly the question I asked him.
He told me that the money was not coming from that and that the
article was inaccurate. I have yet to get an explanation for
why he testified to that.
We are all big boys on this Committee. We are big boys and
girls. We are used to getting answers, and some answers we like
and some answers do not like. But we do depend on getting
candid answers. I hope that that will be a tone that you will
set as Secretary of the Navy for all witnesses who would appear
before the Committee, that they would not try to hide the ball
or play semantic games with us, that they would endeavor to
answer the questions that we have.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, in my eyes, we cannot afford to do
that. So I will support transparency and accountability. It is
going to be the tone set at the top.
Senator Kaine. Thank you for that. If the tone is set at
the top, that message will be very clear I am sure.
A 355-ship Navy. I just want to ask you about this because
we did an amendment in the NDAA [National Defense Authorization
Act] process to state as a concept that this Committee supports
it. I think it would be a good thing. You talked about
grappling with what the ship mix is, and let me just talk about
two aspects of what it would mean.
Three hundred fifty-five ships. That is a number, but
surface, underwater, manned, unmanned. I mean, there is a lot
of work to do to determine, if we are to be at 355, what the
right ship mix would be. Correct?
Mr. Spencer. Correct.
Senator Kaine. Then the second issue is it is not just
about shipbuilding. I mean, to the extent that we are talking
about ships, we are talking about personnel. To the extent that
we are talking about aircraft carriers, we are talking about
airwings. Talk a little bit about, so we can think about what
this commitment might mean down the road for our Committee as
authorizers, what are some of the bigger questions in addition
to just the numbers of ships that we are going to have to
grapple with together with you if we try to reach that goal.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, to address the second of my
priorities, which is capability, I agree with you. Three
hundred fifty-five is a good number for people to focus on. Do
we know exactly what the mix is? I think since we are talking
out a decade, we might not know and we should not know right
now because we have evolving technologies.
What I will tell you is that whether it is a 355-ship or
not, what we also ought to get our head around is can we have a
capacity number but have a capability that is even greater than
that, so have the capability of a 355 that might be a 300-ship
Navy. I am just speculating now, but that is the concept that I
would like to work with you all on is where we go for our
capabilities because that is where the punch is. If in fact
technologies allow us to have different platforms, some that we
might not even know of right now that will develop in 5 years,
we should keep our eyes and ears open to that. I look forward
to working with all of you in the chamber here on those type of
issues.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Chairman McCain. Senator Cotton?
Senator Cotton. Mr. Spencer, congratulations on your
nomination and thank you for accepting the call of duty of your
country once again.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator King
about the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act
on the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act must be
repealed. It has not worked. It has not restrained spending and
it will not in the future. I think we all know exactly what
will happen if it goes forward. We will have a continuing
resolution in September. We will have some 2-year budget that
does not restrain spending in November, and then we will have
an omnibus in December. We will have another omnibus in
December of 2018. Then the whole thing will be started over
again in 2019 and 2020, all for a bill that no one from Senator
Fischer to my right and Senator Donnelly and to his left voted
for. The 112th Congress was not the Constitutional Convention,
and the Budget Control Act is not the Constitution.
My question, just to be clear, is can you build a 350-ship
Navy if the Budget Control Act remains in force.
Mr. Spencer. No.
Senator Cotton. Thank you for that.
Is the President's budget request sufficient to build that
350-ship Navy if the Budget Control Act is repealed?
Mr. Spencer. It would depend upon the timeline you would be
giving the future Secretary of the Navy as a goal.
Senator Cotton. Thank you.
I have to say, Mr. Spencer, that the morale and welfare of
sailors and marines is of utmost concern for me. Your
predecessor displayed what I think is questionable and, indeed,
strange judgment on some matters that left him as one of the
most unpopular service secretaries in the modern era. Just to
go through a few of those decisions, he politicized the naming
of U.S. Navy ships. He made some very strange changes to the
Navy uniform that caused a revolt among female sailors. He
publicly dismissed official reports about combat effectiveness
of mixed gender units without even having read them, by his own
admission. He dumped the Navy's ratings titles, some of which
like boatswain's mate and gunner's mate had been around for 200
years. He has tried to power Navy fleets with unproven,
expensive, and inadequate fuel alternatives based on current
technology, in some cases at a cost of $28 to the gallon. He
questioned the character and integrity of marines who dared to
disagree with some of these policies.
I think it is unfortunate that you have inherited this
legacy, and it is going to make it somewhat hard as you start
out to restore the credibility of the secretariat. But do you
think making these kind of changes is going to enhance the
Navy's ability to deter war and, if necessary, fight and win a
war?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I testified before this Committee, I
believe in 2015, that it was my belief that the Department of
Defense, specifically individual services, was not to be a
Petri dish for social experiments. I totally believe that
policy should be developed at the DOD level and then discussed
and socialized and deployed and then obeyed. We have to work
together, including all our service people, to make sure that
they are given what they need, whether that be spiritually,
whether that be psychologically, whether that be
materialistically to fight forward so readiness is the key and
lethality is the product.
Senator Cotton. Thank you for that answer. I agree. I think
pretty much every sailor and marine that you will have serving
underneath your leadership would agree that our foremost
priority has to be to deter our Nation's adversaries and fight
and win our Nation's wars, where necessary.
I want to turn to a particular matter in the time I have
left, Mr. Spencer. Last month, the Navy revoked the license of
a contractor that they had long used to do base security for
civilian vendors. The change was sudden and concerning to me.
After incidents of shootings and terrorist attacks on military
installations, I am concerned that the Navy is fixing something
that is not broken. Could you please be sure to review the
contracting plan for base access and get back to me about why
the Navy took this action and what its plans for base security
going forward are?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, Senator, I will.
Senator Cotton. I do not want you to do anything that would
presume confirmation, even though it seems like a pretty good
bet so far this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, again for your willingness to serve
our country.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman McCain. Senator Strange?
Senator Strange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, welcome to the Committee today. It is an honor
for me as the newest Members of the Committee to be here and to
get to meet Senator Warner who served with such distinction
over many years. It was a pleasure. I want to thank you too for
your willingness to serve.
I want to add my condolences to the families that suffered
the tragic loss of the 15 marines and sailor yesterday.
I too enjoyed the time we got to spend together in my
office. I appreciate your comments on the need to keep a robust
industrial base active. In order to achieve the 355-ship Navy,
we have to have consistent workflow through our Navy yards. Of
course, Austal is in my State, but there are many others around
the country who are facing the same situation.
Let me ask you one question about testimony that Admiral
Lesher gave to the Seapower Committee just 2 weeks ago I
believe that we must increase our procurement of helicopters
like the Seahawk to meet the needs of a much larger presence.
My question is, do you share this view, and can you just simply
commit to the Committee that if you are confirmed, that you
will take a close look at our helicopter force structure as we
grow our Navy? I know helicopters are of particular interest to
you given your previous service to the country.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I will commit because we have to look
at all resources necessary to fight the wars. Yes.
Senator Strange. Thank you very much.
I would like to wish you the best really in the time I have
as you take on this critical position, assuming your
confirmation.
I appreciate your previous comments on sequestration,
budget caps. I share the concerns of our Chairman and my
colleagues on the Committee about the disastrous way we go
about things. As the newest person in the Senate, it is
shocking to me. I certainly was not here like most of my
colleagues when the Budget Act was passed. So we will do our
job, I hope, to correct that for you going forward.
I want to thank you again for your service, and I look
forward to working with you once you are confirmed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman McCain. Senator Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, first of all, thank you for your service to
our country.
I did appreciate the opportunity to sit down and to visit
with you in our office. I find the opportunity to visit in
advance to be very, very helpful.
I am curious and I would like to have you share a little
bit of information about the state of our depots. In
particular, I have heard anecdotally that the effectiveness of
depot-level aviation maintenance is inconsistent across the
Services. If confirmed, will you commit to exchanging such best
practices with other services?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, again, right in the wheelhouse, we
have to share best practices, and if confirmed, the mantel that
you will hear coming from the Navy is working with other
service secretaries to find out where they are extracting the
best efficiencies and what we can adapt, and if in fact we are
doing something with great efficiency, we will share with the
other services too.
Senator Rounds. I think this is something which is critical
because right now you have got responsibilities for the service
of aviation assets. Some depots seem to have a better handle on
how they are doing it than others. Most certainly there are
different approaches to having this being done. I think it
would be beneficial for the different services to have
established a best practices approach in those areas in which
they have similar responsibilities and opportunities to
improve. I appreciate your willingness to move forward in that
type of a process. Thank you for that.
In 2010, as part of the Defense Advisory Board, you
proposed the closure of DOD commissaries in the United States
under the banner of saving taxpayers $1 billion per year. As
you know, this measure was never adopted. What was the biggest
lesson that you learned about your experience with the
restructure proposal?
Mr. Spencer. It was an interesting proposal. I mean, it was
an interesting study and it never became a formal proposal, but
it ended up in the ``Washington Post.''
What we were working under the banner there was something
that the Commandant quotes as quicker, better, faster. If we
could provide a service to our uniformed members and retirees
that was equal or better at a more efficient manner, more
efficient price, why would we not look at it? We had a solution
provided by one of the major logistic companies that is in the
soft good business.
It was a fascinating experience for me to find out how the
building works and how the society works that is the DOD. You
have to pace yourself in certain areas, but again, when it
comes to--if I am confirmed, I will look everywhere in the Navy
under every single rock where we can find efficiencies. When I
shared with you that we are going to have to work lockstep
together with the Senate Armed Services Committee, there are
going to be some big boulders we might have to move.
Senator Rounds. There is a difference between finding
efficiencies and simply reducing benefits. I just want to walk
into this a little bit. In light of that 2010 recommendation to
restructure the Department of Defense commissary benefits in
the United States, what will be your philosophy regarding
personnel benefits, should you be confirmed by this Committee?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, a learning lesson that will give you
insight into my thoughts, if confirmed as Secretary, was more
our study on the modernization of the military retirement
system. When we rolled that program out, our study out, there
was quite a bit of feedback. In fact, one of the veterans
service organizations was nice enough to publish my home email
and my home phone, and I took 127 phone calls. It was
fascinating once you got through anger and frustration and you
started talking to people and you came with the following
approach. You have a dollar to spend on your benefits. Your
retirement costs 60 cents. Your health care costs 40 cents.
Your commissary costs 15 cents. Your morale and welfare costs 7
cents. Where do you want to spend your dollars? I believe if we
can provide a value association for the benefit received and
also understand from our servicemembers what they value, I
think we can come to some good conclusions without any erosion
in benefit performance.
Senator Rounds. One last question. Do you agree that the F-
35C and its fifth generation capabilities are needed for the
airwing now and in the future?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Tillis?
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Spencer, thank you. I am sure if you had a Fitbit on
for the past couple of weeks, you have put on dozens of miles
because I have seen you all over the building, and I appreciate
you being so accessible.
I want to follow up on the F-35 question. In your responses
to questions for the record, there was a question asked about
directing a reassessment of the Department of the Navy's total
program procurement for the F-35's. I am not sure what
precisely was thought about in terms of a reassessment, but you
said review and I think in response to Senator Rounds' question
you do believe it is a very important part of our arsenal. Can
you talk a little bit about what you think a review or
reassessment would actually yield?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that when it comes to a critical
weapons platform, there ought to be a continual focus on
delivery of the actual aircraft or the weapons system, whatever
the case may be. When we make a decision to buy a platform, it
is not autopilot after that. My response in that case was that
this is a continually ongoing attention to the actual
acquisition and the acquisition process itself.
Senator Tillis. Thank you.
I want to go to another response related to BRAC, and I
think that you said that you thought it made sense for us to
consider another round in BRAC. Can you think of anything, in
particular as it relates to within your lanes, that a BRAC
would actually yield?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, from my--I do not want to call them
briefings, but just my knowledge gathering over the past couple
of months, I believe the Navy is probably in fairly good shape
when it comes to utilization of assets. To the point if in fact
we grow to a 355-ship Navy, you cannot give away waterfront
property. It is very expensive to get back. In the same token,
I believe that we should continually review the value of our
assets and our return on investments and infrastructure just as
a case of being.
Senator Tillis. Thank you.
My final question. You mentioned, in response to some of
Senator Ernst's questions, that you view us as a kind of board
of directors, and I like that analogy. I have used it myself
here. But we know that senior managers, particularly in board
meetings, the best ones will come in and be very direct and
forthright with respect to board policies or actions that are
making your job more difficult. I want to tie that into the
perspiring line of questioning too.
When confirmed or if confirmed--I intend to support your
nomination--what things do you think you have got to come
before this board of directors and say we have to change as a
matter of policy, as a matter of consistency? We all know that
sequestration has to go away. But what more do you really need
to put--where do you think you are likely to put us out of our
comfort zone?
You were actually spared, only because I forgot to bring
it, the 680-page RFP that I bring, over 10 years to define a
handgun, next generation handgun. My guess is, as we go through
that, some of those, a few hundred pages, are because we told
you all to do things a certain way. How are you going to help
us actually streamline, free up those resources for the right
purposes in DOD and, in your case, within the Navy?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, when I originally said that we are
going to work together, this is a fine example. Let us take
acquisition. If in fact we have a large platform weapons
program, one of the things that I might propose is that we have
the program executive and the program manager stay in place for
the first generation of production.
Senator Tillis. Have their job depend on it?
Mr. Spencer. Have your job depend upon on it. But also that
kind of flies in the face of up and out. So we are going to
have to adjust some situations here on how we promote people
and if we are going to expect this out of them.
So, yes, coming to you with various situations that you can
help us with to clear maneuvering lanes would be greatly
appreciated.
Senator Tillis. I look forward, after your confirmation, to
perhaps you coming back here and coming up with a long list of
things that we need to do differently so that your job can be
easier to achieve.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to it, if
confirmed.
Senator Tillis. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Warren?
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witness for being here.
Before I begin, I want to join my colleagues in offering my
deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the
servicemembers who died in yesterday's crash of a transport and
refueling aircraft. Our thoughts are with them and the entire
Navy and Marine Corps family.
Now, Mr. Spencer, in recent years, there have been a number
of reports of workplace safety violations at the private
shipyards that the Navy relies on to build its fleet. In fact,
according to federal labor statistics, shipyard workers face an
injury and illness rate that is roughly 80 percent higher than
the construction industry generally. The list of reported
injuries and violations that these workers are exposed to is
bone chilling: amputation, electrocutions, suffocation, falls,
explosions, chemical burns, cancer-causing fumes. The Navy is
spending hundreds of billions of dollars at shipyards where
workers are routinely injured and maimed because of lax safety
standards.
But a Navy spokesman responded to those concerns by
saying--and I am going to quote the spokesman--we are not the
overlords of private shipyards when it comes to workplace
safety.
Mr. Spencer, do you agree with this attitude?
Mr. Spencer. No, I cannot, Senator. I truly believe as we
go forward in today's environment--and we are talking about, in
the case of shipbuilding, amping up the production and the
throughput, we have to have a sustainable environment. That
does not support a sustainable environment. I would hope it
would be a whole-of-government solution. I think that OSHA is
probably involved. But we look forward to making sure that we
are good stewards of resources.
Senator Warren. Good. Do I hear you saying that, if
confirmed, you will commit to looking into how the Navy tracks
and monitors workplace safety violations at the shipyards that
it is doing business with?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warren. Good. You know, we are talking about
growing the fleet to a 355-ship Navy, which would result in
considerably more volume at many of these shipyards, and I
think the least we can do is make sure that American workers
who are employed in those shipyards and are building those
ships are afforded reasonable protections going forward.
Mr. Spencer. I concur, Senator.
Senator Warren. Thank you.
I have another question I want to ask you about. The Navy
operates on the front lines of the threats posed by climate
change, including rising sea levels and floods, more intense
storms, higher temperatures. The Navy has long recognized the
risks posed by climate change. Back in 2010, the Navy released
a climate change road map which observed--and I am going to
quote here--climate change is a national security challenge
with strategic implications for the Navy. It is affecting and
will continue to affect U.S. military installations and access
to natural resources worldwide. It will affect the type, scope,
and location of future Navy missions.
Mr. Spencer, do you believe that climate is changing and
that climate change will continue to affect the Navy's
installations and missions?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, the Navy, from my briefings to date,
is totally aware of rising water issues, storm issues, et
cetera. We must protect our infrastructure. I will work hard to
make sure that we are keeping an eye on that because without
the infrastructure, we lose readiness.
Senator Warren. I take that as a yes?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, all about readiness.
Senator Warren. Good.
If confirmed, under your leadership, will the Navy prepare
for climate change? I think this is where you were going about
readiness. I want to say that both in terms of preparing our
own bases and installations and preparing for the crises and
the insecurity that climate change will exacerbate around the
world.
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warren. Good.
In his farewell speech in front of sailors and marines,
former Navy Secretary Mabus warned that if we fail to act upon
climate change, instability around the globe will inevitably
intensify and even our bases will risk being lost. I think he
is right, and I will be counting on you, Mr. Spencer, to carry
on where Secretary Mabus left off and to ensure that we adapt
to this threat and we are ready.
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warren. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, congratulations to you and your family. I
appreciate your desire to serve your country again.
I wanted to get back to the issue that I think was lost by
the last Secretary of the Navy, and I want to associate my
concerns that Senator Cotton raised about your predecessor who
took his eye off the ball on many things, readiness, but
particularly training. For that list that Senator Cotton
mentioned, the previous Secretary of the Navy gave the
Commandant of the Marine Corps an order to integrate boot camp
in 2 weeks. He said have this done in 2 weeks, the most
ridiculous order I have seen as a Member of this Committee by
anyone in the military.
I want to get a sense of your view on training, on hard,
rigorous training. There has been a lot of focus on Korea in
the last several months, and Members of this Committee, myself
included, had a lot of concerns. Have you read the book ``This
Kind of War'' by T.R. Fehrenbach?
Mr. Spencer. I have not.
Senator Sullivan. I have an extra copy I would love for you
to take a look at. It is all about the Korean War and our lack
of training and our lack of readiness and what it did to the
men and women in the Marines and the Army who had to go fight.
It is a really, really dire situation, as described in the
book, as thousands of Americans were killed in the summer of
1950 because they were not trained and they were not hard and
they were not ready to fight.
Could you just give me a sense of your philosophy on
training sailors and marines? You know, unfortunately, just in
the last month we have had accidents at sea. A lot of talk and
concern about what happened with the refueling tanker just
yesterday. What is your view on how we should be training our
marines and sailors?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, it is my point of view and, if
confirmed, the tone will be set from the secretariat's office
that we are all here for one purpose, and that is the pointy
end of the spear. All urgency, all focus, whether a dental
hygienist, whether motor pool, whether pilot, whether flag
officer, we are all here to attain the goal, and the goal is to
deliver the fight. We have to train. It is mandatory.
The CRs, the BCA has really cut into training, and I think
we are seeing some of the impact of that, unfortunately. We to
need to turn that around and correct it immediately.
Senator Sullivan. I think sometimes--and I am looking
forward to your confirmation--you will see that even this
Committee puts forward issues and areas of focus that do not
relate to training. If you see that happens too much, you can
count me as one of the supporters to get back to what you are
talking about, which is serious, hard training so our men and
women can come home if and when they have to go to war.
You and I had a good discussion about an issue that has
taken up a lot of time in the Committee with regard to Arctic
strategy and whether it is the new Arctic strategy that the
Secretary of Defense put forward or Admiral Stavrides recently
put out a book on seapower, had a whole section on Arctic
strategy. Are you familiar with the new DOD's Arctic strategy?
Mr. Spencer. I have read it, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Part of that strategy talks about the
ability to conduct FONOPS [Freedom of Navigation Operations].
Yet, last month, Admiral Richardson said that it is absolutely
true we do not have the capacity or capability to conduct any
FONOPS in the Arctic. We have a strategy that says we need to
do something, and we have the CNO of the Navy saying we do not
have the means to actually do it.
There are two areas I would like to get your commitment to
work with this Committee on, if confirmed.
First, as we look at a 355-ship Navy, in order to ensure
that we have the capability to conduct FONOPS in the Arctic,
can you take a hard look at the issue of ice-hardening our
ships, which at a Seapower Subcommittee just 2 weeks ago, the
Navy indicated they are not looking at that issue at all?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, when it comes to--one of my
priorities, if confirmed--you heard me talk about capabilities,
and that would fall squarely underneath that.
Senator Sullivan. Then just 2 weeks ago, again this
Committee in the NDAA put forward language that authorizes the
procurement of up to six icebreakers. Right now, the United
States has two. One is broken. If you actually go out to
Seattle where they are home-based, these are Coast Guard
icebreakers--I would recommend you do it because it is kind of
a sad affair. We have men and women in the Coast Guard wearing
the uniform of the United States deploying on ships that were
commissioned over 40 years ago and are really barely seaworthy.
There has been a bit of a back and forth, and you and I
have discussed this between who is responsible for that, the
Coast Guard or the Navy. Can I get your commitment to take a
hard look at the Navy and Coast Guard's cooperation in order to
enable our country to procure icebreakers, which the CNO of the
Navy said it is absolutely in the national interest of the
United States to have more than one icebreaker? The Russians
have 40. They are building 13 more, several of which are
nuclear powered. Can I get your commitment to work with the
Coast Guard and this Committee on that important task?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator. If I am not
mistaken, you all have provided some money for the Navy to
provide support for the Coast Guard in the exploration of the
next generation of icebreaker, and that is totally supportive
in my mind.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Senator Reed [presiding]. On behalf of the Chairman,
Senator Wicker, please.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Mr. Spencer, I have been in and out, and it seems that you
are doing well. I think I intend to join a unanimous Committee
in supporting your confirmation.
Let me say two things. Please know, as our future Secretary
of the Navy, that this Committee is serious about helping you
and helping President Trump get to the 355-ship fleet. We have
had over time, since I was in the House of Representatives,
goals that we never quite got to. It was 308. It was 313. Here
we are at 276 ships in our fleet. We have language in the DOD
bill and our House counterparts have language in the NDAA over
there indicated to show you we are serious. Frankly, we think
we have got you the money this first year to get us on the path
to 355 ships. Please know that we are serious about this and we
want to be your teammates there.
Let me ask you my one question about the physiological
episodes that are occurring to our pilots, particularly our
training pilots in the T-45 at the three undergraduate pilot
training bases. I have learned more in the last 4 or 5 months
about hypoxia than probably is wise for someone of my
educational attainment. I have learned that there are many
types of hypoxia.
But the real problem with the training planes at our three
pilot training stations is the histotoxic hypoxia, and try as
we might with the best minds in the Navy and the Federal
Government, we have not gotten to a correct diagnosis. The best
I have heard is that we could maybe patch together halfway of a
solution here with a bit of a solution there and get us back to
flying at the correct altitudes that we need to train these men
and women that do the hard work that is expected of them.
You have already testified in answer to Senator Ernst's
question that these PE, physiological episodes, will remain a
top priority. Thank you for that.
We put a little something in the bill that I want to draw
your attention to, and I hope it stays in the bill and is
signed by the President. It basically says while we are putting
the best minds of the government at work, the Navy and DOD can,
if they want to--not forced to but can if they want to--
implement a prize competition. Now, you come from the private
sector, sir. All we are doing is saying after the best minds
that we have in the Federal Government have tried and so far
have not found the exact diagnosis of what the problem is that
causes this histotoxic hypoxia, we could offer a prize to
anyone in the country, anyone on the face of the globe for that
matter, and you do not pay the money unless you get a solution.
I would just urge you to--I would urge my colleagues to let us
keep that in the bill and treat it seriously.
I would urge you, after you are confirmed and if we do not
get to a solution, which I certainly hope we get to a solution
quickly, but if we do not, take this provision seriously and
let us unleash the brain power of the entire country and the
entire globe to try to get to the solution. Whatever thoughts
you might have on that statement in 1 minute, I would be happy
to hear.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, very exciting chapter one of thinking
outside the box. That is fantastic to hear and it excites me
that those tools and authority would be available to us.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCain [presiding]. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Congratulations, Mr. Spencer. This is a real honor and I
appreciate you being willing to serve.
I keep hearing from junior officers in particular the
security clearance backlog. Everybody is asking you to look at
everything. Could you please look at that issue? It is taking
an inordinate amount of time for people to get their security
clearances and a lot of jobs are being unfilled and people are
not able to do the job adequately without a security clearance.
If you need more help from the Committee, if you need more
money and more resources, please let us know.
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator. Having been a
product of going through that, I know exactly what they are----
Senator Graham. I do not know what is going on out there.
It is the policy of the Trump administration to deny North
Korea the capability to hit the American Homeland with a
nuclear-tipped ICBM. Do you agree with that policy?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Senator Graham. One of the challenges for the Navy is how
they would avoid that if it ever came about. Do you agree with
that?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Senator Graham. When you look at force structure and the
number of ships, it has got to really be based on threats. When
you look at the world from a Navy point of view, how would you
say the world is in terms of a threat matrix for the Navy? Is
there a need for more ships?
Mr. Spencer. Definitely, Senator. The matrix of threats we
are facing now from the four plus one, however you want to
define it, is one of the more complex that the country has ever
faced. We need the capability. We need the capacity.
Senator Graham. Would you say this is one of the more
challenging times for the United States Navy since World War
II?
Mr. Spencer. I would say it is.
Senator Graham. Would you say it would be a really bad idea
for the Congress to cut the Navy's budget?
Mr. Spencer. A really bad idea, Senator.
Senator Graham. Sequestration is an idea that needs to be
set aside?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. In terms of how the military services work,
about 50 percent of all costs are personnel costs. Do you
understand that?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. We have done on this Committee some pretty,
I think, creative things to lower personnel costs but be fair
to the force. We want to be generous to those who serve the
country. God knows they deserve it. We want to be fair and
generous to those who retire. But we got to look at everything,
including personnel costs, to have a sustainable budget. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Spencer. Totally, Senator.
Senator Graham. TRICARE. TRICARE is a part of the
Department of Defense's budget that is growing exponentially.
It is health care of the military servicemembers and their
family, and everybody gets that. But on the retiree part, we
have not really had a premium adjustment of any significance
since 1995. Are you willing to work with this Committee to make
TRICARE generous but more sustainable?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. How do you view that part of the budget
over time?
Mr. Spencer. That is one of our biggest challenges right
now. The personnel factor is growing at an unsustainable rate.
I mean, the discretionary budget is being eaten up by personnel
costs. We owe our uniformed members and our retirees the best
that we can offer. We are going to have to think of different
ways to deliver just as good, if not better, services.
Senator Graham. A Navy SEAL is one of the finest members of
the force anywhere, a very elite group of warfighters. You have
people in the cyber arena. Do you agree that cyber threats to
the military are growing not lessening?
Mr. Spencer. Exponentially, Senator.
Senator Graham. How do we keep the Navy SEAL on track for a
20- or 30-year career when they can leave the Navy and probably
make four times what they make in the Navy as a contractor? How
do we attract the best minds in the cyber arena? They could go
to Silicon Valley. How do we do that? You do not have to give
me a complete answer, but I would like for you to think about
that because the competition for these really high-skilled
warfighters is immense. Any thoughts on that.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, again, my priorities being people,
capacity, and process, people are number one. We are going to
have to take every single best practice we can find from within
the government, from the private sector to address the
situation you just mentioned, whether it be a SEAL, whether it
be our cyber experts. We are going to have to find a flexible
way to allow people in the cyber field to leave and come back
because I believe they have to be refreshed in their own
community. I look forward to working with you all to think
outside the box on how we could do this.
Senator Graham. Finally, sexual harassment and abuse of
servicemembers. This Committee has spent a lot of time and
attention trying to change the law and the culture. What is
your view of that situation, and where do you want to take the
Navy when it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, one is too many, but let us know that
the job of the Navy/Marine Corps team is to inflict pain to the
enemy, unsustainable pain to the enemy. When I see that we are
inflicting pain upon ourselves, it is an anathema to me and it
must be stopped.
Chairman McCain. Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
willingness to serve.
Let me say at the outset that all of us are grieving and
lifting up in our prayers the 15 marines and sailor who were
killed last night in the C-130 crash in Mississippi. We
certainly want the men and women of the Navy and the Marines to
know that we are standing with them as they are grieving those
losses.
I want to ask you initially about morale in the Navy, and
that has been a concern raised by a number of observers. What
is your sense of the current state of morale, and what needs to
be done to improve that?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, the Navy/Marine Corps team is biased
for action. ``No'' is a tough word to pull out of the
vocabulary. In my opening comments, I talked about how they
have been continually engaged and stretched thin. They will
never let us down.
That being said, we need to make sure that we are paying
attention to their needs, whether it be changing the PCS move
notification time out to where it was at 6 months versus 1
month to more sweeping needs in benefits and compensation to
deliver a better product. As I view my job, defined by title X,
if confirmed, this is a key focus that has to be addressed.
Morale is the barometer.
Senator Cruz. As of yesterday, the Navy reported that it
had 276 deployable battle force ships with over a third of
those, 103, currently underway for deployment or training. Do
you believe we currently have sufficient capacity to meet the
strategic requirements we have placed on the Navy?
Mr. Spencer. There might be two answers to that, Senator.
Let me say that with the assets that we have right now, we are
managing the best, in my overview, that we can. It comes down
to risk management. Are we addressing every single risk? No. We
are prioritizing them. With more assets, more capability, and
more capacity, we could do a better job.
Senator Cruz. What is the current deployment-to-dwell ratio
of the Navy, and how does that need to be improved given
shipbuilding and fleet growth is a year's long initiative?
Mr. Spencer. Again, I go back to the primary tenet of
industrial science. When it comes to productivity, if we could
have a clear sight to funding and resources, I believe we will
have a much more efficient flow through on maintenance whether
it be aviation, whether it be seacraft. This will fit into
adjusting the dwell time back to a normalized rate, and I think
that is where we really have to focus because, again, that goes
back to your original question is where is morale. We have to
adjust both.
Senator Cruz. How do you plan to rapidly rebuild the fleet,
taking into consideration the CBO's recent analysis that it
would take until the year 2035 to reach a 355-ship Navy even
with accelerated shipbuilding?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, first, I look forward to working with
the CNO and the expertise that is involved in the naval
organization. That being said, I really think we have to start
thinking outside the box whether we look to the ready reserve,
what is sitting on the water that has been, quote/unquote,
mothballed, whether we look at expediting a frigate transition.
All of these have to be taken into account to expedite putting
capacity on the water.
Senator Cruz. Talk for a minute about the Ohio replacement
submarine program and the Columbia-class. It would be the
country's second most costly acquisition program in history and
part of a trillion dollar program to modernize the nuclear
triad over the next 30 years. The submersible leg of the triad
is responsible for roughly 70 percent of the Nation's forward-
deployed nuclear warheads and remains a vital part of our
national security. A little over a month ago, it was reported
that the program suffered, quote, its first known glitch in the
overheating of a prototype motor. Where do you think we are in
replacing and upgrading the Ohio-class submarine and what needs
to be done?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I have not received any classified
briefs on the actual performance glitch you are talking about.
On a fundamental basis, as I said in the opening statement, I
believe the undersea leg of the nuclear triad is the most
survivable and probably one of the--put it this way. We must
address the replacement situation. It is a huge cost, a huge
expense. I realize that. We are going to have to work in a
whole-of-industry, whole-of-government solution to address
this.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for your willingness to take on
this new role.
The Navy instituted something called the Accelerated
Promotion Program to allow shipyards to compete with the
private sector. As I am sure you are aware, one of the real
challenges we have is that many of our skilled workers are
aging out and replacing them in a tight work environment is
very challenging.
The APP guarantees that engineers hired into the four
public shipyards at the GS-5 or GS-7 levels will be eligible
for a one-time accelerated promotion to the next higher grade
after they complete a training program. Do you think that kind
of program is helpful in retaining the workforce that we need,
and do you have other ideas of how we can get the workers we
need to keep our shipyards up to date?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I am not aware specifically of the
program, and if confirmed, I look forward to finding out more
about it and sitting down and having a conversation with you
about it.
I do have firm beliefs on how we are going to have to work
as a team, both the industrial complex and the Department of
the Navy, to go forward and fulfill our goal to put capacity on
the water. Whether that is what we used to call vocational
schools, training schools out in the communities, I have been
informed that for a welder it takes 7 years to become a
journeyman. That is an extraordinary amount of time, but that
is an extraordinarily important position. We have to start
filling the pipeline and finding any vehicle we can that is
beneficial to supply the process.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I am sure that Senator King
would join me in inviting you to come up to the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard to see the APP program and to hear more about
the challenges that they are facing. I hope you will be willing
to do that.
Mr. Spencer. I look forward to it, Senator, if confirmed.
Chairman McCain. It is a great experience.
Senator Shaheen. This Committee has spent a lot of time on
the challenges that Russia presents to Eastern Europe and to
our allies in Europe. Obviously, one of the places where we
have seen them be the most aggressive is in the Black Sea where
they have, with increasing frequency, buzzed our ships and our
planes in both the Baltic and the Black Sea. Can you talk about
what you would do as Secretary of the Navy to respond to that?
Mr. Spencer. Senator, Russia is a threat in many ways to
the country. I think every single naval officer and also
weapons person, whatever is trained that they must protect
themselves from lethal force but they also must weigh in
restraint. We have to stand strong. We have to have avenues of
communication open with our adversaries when it comes to
professional actions on the seas. One would hope that in the
military sector, there is professionalism that spreads to even
our adversaries that we can have communications in that regard.
Senator Shaheen. Do you think that those communications
have so far been successful? Do we need to establish more
channels?
Mr. Spencer. I have not been briefed in depth to it,
Senator. But on a topical basis, I would think we would need
more channels.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
I was surprised to hear in testimony before this Committee
that China is looking at a 350-ship navy by 2020. Given the
challenges that we are facing as we look at our long-term needs
in the Navy, are you concerned, if you become Secretary of the
Navy, about what that means for China's ability to have more
control over the South China Sea and other seaways where we
might come in conflict?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator. The goal at one of
the presentations that I sat through was 2045 is a goal of
China to have many things in place, their ship count in 2020 to
be larger than they are now. It all concerns me tremendously,
and I think we have to respond in kind to have the capability
and capacity to ensure that we are positioned to enforce the
free shipping lanes for not only ourselves and our interests
but for those of our allies.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for your dedication and your
service to our Nation and your family as well.
I was gratified that you mentioned the tragedy last night
and our thoughts and prayers being with those families.
On June 17th, the Navy experienced another tragedy, as you
well know, when the USS Fitzgerald was hit by a ship under
circumstances that we do not know completely. I understand
there is an investigation into the way one of the sailors, a
sonar technician third class, Tom Wynn from Connecticut, was
among the deceased, and I attended a memorial service for him
just last week. His family is still grieving, as are the other
families who lost loved ones during that incident. The
commander of the United States 7th Fleet appointed Rear Admiral
Brian Fort to lead a judge advocate general manual
investigation of the mishap.
I would like to know, if you are confirmed, will you commit
to ensuring a prompt and thorough investigation of the USS
Fitzgerald collision with the cargo ship ACX Crystal, and will
you commit to reporting its findings fully to this Committee.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, prompt, thorough, and transparent
with expedition.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
There has been talk about the construction of submarines,
the Columbia-class and Virginia attack class, which is required
to go from 48 to 66, as you know. The challenge, as Senator
Shaheen mentioned, is not just with the flow of materials but
also the industrial base and not only at Electric Boat and
Newport News but also the supply chain, the defense industrial
base. I wonder if you have thought about what can be done to
provide the kinds of training, skill development resources for
the suppliers and contractors and all of the medium and small
businesses that are involved in that defense industrial base.
Mr. Spencer. Senator, I am glad the supply chain has been
brought up because we definitely have a limited supply of hands
and backs to build things, but people many times do not focus
on the actual supply chain itself. There are many cases out
there in the private sector that we can take best practices
from. Off the top of my head, we did a study at the Defense
Business Board, and IBM, when Sam Palmisano was there, took
over when IBM was in its grips of looking at running out of
cash, a major American icon almost going into bankruptcy. One
of the things he did was restructure his supply chain, which he
now bills as a $16 billion competitive advantage. How did he do
that? He brought everyone in the tent. I would see us, whether
through DLA, beyond the Navy, the whole DOD acquisition force
having to really do a whole-of-team effort in this regard.
Senator Blumenthal. Finally, let me ask you about the CH-
53K. As you know, it is the replacement for the Marine Corps'
only heavy lift helicopter. It will play an integral role in
the United States Marine Corps for probably decades to come,
improving the CH-53E Super Stallion. Will you commit to
supporting this critical program, assuming you are confirmed?
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me also ask you about the F-35. The
Navy has a variant of it. What is your view of the F-35?
Mr. Spencer. Again, I have not received any classified
briefs, but just in my knowledge gathering over the past month,
the Marine Corps is quite excited about what the F-35 can
deliver as a platform. The Navy has its plans to adopt the
fifth generation, fourth generation structure within their
aviation wing also. I look forward to finding out more, if
confirmed.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit to supporting the plans
underway now for acquisition?
Mr. Spencer. I do because it does not seem like there is
going to be a major change, but yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. We thank you for your appearance here.
I take it you have completed all of the paperwork. Is that
correct?
Mr. Spencer. That is correct, Senator.
Chairman McCain. It will be my intention then to move your
nomination at the next gathering of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and we look forward to confirming you clearly before
we reach our well-deserved rest of a pause for the month of
August. We will be moving your nomination quickly to the floor
of the Senate, and hopefully we can get it done to get you to
work.
Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Nothing further.
Chairman McCain. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. We look forward to
interrogating you again soon.
[Laughter.]
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Richard V. Spencer by
Chairman McCain prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
department of defense reforms
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 included the most sweeping reforms since the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
Do you support these reforms?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary
of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense to implement the reforms
enacted in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 within the Department of the
Navy. I will also keep the defense committees updated on the progress
of implementation.
Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
be appropriate for this Committee to address?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely monitor the implementation of
the reforms enacted in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 and assess the
impact to the Department of the Navy. Further, I will assess the
operations of the Department of the Navy in all areas, and will make
recommendations for further reforms to the Secretary of Defense in
cases where I find such reforms to be advisable.
qualifications
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 amended section 5013 of title 10, United States Code, to require
that the Secretary of the Navy ``to the greatest extent practicable, be
appointed from among persons most highly qualified for the position by
reason of background and experience, including persons with appropriate
management or leadership experience.''
What background and experience do you possess that qualify you for
this position?
Answer. Over the past 36 years, I have successfully led large,
complex operations and businesses that were ever growing in scale and
complexity. Being responsible and accountable for strategy, budget
development, productivity, execution of business plans and
profitability of organizations ranging in size from divisions to
international organizations provides a strong foundation and
experiences for leading the Navy-Marine Corps enterprise. During my
tenure at Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. we planned, developed and
built the foundation for a disruptive technology that now is a leader
in the industry and spans the global markets. Successful implementation
of technological advances in the face of ever changing competitive
markets honed my ability to identify critical issues, provide the
vision to organize people and large organizations toward development of
solutions and, ultimately to be personally responsible for outcomes.
That skillset is needed to manage today's Department of the Navy. Upon
leaving Active Duty, I have remained close to both the Marine Corps and
the Navy. From 2010 to 2015, I served on the Defense Business Board and
was directly involved in studies that ranged from increasing
organizational productivity, to Pentagon reformation, to assisting our
veterans. During that appointment, I garnered an appreciation for the
operation and environment of the Pentagon. Most recently, I served as
an advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations to assist with sourcing
private sector insights to specific strategic issues facing the Navy
and its future. I am confident that my service in uniform, success and
accountability in the business world and on boards advising key leaders
throughout the Department of Defense, have prepared me well to be a
leader of the entire Department of the Navy and assume the
responsibilities of the office of the Secretary of the Navy.
duties
Question. Section 5013 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Secretary of the Navy is responsible for, and has the
authority necessary to conduct, all affairs of the Department of the
Navy.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I understand I will be responsible for the
duties and functions specified in Section 5013 of Title 10 for the
Department of the Navy. Paramount to the execution of those duties will
be the manning, training, equipping and delivery of Naval Forces to
meet global requirements. I will ensure the entire staff assigned to
the Department of the Navy remains focused on those tasks and,
collectively, that we closely plan, collaborate and assess our success
with both the Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
major challenges and priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. My priorities flow from those of the President and the
Secretary of Defense. The Navy Marine Corps team is the Nation's
forward deployed force, and as such must always be ready to deliver the
fight in a moment's notice. In order to accomplish that task we must
ensure our people are highly trained and well equipped, and we must
improve and modernize our capabilities and streamline our processes. We
must restore direct authority to those decision makers who are
immediately responsible for solving critical issues, thereby increasing
their span of control and minimizing hierarchical overhead. Our highest
priority is to address fleet wide readiness by strengthening and
leveraging our capabilities, while setting the conditions to modernize
and grow capacity. At the same time, we must improve how we deliver
capabilities to the fight. Finally, it is imperative we analyze and
improve those processes that affect the mission of ``man, train, equip
and deliver.''
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront if confirmed as Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The historical analogy most apt to frame today's
environment comes from October of 1957 when, in surprise, the United
States watched the flight of Sputnik in space. The technological and
operational advantage we have had over our adversaries is shrinking. It
is imperative that we immediately increase the level of urgency in
every way we operate as an enterprise. We must work with Congress to
find immediate and long-term solutions that address reliable access to
the funds that are necessary to fulfil the requirements of the
combatant commanders. We must expeditiously review every aspect of the
way we ``man, train, equip and deliver'' in order to ensure effective
use of the resources we are granted. We must think about problems
differently, by eliminating latency and causing a migration to a
culture saturated with the sense of urgency. This attitude is a
critical ingredient to address the current readiness situation and the
future need to modernize and grow the fleet forces.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Navy and the Senate Armed Services Committee in particular,
and with Congress in general?
Answer. The Department of the Navy must have a strong relationship
and partnership with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the
Congress. If confirmed, I look forward to ensuring these relationships
return to the times of maximum cooperation, coordination and
transparency.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Navy
will closely partner with the Congress and be transparent, proactive
and responsive to all Congressional matters of importance and provide
robust justification for all budget requests.
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 these documents and compliance with domestic
and international legal obligations in relation to detention operations
and the treatment of detainees.
national security budget reductions/sequestration
Question. The original discretionary caps imposed by the Budget
Control Act (BCA) will be in effect for fiscal year 2018 through fiscal
year 2021, unless there is agreement to change budget levels.
In your assessment, what would be the impacts of continued
implementation of the BCA discretionary caps through 2021 on the
Department of Defense and national security?
Answer. The sequester caps, and continuing resolutions to date,
continue to be very harmful to warfighting readiness in both the Navy
and Marine. These immediate shortfalls need to be remedied in order for
the Navy Marine Corps team to support the missions required by the
military strategy and combatant commanders. If confirmed, I will work
closely with this Committee and Congress to provide you with the
requirements for both people and programs needed by the Navy-Marine
Corps team.
Question. Do you believe that any future budget agreements must
maintain that dollar-for-dollar principle?
Answer. I believe that a strong global naval presence is vital to
our national security.
If confirmed, I will advocate for the appropriate level of funding
for the Department of the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the
adequacy of Department of the Navy funding?
Answer. I believe that fleet readiness of both the Navy and Marine
Corps is of utmost concern. Accordingly, if confirmed, I will focus my
attention on that concern and work within Navy, DOD and Congress to
ensure the highest state of readiness. Additionally, if confirmed, I
will look forward to expediting maintenance and modernization, with an
eye to growing the Navy fleet and the Marine Corps.
administrative overhead
Question. The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year
2016 and 2017 direct reforms to consolidate the headquarters functions
of the Department of Defense and the military departments, and downsize
the number of personnel in overhead positions.
If confirmed, what would be your role in streamlining functions, as
well as identifying and implementing reductions in the Department of
the Navy headquarters?
Answer. If confirmed I will ensure that the Department of Navy, in
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, fully
complies with the requirements identified in NDAA for fiscal year 2016
and 2017 to reduce headquarters size and consolidate functions and
overhead positions. In addition to streamlining functions and
addressing cost concerns, I will ensure that the Department's
headquarters are properly structured and aligned to rapidly and
effectively address enduring challenges, emerging threats and future
technologies in a transparent and accountable manner.
Question. What areas and functions, specifically and if any, do you
consider to be the priorities for possible consolidation or reductions
within the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I will work with the leadership in the Secretariat, Navy
and Marine Corps to identify areas for consolidation and reduction that
will streamline business processes in order to expedite the
accomplishment of the mission. Together, we will ensure overhead
functions are minimized, with savings directed at increased capability,
capacity, lethality and readiness.
Question. To the extent that the Department of the Navy has
functions that overlap with the Department of Defense, Joint Staff, or
other military departments, what would be your approach to
consolidating and eliminating redundancy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the leadership in the
Department of Defense, Joint Staff, or other military departments to
quickly determine areas of overlap and develop a coordinated plan to
eliminate redundancy and increase efficiency.
end strength
Question. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 requested a
Navy Active Duty end strength of 327,900 and a Marine Corps Active Duty
end strength of 185,000.
Question. In your view, can the Navy and Marine Corps meet national
defense objectives at the requested fiscal year 2018 strength levels?
What about at the strength levels that would be required in the event
of sequestration?
Answer. A return to sequestration would clearly preclude the
accomplishment of an increasing number of critical national defense
objectives that the Navy Marine Corps team is required to meet.
Previous sequestration imposed reductions in resources and force levels
resulting in sea duty gaps, cancellation of deployments, reduction in
steaming days and flying hours, reduced training and furloughs of
civilian workers. All of these adverse outcomes have been detrimental
to warfighting readiness.
Question. If either the Navy or Marine Corps have to reduce end
strength as a result of sequestration, where would you propose they
take risk with respect to meeting national defense objectives?
Answer. It is my understanding that end strength is determined by
our force structure decisions, such as the number of ships, squadrons
and expeditionary units we deploy. Even under sequestration, the DON
would responsibly size manpower accounts based on our force structure.
The risk would be manifest in the inability to fulfil all requirements
to support the National Defense Objectives.
Question. What is your understanding of the need for additional
force shaping tools requiring legislation beyond what Congress has
provided the past several years?
Answer. Congress should be thanked for the flexible force shaping
tools it has provided the Department of the Navy, such as Temporary
Early Retirement Authority, voluntary separation pay, and early release
program. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure the Department has the
tools necessary to recruit, develop, shape, and retain the talent
necessary to meet the mission of the Department of the Navy. Continuous
review of the applicable force shaping tools is necessary to meet
emerging requirements of the Department in general, and empower both
the Navy and Marine Corps.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the numbers of
general and flag officers authorized for the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. I am aware that the Navy and Marine Corps have been
required to make reductions in the number of flag officers both for
service-specific billets and for joint billets. If confirmed, I will
address these requirements with CNO and CMC to determine their
adequacy. Once completed, I will not hesitate to provide my views to
the Congress.
lead-times for permanent change of station moves
Question. Last year, due to budget shortfalls within its permanent
change of station (PCS) accounts, the Navy reduced notice and lead-time
for PCS moves to 2 months, and according to the Navy's budget briefings
provided to this Committee, the Navy intends to continue this practice
in fiscal year 2018. Two months are very short notice of an impending
move, especially for families with children in school.
What is your view of the adequacy of 2-months lead time for PCS
moves, and will the Navy continue this practice in 2018?
Answer. I believe that a lead time of 2 months is inadequate to
permit sailors, marines and families to properly plan for what are
oftentimes very complicated and stressful moves. If confirmed, I will
address both the frequency of moves and the lead time afforded our
marines, sailors and their families with the CNO and CMC. We owe it to
Navy and Marine Corps families to eliminate any unnecessary moves where
practical and provide as much lead-time as possible to permit them the
opportunity to plan and execute moves in a manner that allows them to
make all necessary preparations, while minimizing stress.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to provide greater notice and
transparency of the PCS process for sailors and their families?
Answer. If confirmed I will work to ensure the necessary resources
are secured to afford families greater notice and transparency of
impending PCS moves to return to, or maintain, the goal of a 5 to 6
month lead-time. If confirmed, it would be my intent to continue to
look for efficiencies and ways to provide greater clarity and advanced
notification to those affected by the PCS process.
Question. How much additional funding would be required to provide
6 months of notice prior to PCS?
Answer. I am not sufficiently well informed to give you the answer
but I am told it is in excess of several hundred million dollars.
overall readiness of the armed forces
Question. How would you assess the current state of readiness?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and all the Service Chiefs have expressed grave concern about
the state of the military's current readiness. I share their concern as
the world becomes increasingly complex and the strategic environment
more challenging. I am particularly concerned about the ability to
surge and respond to unforeseen contingencies.
Question. How would you plan to restore full spectrum readiness of
the Navy and Marine Corps and under what timelines? Additionally, how
would you enforce those timelines to ensure that goals are met?
Answer. I support the Secretary of Defense's three-phase campaign
to improve warfighting readiness in fiscal year 2017, address pressing
shortfalls in fiscal year 2018 while continuing to rebuild readiness,
enhance modernization and begin to build a larger, more capable and
more lethal joint force in fiscal year 2019. Consistent with these
priorities, I support the Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2018
budget request that makes significant investments in improving
readiness, modernization and wholeness for both the Navy and Marine
Corps.
Full spectrum readiness recovery will take time to achieve. It took
10 years to get where we are presently and will take more than a couple
of years to return to a desirable level. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure we increase the rate of readiness recovery with every year's
budget, and enforce a commitment to maintaining and sustaining the
readiness of today's forces consistent with the new defense strategy.
acquisition issues
Question. The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year
2016 and 2017 made many changes to defense acquisition processes,
including reinserting service leaders' influence and accountability
into acquisition processes.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the
Department of the Navy is prepared to effectively manage its
acquisition programs?
Answer. While leadership at the top is necessary for effective
operations, I believe that holding people accountable should be a key
aspect in everything the Navy-Marine Corps does. If confirmed, I will
make it immediately clear that accountability for acquisition programs
start with me personally and I intend to instill that attitude of
accountability throughout the entire Department. Programs need to be
closely managed with a clear alignment of authority, responsibility and
accountability. If confirmed, personally ensuring that the Department
of the Navy has accountable leaders and adequately trained, accountable
acquisition personnel to manage, execute, and oversee its programs will
be a priority for me.
Question. If confirmed, how will you synchronize your acquisition
responsibilities with the Chief of Naval Operations?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy is responsible and accountable
for all Department of the Navy acquisition efforts and I welcome the
responsibility. If confirmed, I will also ensure that the Department of
the Navy continues to incorporate the enhanced acquisition roles for
the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps (CMC) enacted in the NDAAs for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to this Committee to ensure
authority, responsibility, and accountability for acquisition programs
are appropriately aligned?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that people are held
accountable for any failures in the performance of their
responsibilities?
Answer. Yes, and I look forward to working with you in order to
enhance the tools and policies necessary to accomplish this goal.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that those who perform
well are appropriately rewarded?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that managers of the Department
of the Navy acquisition enterprise utilize all authorities available to
them to reward high-performing members of the acquisition workforce. I
also look forward to incorporate best practices in highlighting success
from other high performance organizations.
financial management and audit readiness
Question. What actions will you take or direct that will achieve a
better outcome than past actions and initiatives for financial
auditability of the Defense Department?
Answer. I believe financial statement auditability is critical. I
know what a clean audit looks like and why it is important and the
effort involved in attaining one. As in the private sector, adhering to
accounting principles and disciplines will demonstrate accountability
and enhance enterprise credibility. If confirmed I will broadcast a
tone from the top that auditability of the Department of Navy is a
priority for every member of the leadership team and ensure that Flag/
General Officers/Senior Executives understand and are engaged and
accountable for their role in moving the Department toward its audit
goals.
defense capabilities
Question. In your assessment, what would be the impacts of
continued implementation of the Budget Control Act's discretionary caps
through fiscal year 2021 on the Department of the Navy? And, in
particular, how would end strength, capacity, capabilities, and
readiness be affected?
Answer. I believe the continued implementation of Budget Control
Act caps through 2021 will result in a Navy and Marine Corps team that
will find itself increasingly resource restrained when called to fulfil
the requirements of the combatant commanders.
Further imposition of the BCA caps will reduce both readiness,
capacity and the ability to grow the assets of the fleet.
Question. What do you believe are the appropriate end strength
levels for the Navy and Marine Corps to reach by 2022?
Answer. I know the Navy Marine Corps team is feeling the strain of
high operational tempo after 16 years of war, and the increased pace of
operations around the world. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the CNO and the Navy leadership as we address the need to reinvest
and grow the Navy, to include the need and timing for additional end
strength.
If confirmed, I also look forward to working with the Commandant
and the Marine Corps leadership to achieve the appropriate end strength
levels that balance the requirements of defending the Nation while
relieving the strain on Marines and their families.
Question. How would you propose achieving those levels with a focus
on continuing to recruit and retain high quality candidates?
Answer. The military services have long enjoyed success in meeting
aggregate recruiting and retention objectives with highly qualified
sailors. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to ensure the
authorities, resourcing, and technologies needed to maintain a high
quality force, with the capabilities necessary to meet emerging
challenges and carry out mission requirements, remains a top priority
Department of the Navy.
Question. What is your opinion on the necessity to modernize Navy
and Marine Corps weapons systems in light of current and emerging
threats?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps team must modernize current
systems and procure new systems in a timely manner to ensure that our
fighting forces have the overmatch capabilities required to defeat any
current or emerging threats.
Secretary Mattis' direction to restore readiness and achieve
program balance in fiscal year 2017 and 2018 are foundational elements
to building the needed capability and improving the lethality of the
force. However, in order to build the capability and increase
lethality, adequate and predictable funding must be made available to
support an efficient acquisition effort and higher yield on invested
resources.
Question. What are the most critical capabilities the Department of
the Navy needs to prioritize over the next 10 years?
Answer. Over the next 10 years the Navy and Marine Corps must
restore readiness, modernize the force, and build capacity. The DoN
must prioritize the procurement of advanced sensors, combat systems,
weapons, advanced intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and
command and control systems to ensure the force has the overmatch
capabilities required to defeat any threat. New capabilities must
address our ability to act in the electromagnetic spectrum in stressing
environments, and the ability to detect and defeat cyber attacks.
The DoN must continue to invest in new and emerging technologies
such as unmanned and directed energy to reduce vulnerability of our
people, increase capacity and capability, and provide cost-effective
solutions to defeat future threats.
Question. If confirmed, how will you keep Navy and Marine Corps
acquisition costs under control and ensure the American taxpayer
receives the best defense capabilities for their precious and scarce
defense dollars?
Answer. To instill the discipline of acquisition cost control an
organization must ensure that the requirements are well established and
technology is mature enough to support an acquisition decision. This
discipline does not negate flexibility to adapt to developing
enhancements but rather provides the framework to make those decisions
by weighing cost to outcome. At the same time, we must also overlay
this discipline and needed diligence on our Research and Development
teams in order to align the gains produced by their efforts.
If confirmed, you have my commitment that I will be an active and
accountable leader in the acquisition process and use the authorities
provided to ensure we make the best decisions possible to deliver
combat capabilities at the highest yield available for the resources
invested.
navy shipbuilding
Question. President Trump has vowed to rebuild the Navy toward a
goal of 350 ships. The Navy's latest Force Structure Assessment has
recommended a new goal of 355 ships. The previous recommendation was a
fleet size of 308 ships. The Navy's current naval battle force contains
only 273 ships, and will not achieve a force level goal of 308 ships
until 2021, even though various individual requirements are not met.
The Navy has not announced a plan for reaching the 355-ship force
structure.
Answer. In a November 2016 report, the Congressional Research
Service found that achieving and maintaining a notional 349-ship force
structure would require adding on the order of 45 to 58 ships to the
Navy's fiscal year 2017 30-year shipbuilding plan, or an average of
about 1.5 to 1.9 additional ships per year, at a cost of roughly $3.5
billion to $4.0 billion per year over the 30-year period.
Question. In your view, how large a Navy, consisting of what mix of
ships, will be needed in coming years to adequately perform Navy
missions?
Answer. We need a larger Navy fleet. The most recent Force
Structure Assessment recommends 355 ships. We must continually assess
our capabilities in order to fight above our weight class. We must
continue to look at new ways of operating the fleet, which may then
comprise new types of ships. The 2018 National Defense Strategy will
include a new force sizing construct that will further inform our force
structure growth.
Question. What steps are you considering recommending the President
take to realize his goal of a 350-ship Navy, particularly related to
additional ship procurement and the funding required?
Answer. I support the current priorities to improve the maintenance
and sustainment of the Navy's existing ships, which must provide us a
path to extend their service lives. I will also implement proven and
innovative ways to deliver ships faster and more affordably. Building a
larger Navy will also require increases in the defense spending caps,
and I strongly support congressional action to amend the Budget Control
Act.
Question. What is your understanding of the similarities and
differences between the new Administration's 350-ship goal and the
Navy's Force Structure Assessment recommendation of a 355-ship
requirement?
Answer. I believe the intent behind both goals is the same. The
strategic environment is rapidly changing and there is a greater
emphasis on maritime threats and operations for national security. A
larger Navy with greater capability is required to support forward
presence, which provides U.S. leadership with more options to respond
quickly when needed.
Question. The Navy has begun acquiring the replacements for the
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The new Columbia-class
boats are projected to have an acquisition cost of $10 billion per
ship. The Navy has stated publicly that it could not afford to buy both
the new SSBNs and maintain other required procurements under Defense
Department budget top lines that would be consistent with the defense
discretionary spending caps within the Budget Control Act.
If confirmed, what priority will you place on the Columbia-class
program in relation to other acquisition programs?
Answer. I believe ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are the most
survivable leg of the nuclear triad and will be responsible for 870
percent of the United States' accountable nuclear warheads after the
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits are achieved in
2018. If confirmed, I would support the Columbia-class Submarine
Program as the Navy's top modernization priority.
Question. Do you believe the Navy can expand to a 350-ship fleet,
while also procuring the Columbia-class SSBNs?
Answer. The shipbuilding industrial base, with predictable, stable
and sufficient budgets can support increased procurements while also
procuring the Columbia-class SSBNs. However, increasing ship
construction funding during the years of Columbia-class SSBN
procurement will be required. This is consistent with previous SSBN
procurement periods, where ship construction funds were increased
significantly to account for SSBN procurement.
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.
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. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to determine the
best approach to funding the Columbia-class SSBN program. I do support
the acquisition authorities provided by Congress, which are helping the
Navy build the Columbia-class SSBNs more affordably.
aircraft carriers
Question. After more than $2 billion in cost growth in each of the
first three Ford-class aircraft carriers, the costs of these ships
range from $11.4 billion to $12.9 billion.
In your view, should the Navy and Marine Corps explore options to
complement Ford and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and/or increase the
lethality and survivability of amphibious ready groups with smaller,
less expensive aircraft carriers?
Answer. I believe that all force structure options that provide the
required combat capabilities should be assessed and thoroughly reviewed
on an ongoing basis.
Question. When the construction contract was signed in 2008, the
planned delivery date of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was September
2015. The ship has not yet been delivered.
What is your understanding of the reasons behind the CVN-78
delivery delay, potential for further cost growth, and the timeline for
delivering this ship?
Answer. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) was finally delivered on
May 31, 2017, 20 months behind original delivery date. Her delivery was
delayed due to a number of factors within the Navy, with industry and
the inclusion of four major unproven technologies. The Ford-class, the
first new aircraft carrier design in 40 years, is expected to be a
substantial advancement over the Nimitz-class, with significantly
reduced manning requirements.
Question. What lessons should the Navy learn from the CVN-78
experience?
Answer. The lessons learned from CVN 78's design and construction
should drive down the cost for follow ships and, if confirmed, I will
ensure those accountable for the Ford-class, including me, make sure
the costs are reduced. I am told CVN 79 and 80 should achieve
significant cost reductions by refining the ship construction process,
capitalizing on technological improvements, and enhancing shipbuilder
facilities. I am also told construction performance of the John F.
Kennedy (CVN 79) is significantly improved in comparison to CVN 78 and
the Navy is taking proactive measures to cut costs even further. If
confirmed, I will review in detail how the Navy and industry are
addressing lessons learned to ensure they are being applied to the
fullest extent in order to drive down the cost of the follow-on ships
and to insure what is being advertised is accurate.
Question. In the fiscal year 2018 budget request, the USS
Enterprise (CVN-80) is estimated to cost $13.0 billion, which is $1.6
billion more than CVN-79. The former Secretary of the Navy certified to
the congressional defense committees on April 22, 2016 that CVN-80 will
repeat the design of CVN-79. The Navy plans to award the construction
contract in March 2018.
Will you personally review the CVN-80 cost estimate to ensure it is
fair and reasonable?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed as the person with ultimate
accountability, I will review the CVN-80 cost estimate in detail. If
necessary, I will also request independent cost estimates from outside
the Navy.
littoral combat ship (lcs)
Question. In February 2016, the Secretary of Defense announced his
decision to down-select to a single LCS variant and reduce the
procurement quantity to a combination of 40 basic variant LCS and
frigate variants of LCS, as codified in revision 3 of the LCS
acquisition strategy signed in March 2016. Section 123 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 prohibits revisions or
deviations from this acquisition strategy unless the Secretary of
Defense submits a certification to the congressional defense
committees. In the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 (PB18), the
Navy indicated the frigate requirements were being reviewed to increase
lethality and survivability and that the frigate competition would be
full and open to existing U.S. and foreign frigate designs, which would
be built in the United States.
What is your view of the LCS program?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be my desire to take a deep dive
into the LCS program in order to have a full understanding of the
history, the problems, the corrections and the options for the future.
I understand the Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment revalidated the
warfighting requirement for a total of 52 Small Surface Combatants
(SSCs). It is also my understanding the Navy intends to fulfill the SSC
requirement with a combination of LCS and its successor, the Frigate.
I believe we should immediately assess the options available to
transition to the development and construction of the Frigate. The
Frigate will further augment the SSC force with improved lethality and
survivability.
Question. What is your understanding of the Navy's revised
President's Budget 2018 frigate acquisition strategy? Do you support
it?
Answer. I understand the Navy revised the frigate acquisition
strategy to allow adequate time to define the requirements, mature the
Frigate design, and thoroughly evaluate design alternatives. While I
support the clear need to get this right, if confirmed, I intend to
ensure we have a sense of urgency in our efforts in delivering on the
strategy.
Question. If confirmed, will you review the current LCS and frigate
acquisition strategies and recommend changes if you deem them
necessary?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The initial operational capabilities for the 3 LCS
mission modules, which give the ships combat capabilities, have been
delayed by a cumulative of 27 years--5 years for the surface warfare
package (occurred 2015), 9 years for the anti-submarine warfare module
(expected 2019), and 13 years for the mine countermeasures package
(expected 2021)--creating a significant mismatch between the 26 LCS on
contract and their ability to deploy combat capabilities.
Do you consider it acceptable to have 26 LCS on contract with
little proven combat capability?
Answer. LCS procurements to date have yielded positive results with
stable ship designs, improved yard facilities, and a qualified work
force with both shipyards in full serial production, delivering ships
in an affordable manner. It is my understanding that the delivery of
the mission packages to the Fleet has witnessed many delays, the delays
in delivering these capabilities is, in my opinion, unacceptable. If
confirmed, I will review the Navy's acquisition strategies for both the
seaframes and the mission packages to ensure we are delivering needed
capability to the Fleet both affordably and in a timely fashion.
Question. Would you consider halting procurement of further LCS
seaframes or maintaining procurement at only the minimum sustaining
rate at least until all three modules have achieved an initial
operational capability?
Answer. The delivery of mission capability for the LCS platforms
has been sub optimal. If confirmed, I will review the Navy's
acquisition strategies to ensure we are delivering needed capability to
the fleet.
naval aviation
Question. What is your assessment of the most important challenges
facing Naval aviation? If confirmed, what steps would you take to meet
those challenges?
Answer. After providing for the safety of our sailors and marines,
the most important challenges facing Naval Aviation are readiness and
growing the force. To address these issues, if confirmed I will work to
deliver the most effective Naval Aviation capabilities and capacity
while striving for the highest yield on invested resources.
Question. Does the Navy have a sufficient number of strike-fighter
aircraft? If not, if confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
they do?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current strike fighter
inventory and projected procurements to determine the strategies needed
to have sufficient numbers of strike fighter aircraft to execute our
National Security and National Military Strategies, both current and
future.
Question. What is your understanding of the physiological episodes
that the Naval aviation community is confronting and plans to address
such episodes?
Answer. As the CNO recently articulated, resolving pilot
Physiological Episodes in F-18 and T-45 aircraft is Naval Aviation's
number-one safety issue. Currently, the Naval Aviation Enterprise is
addressing hypoxia and decompression events as the two most likely
causes of recent physiological episodes in naval aviators. The CNO and
Commandant are receiving regular updates, Fleet awareness is high,
protocols are in place, and, if confirmed, I intend to be focused on
mitigating risk and provide the resources necessary to correct the
potential deficiencies.
marine corps aviation
Question. What is your assessment of the most important challenges
facing Marine Corps aviation? If confirmed, what steps would you take
to meet those challenges?
Answer. The Marine Corps challenges are the same as the Navy. After
providing for the safety of our sailors and marines, the most important
challenges facing Naval Aviation are readiness and growing the force.
To address these issues, if confirmed I will work closely to deliver
the most effective Naval Aviation capabilities and capacity in the most
affordable manner possible.
Question. Is Marine Corps aviation readiness at an acceptable
level? If not, if confirmed, what steps would you take to improve
aviation readiness?
Answer. Like the Navy, the Marine Corps has also accepted
significant risk in aviation readiness accrued from 15-years of wartime
operational tempo and chronic underfunding of many readiness accounts.
They also remain challenged with planning for the transition from
flying legacy USMC F/A-18A-D and AV-8B aircraft that reach the end of
their service life before replacement aircraft (F-35B/F-35C) can be
delivered into service. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to
ensure our investments address the gap between the Strike Fighter
inventory forecasts and global force demands, both current and future.
f-35 joint strike fighter
Question. What is your assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?
If confirmed, what changes would you seek to implement in the program?
Answer. I am not aware of the detailed status or risks of the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter development program. I do know, however, that both
the Navy and Marine Corps are fully committed to F-35 as this 5th
generation aircraft provides the necessary capabilities to ensure we
maintain air superiority and provide global precision attack against
emerging threats. If confirmed, I will review this program to assess
the overall status.
Question. If confirmed, will you direct a reassessment of the
Department of the Navy's total program procurement quantity of F-35s,
currently established at 680 aircraft?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully review the Department's overall
strike asset requirements, taking into account all naval domain
systems--airborne, surface and subsurface, manned and unmanned. As
delineated in Title X of the Secretary of the Navy's responsibilities,
it is essential that the Department of the Navy provide the warfighting
flexibility and lethality to the combatant commanders. If confirmed, I
will ensure we procure and support the right quantity of F-35 aircraft
to ensure we have an effective naval strike capability in support of
the Joint Force.
Question. In your view, are there alternatives for the Department
of the Navy worthy of exploring other than purchasing 340 F-35C fighter
aircraft, such as purchasing advanced fourth generation fighters still
in production, such as enhanced F-18s, or developing a next generation
fighter aircraft beyond the F-35's capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to
examine the optimum 4th/5th generation strike fighter mix based on
threat assumptions, technology maturation and future strategic
assessments.
carrier air wing
Question. Do you believe the Navy's carrier air wing is designed to
meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, particularly in terms of
available strike range, available payload, electronic warfare, and
command and control? Why or why not? If not, if confirmed, what steps
would you take to address any gaps?
Answer. The Carrier Strike Group (CSG) or Expeditionary Strike
Group (ESG) is often the first responder to any crisis. I believe the
Department has composed, and will continue to balance, the carrier air-
wing (CVW) with the right mix of capabilities to meet the needs of the
nation. If confirmed, I will review CSG/ESG capabilities to ensure our
CVW roadmaps deliver the warfighting capability and capacity needed to
fulfill the requirements of the combatant commanders and respond to the
threats faced by our nation.
unmanned aviation
Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate role unmanned
aviation has to play in Naval and Marine Corps aviation? If confirmed,
what steps would you take to advance unmanned aviation?
Answer. I believe that unmanned systems, across all domains, will
play an invaluable part in future Naval Warfare. In particular,
Unmanned Aviation will play a key role for both the Carrier Strike
Group and Marine Air Ground Task Forces. Unmanned families of systems
will not only make our manned systems more effective by extending their
range and endurance, but they will play key roles in all missions,
including forward presence, counter-terrorism, crisis response, strike
warfare and security cooperation. If confirmed, I intend to assess how
unmanned systems, working in collaboration with manned systems and
other unmanned capabilities can provide our Navy and Marine Corps
further strategic and tactical advantage.
Question. Do you believe that the MQ-25 should achieve initial
operating capability sooner than the current plan of fiscal year 2026?
If so, what steps would you recommend to achieve an earlier initial
operational capability?
Answer. The Navy is committed to unmanned carrier (CVN) aviation
and MQ-25 is the next step in the integration of unmanned air systems
into the carrier air wing (CVW). If confirmed, I will keep Congress
informed on MQ-25 development progress and our efforts to accelerate
delivery of this critical enabling capability.
munitions
Question. Munitions inventories, particularly those of precision
guided munitions, have declined significantly due to high operational
usage, insufficient procurement, and a requirements system that does
not adequately account for the ongoing need to transfer munitions to
our allies and operations short of major combat, such as in the current
operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure we have
sufficient inventories of munitions to meet our combatant commanders'
needs?
Answer. Munitions inventories have also been challenged by several
years of budget reductions and instability. In managing risk under the
Budget Control Act and Bipartisan Budget Act funding levels for the
last 5 years, the Navy prioritized deployed and next-to-deploy forces,
manpower, and shipbuilding because it is the least reversible element
of procurement. This compelled the need to take risk in surge
readiness, shore readiness, and aircraft and munitions procurement.
It is my understanding that the Navy is working to recover
readiness in fiscal year 2017 and address pressing shortfalls in fiscal
year 2018, consistent with the Secretary of Defense's priorities.
If confirmed, I will work with Congress to increase readiness
recovery and restoral of these pressing shortfalls as a high priority
in fiscal year 2018, and support the proposed investments in improving
munitions inventories.
navy and marine corps-related defense industrial base
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the systems
and processes for identifying, evaluating, and managing risk among the
entities that form the Navy and Marine Corps industrial base?
Answer. I believe that the Navy and Marine Corps should incorporate
industrial base concerns into their acquisition/procurement strategies
to ensure risk is appropriately managed. If confirmed, I will ensure
the Department of the Navy will continue to manage the risk associated
with maintaining a healthy industrial base while balancing prudent
expenditure of resources.
Question. Should Department of the Navy acquisition leaders
consider impacts on the industrial base when addressing requirements
for recapitalization or modernization of major end items such as ships,
aircraft, munitions, or key repair parts?
Answer. Yes. It is important to balance the health and productivity
of industrial base when addressing requirements for recapitalization or
modernization of ship, aircraft, munitions, or key repair parts while
exercising prudence in resource expenditures.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you pursue in
systems and processes to improve identification, monitoring,
assessment, and timely actions to ensure that risk in the Department of
the Navy-relevant sectors of the defense industrial base is adequately
managed in order to develop, produce, and sustain technically superior,
reliable, and affordable weapons systems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current processes and seek
opportunities for improvement within the Department of the Navy to
ensure the defense industrial base is managed to optimally build and
sustain affordable weapon systems with the most efficient use of
taxpayer resources.
science and technology
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the role
that science and technology programs have played and will play in
developing capabilities for current and future Navy and Marine Corps
systems?
Answer. New discoveries play a vital, though not singular, role in
delivering new capability. Ultimately, it is the people--our team of
military, civilians, scientists, engineers, business professionals,
contractors and dedicated staff--and the broader R&D community across
industry, academia and government that will meet the capability needs
of future naval forces.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that Navy and Marine
Corps science and technology programs will successfully transition to
operational warfighting capabilities?
Answer. The defining attribute of future naval forces is
survivability and speed--not only in operations, but in corporate
decision-making and business execution. We must be responsive to the
accelerating pace of technology development and create pathways that
will result in the timely fielding of new naval capabilities. It
requires bold leadership and immediate action to attack this problem
with the same intensity we bring to the battlespace. If confirmed, I
commit to build on the strong foundation of research, with the talented
people and partners in government, academia and industry, and to
continue to develop evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities while
reducing cost and increasing speed.
Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to judge the
value and the investment level in Navy and Marine Corps science and
technology programs?
Answer. The criterion for victory is clear: the rapid fielding of
new capabilities that are adaptive, autonomous, integrated,
interoperable, survivable, sustainable and especially, lethal. The Navy
Marine Corps team faces growing complexity of threats, which we will
not defeat by simply out-spending. Success necessitates speed of
innovation, agility and adaptability.
Question. In your opinion, do the test ranges play a valuable role
in ensuring that new technologies are ready for deployment? If
confirmed, what steps would you take to strengthen the test ranges?
Answer. Integral to the process of fielding new capabilities is the
need for more demonstrations with the Fleet to mature technologies and
prove concepts; thereby reducing risk, cost and time in acquisition.
Demonstrations, both live, virtual and constructive, ensures that the
technology is ready to move forward. Our Navy needs to accommodate this
blended approach to demonstration and test.
test and evaluation (t&e) efforts
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Navy and
Marine Corps T&E infrastructure is robust enough to ensure that new
systems and technologies are tested to verify their combat
effectiveness and suitability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to assess the
current approach, with the goal of ensuring that the Navy's T&E
infrastructure is adequately funded and managed to provide T&E
infrastructure capability to satisfy high priority T&E requirements in
a timely manner.
Question. What metrics will you use to assess the quality of the
Department of the Navy's T&E infrastructure?
Answer. If confirmed, I will also address this area to ensure the
DON has the required T&E infrastructure, to include exploring the
private sector for best practices in testing and evaluation.
information technology programs
Question. What major improvements would you like to see made in the
Navy's and Marine Corps' development and deployment of major
information technology (IT) systems?
Answer. I believe that the Navy needs to improve the efforts in
Cyber-Cyber Deterrence, Cyber Resiliency, while building the
foundational capabilities to enhance cyber attribution, cyber
resilience of the joint force, and innovative technologies. This will
increase the cyber security of our vital IT infrastructure. If
confirmed, I will work closely with Navy leadership and our commercial
sector partners to leverage existing commercial IT products and
solutions in an effort to benefit from our commercial partners' lessons
learned and to capture savings from these efforts.
Question. If confirmed, how will you encourage process and cultural
change in organizations so that they maximize the benefits that new
enterprise IT systems can offer in terms of cost savings and
efficiency?
Answer. If confirmed, my goal would be to bring my private sector
experience regarding business efficiencies and change management to the
Department of the Navy. I will work closely with Navy leadership to
instill a top down and bottom up approach to reviewing how IT systems
can promote efficiencies and savings which will positively impact
overall readiness. Additionally, if confirmed, I will work with Navy
leadership to ensure that the Navy workforce has the analytical tools
and training to increase the ability to glean more useful information
and intelligence from data and the use of IT systems.
Question. What is the relationship between the Department of the
Navy's efforts to implement enterprise IT programs and supporting
computing services and infrastructure to support Department of the Navy
missions and efforts being undertaken by the Defense Information
Systems Agency?
Answer. I understand that the Navy is working efforts to ensure
that informed, risk-based decisions are made so that every dollar
counts, and to the maximum extent practical, the Navy chooses the
technical solution or service provider which provides the best value.
If confirmed, I will welcome the opportunity to work with the other
military Departments and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
to achieve increased security, effectiveness, efficiencies or best
value and will further the ongoing efforts by the Navy team to leverage
all DISA efforts. As a consumer of computer services and
infrastructure, I will look to DISA as a competitive supplier of those
services and expect to benchmark them as such. Lastly, if confirmed, I
will continue to consider industry solutions in the cases where a more
cost effective option is offered.
Question. How will you ensure that appropriate business process
reengineering is undertaken and accomplished before initiating new
business systems, IT program development, and deployment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with DON's Chief Management
Office to ensure any investments for defense business systems follow
the guidelines identified in the NDAA, Title 10, and any supplemental
guidance issued by the Department of Defense. Additionally, our first
step must be deciding what capabilities we are trying to achieve.
Future capabilities are based on reengineering the high-level future
business processes that will deliver those capabilities. This includes
selecting and tailoring commercial best practices to meet the needs of
the end-user community. Taking a capability focused approach will force
us to think how to best improve our business and not exclusively focus
on acquiring systems.
Question. What role will the Department of the Navy's research and
testing enterprise play in the development and deployment of Navy and
Marine Corps business IT systems?
Answer. Given the Navy's ever increasing use of commercial products
and industry best practices, the role of the research and testing in
enterprise IT and business systems is critical. It is important that
the Navy makes technically informed decisions that meet its cost and
functional performance requirements. The Navy must understand where
industry solutions are adequate and where it needs additional
development or customization. It is also important to understand how
these systems can seamlessly work together and share data to support
analysis and decision making. If confirmed, I will further the current
Navy efforts to realize the cost savings, capabilities and efficiencies
that commercial technologies may provide.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before this Committee in the past
have testified that the military services under-invest in both the
maintenance and recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure
compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-investment in
Defense Department installations have led to substantial backlogs of
facility maintenance activities, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity. These challenges have been
exacerbated by current budget pressures.
What is your assessment of Navy and Marine Corps infrastructure
investment?
Answer. I believe the Navy Marine Corps investment in
infrastructure is inadequate and this inadequate activity is causing a
rapidly growing liability and imposing a negative impact on readiness.
In recent years, the Department of the Navy has prioritized other
higher priority requirements above necessary infrastructure
investments. This has created a +$10 billion project backlog which is
affecting current readiness and driving up long term lifecycle and
sustainment costs for the infrastructure portfolio.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
increase resources to reduce the backlog and improve Navy and Marine
Corps facilities?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, leadership will
conduct of thorough review of all DON requirements to ensure the Navy
and Marine Corps are focusing our limited resources on the most
critical and highest priority projects. The significant investments
required to rebuild the Navy and the Marine Corps and bolster
warfighting readiness will continue to constrain the Department of the
Navy's ability to dedicate appropriated funds to infrastructure
improvements. Given the current resource constrained environment, the
Department of the Navy must continue to explore innovative ways to
leverage public private partnerships and third-party financing in order
to overcome the limited availability of appropriated funds. I would
like to thank the Committees for the tremendous flexibility afforded to
the Services through important new authorities that allow us to address
our infrastructure challenges. If confirmed, I will ensure the DON
continues to work with the Congress and seek additional authorities
that may help unleash and leverage the value of our assets to improve
readiness.
base closure and realignments
Question. The Department of Defense has repeatedly requested a Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.
Do you believe another BRAC round is necessary? If so, why?
Answer. Coming from the private sector, it makes sense to me that
DOD should have the authority to periodically review and adjust its
infrastructure to make it more efficient and effective. The five prior
rounds of BRAC (88, 91, 93, 95 and 05) continue to save DOD $12 billion
annually and I have been told a new round could save an additional $2
billion each year. This additional savings would prove critical to
efforts to rebuild the Navy and Marine Corps and improve warfighting
readiness. A future BRAC round might also afford the DON the
opportunity to better unleash the inherent value of Department assets
and leverage that value to improve capabilities and readiness.
Question. If confirmed, and if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, how would you go about setting priorities for
infrastructure reduction and consolidation within the Department of the
Navy?
Answer. Military value is the primary consideration in determining
priorities for reduction and consolidation. The Department of the Navy
would focus on eliminating excess capacity, improving operational
readiness, maintaining quality of service, and saving money while
balancing those efforts with potential future growth of the force.
Since this does need to be looked at Department wide, I would work
closely with the Service Chiefs to assess priorities and ensure we
``get it right.'' It is essential the DON accurately assesses it
current and future requirements and that we focus on preserving those
critical and often irreplaceable assets including testing and training
ranges.
Question. If confirmed, and if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, what is your understanding of the responsibilities of the
Navy and Marine Corps in working with local communities with respect to
property disposal?
Answer. If Congress authorized another BRAC round, DON would work
closely with all affected local communities and DOD recognized Local
Redevelopment Authorities to achieve transfer and redevelopment goals.
In previous BRAC rounds, our strong commitment to this process has been
mutually beneficial to DON and the local communities. Transferring
properties from previous BRAC rounds has often proven onerous. I would
request the Committees consider BRAC Authorities that would enable the
Department to more quickly transition property for reuse.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. What is your assessment of the Navy and Marine Corps
sexual assault prevention and response programs?
Answer. I believe sexual assault is a significant problem and a
serious threat to the morale, good order, discipline, and readiness of
the Department of the Navy. The sexual assault prevention and response
(SAPR) programs must be a clear priority in the Navy and Marine Corps.
I understand that both Services within the Department are engaged in
the active pursuit of facilitating heightened awareness of sexual
assault, how it threatens the armed forces, and reporting options for
victims and witnesses. The Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant
continue to work closely with the Department and demonstrate both a
clear understanding of the risks to the services of this criminal
activity, as well as a commitment to the eradication of this threat.
The SAPR programs need the requisite tools and resources to further
their mission, which includes ensuring the availability of
comprehensive care for sexual assault victims. The Department must
continue to emphasize a climate of dignity and respect where male and
female victims alike are empowered to report this crime.
If confirmed, I am firmly committed to continuing to focus our
resources and enhancing our efforts in terms of both prevention and
response.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Navy and Marine Corps have in place to prevent sexual
assaults and to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual
assault?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with key leadership in
the Secretariat, the Services and the private sector to identify any
inadequacies, resolve them, and explore ways to improve the system.
The training environment must be robust and focused on changing
adverse attitudes and behaviors with the goal of encouraging marines
and sailors to take an active role in preventing sexual assault. Part
of this prevention effort is helping marines and sailors understand
healthy relationships and the positive impact they have on the Marine
Corps as a whole.
The Navy must be steadfast in its efforts to improve victim
services and increase confidence and trust in the response system; only
when victims are confident in the support they will receive will they
come forward to report. Support services must be comprehensive so
victims can obtain support immediately via 24/7 support lines; receive
assistance via credentialed Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and
Victim Advocates; and access world class medical, counseling, and legal
support through qualified professionals.
Question. What is your assessment of the Navy and Marine Corps
Victims' Legal Counsel programs?
Answer. I understand Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC) are certified,
trained, and qualified attorneys who provide essential support,
assistance, advice, and advocacy for victims of sexual offenses as
cases navigate the military's disciplinary and administrative systems.
However, I do not expect to rest on our laurels. If I am confirmed, I
will focus on continually exploring best practices and providing the
best services available to uniformed members and their families.
I believe that the VLCs should serve as personal legal advocates to
ensure victims are in the best position to leverage all of the tools
available to them. The program should help ensure victims are advised
and assisted in exercising their rights by trained judge advocates. I
understand Navy VLCs have built strong relations with local commanding
officers and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program
personnel.
Question. What is your understanding of the adequacy of Navy and
Marine Corps resources and programs to provide victims of sexual
assault the medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
Answer. It is my belief that effective services should be widely
available, and that sexual assault victims should receive a high
priority for care and support. I understand Sexual Assault Forensic
Exams are now widely available at Navy hospitals, and numerous
providers have been trained in the special requirements of victim
support. If confirmed, I will ensure Navy and Marine Corps leaders at
all levels have the resources they need to train unit personnel as well
as advise and assist victims of sexual assault. If confirmed, I will
explore ways to sustain and expand these efforts.
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. Military commanders are charged with fostering an
environment where sexual assault and the behaviors and actions that may
lead to it are unacceptable. They drive the command climate and culture
and ensure a safe and productive working environment. Their involvement
in the disciplinary process is important. I believe it is critical to
the military justice process that military commanders have disposition
authority over sexual assaults, and do not favor removing this
authority from commanders. I will, however, carefully consider any
recommendations from the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) and of
independent review groups that can improve the Department's SAPR
program.
Question. What is your assessment of the Navy's and Marine Corps'
protections against retaliation or reprisal for reporting sexual
assault?
Answer. Stopping retaliation and reprisal is critical and we must
continue to focus on it. I understand the Department is taking action
to include, among other things, the use of live-action interactive
training that involves audience participation in scenarios designed to
educate about how to recognize and prevent retaliation and ostracism--
to over 90,000 sailors and marines world-wide. I also understand that
in addition to training senior leadership on this matter, a key
component of the Department of the Navy's response is confronting such
conduct through strengthening leadership skills among managers at the
lower ends of the chain of command and in individual workplaces. If
confirmed, I am committed to assessing our training and support
programs and helping sexual assault survivors heal and succeed--both in
the Service and in their personal lives--and I will take any
appropriate measures to ensure victims are protected.
child abuse in military families
Question. Recent press reports indicate that the number of
incidents of child abuse in military families has increased.
What is your understanding of the extent of this issue in the Navy
and Marine Corps, and if confirmed, what actions will you take to
address it?
Answer. My understanding is that the Family Advocacy Program (FAP)
monitors all reported incidents of child maltreatment in the Department
of the Navy. The Department provides OSD a quarterly report of findings
and works with the other services to address this issue. Programs such
as New Parent Support and Prevention & Education focus on preventing
child abuse and neglect through public awareness, outreach campaigns,
group education, and individual home visitation. If confirmed, I will
continue to conduct analysis, align our prevention and education
efforts accordingly, and monitor clinical programs that support
families who are at risk or have experienced child abuse and neglect.
abusive online conduct
Question. Recently, this Committee considered testimony on reports
that certain members of Marines United, an unofficial Marine Corps
Facebook group, were found to be posting degrading comments and sharing
nude photos of female servicemembers. Members of the group included a
number of Active Duty servicemembers, former military members, and
military retirees.
What is the current Department of the Navy policy for use of social
media by sailors and marines?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy
policy is that any form of harassment, discrimination, or hazing,
online or otherwise, is not tolerated, and is inconsistent with the
core values of the Navy and Marine Corps. The policy provides
commanders with mechanisms for judicial or non-judicial punishment and
administrative measures, as appropriate. Behaviors that rise to the
level of sexual harassment, whether conducted person-to-person, online,
or by any other method, are covered under this policy. I also believe
the Marine Corps and Navy have recently promulgated new guidance for
wrongful distribution or broadcasting of intimate images.
Question. In your view, is this policy adequate to address abuses
such as what occurred in the Marines United incident?
Answer. Vigilance is the key to ensuring that the DON social media
policy has teeth to preclude the behaviors the policy is intended to
prevent. Rest assured, if confirmed, I will be vigilant and will charge
Navy and Marine Corps members of all ranks to exercise vigilance, at
all times, and to hold offenders accountable through appropriate
judicial, non-judicial and administrative means, as warranted by the
circumstances.
Additional policy changes may be necessary to address online
misconduct and inappropriate online behavior to modernize our approach
to this relatively new issue and to ensure that leaders and their
marines and sailors understand how to behave responsibly online.
Question. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure that
members of the Navy and Marine Corps are not subjected to abusive
online conduct?
Answer. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to review our policies
to ensure we keep abreast of developments in technology and social
media and to train all personnel in the Department of the Navy on how
to behave responsibly online-so that all understand they do not abandon
their ethical and moral responsibilities when they enter the online
world, and that our Service's core values of Honor, Courage, and
Commitment apply wherever they go, whenever they go there.
If confirmed, I will assess the progress the Navy and Marine Corps
have made since the discovery of the Marines United revelations, in
terms of trends in the number of incidents, and enforcement of the
policy to hold violators accountable and, where appropriate, separate
them from the Department of the Navy.
Question. In your view, do the Navy and Marine Corps have
sufficient legal authority to hold offenders accountable for such
misconduct?
Answer. I believe that, for the most part, Navy and Marine Corps
have sufficient legal authority to deal with most misconduct that may
be committed by sailors and marines. But I understand that as new forms
of technology emerge, there may be adjustments necessary to ensure
available authorities keep pace with the tools by which such misconduct
may occur. Although there is no specific offense under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) addressing the nonconsensual distribution of
intimate images, I believe that Commanders currently have adequate
tools at their disposal to hold offenders accountable for online
misconduct.
If confirmed, I will look at this issue carefully and I will let
Congress know if, for any reason, I determine that the Department or
individual Services lack the necessary authorities.
Question. What legislative authorities, if any, do you believe are
necessary to address this problem?
Answer. I believe that the Navy conducted an assessment of all
legal and administrative tools and is considering what, if any,
additional authorities may be needed. If confirmed, I will work with
Navy and Marine Corps leaders to determine whether the Services have
the necessary tools, and I will not hesitate to ask Congress for any
assistance needed to eradicate this behavior from the Department of the
Navy.
religious guidelines
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. I believe that the DON provides for the free exercise of
religion to the maximum extent possible by all members of the Military
Services who choose to exercise that right in concert with DOD
policies.
Question. Do you agree that the primary role of the military
chaplaincy is to provide for the free exercise of religion by all
servicemembers and that military chaplains are sufficiently trained to
perform or provide for this constitutional right in today's pluralistic
military community? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, I believe that Chaplains provide for those of their
own faith, and facilitate the meeting of religious needs of those of
other faiths as trained by the Navy Chaplain Corps.
Question. Do you believe it is the role of military chaplains to
provide for the religious and spiritual well-being of all members of
the Armed Forces, regardless of their faith beliefs?
Answer. Yes, I believe Chaplains provide and facilitate for the
religious beliefs of all members, to include for the faith-specific
needs of co-religionists.
Question. Do you believe that current policies provide sufficient
guidance to military chaplains who conduct non-religious command
training where attendance is required or encouraged to allow chaplains
to discuss their religious faith anecdotally and respectfully in a
pluralistic setting to support the training objectives?
Answer. Yes, I also believe Chaplains willingly serve in the
pluralistic environment of the military because they are selfless
patriots. I am confident in their desire to care and facilitate for
all, and that they are trained to discern the venues for inclusion, and
exclusion, of religious elements.
women in combat integration
Question. Do you believe it is necessary for improved military
readiness to allow women to serve in the combat arms?
Answer. I believe without reservation that every patriot, with a
desire to serve, should be afforded that opportunity, with the singular
caveat that all must meet the standards of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Maintaining warfighting advantage requires diversity of experience,
background and ideas. The Services must pull from the widest pool of
talent and backgrounds to maximize warfighting capability, adapt to
emerging threats and challenges, and leverage new opportunities. I
believe the Department of the Navy is committed to allowing all
applicants to compete for any combat arms position if they have the
propensity and are fully qualified. If confirmed, I will support that
commitment. ,
Question. What is your understanding of the plan to integrate women
into the ground combat arms?
Answer. It is my understanding that all combat arms positions are
open to women who meet the qualifications to fill them. All combat
units are open and female leaders are being assigned to those units and
will be in place as junior female Marines enter those units. A years-
long research and assessment effort of the Marine Corps Integration
Implementation Plan (MCIIP) commenced this past April, and is expected
to inform a significant portion of the annual updates to Congress. The
MCIIP tasks are either complete or ongoing as enduring efforts.
While I understand the number of applicants for Navy Special
Warfare combat positions is relatively small to-date, the integration
initiative is still in its infancy. The Navy has a long and successful
track record of successfully integrating women into previously closed
occupations, and I am confident that, as in the past, successful
integration will occur, while maintaining the quality and capability of
the force. If confirmed, I will keep a close eye on the progress to
determine whether it becomes necessary to revisit any aspects of the
integration plan.
Question. The Marine Corps' research demonstrated that women
suffered higher injury rates among women than men when engaged in field
combat exercises and training. Does this research concern you? If so,
how will you mitigate these effects?
Answer. The health and safety of all servicemembers is of great
concern to me. The studies that were conducted provided a significant
amount of data concerning the physiology, types of injuries, and injury
rates sustained by both men and women. If confirmed, and as additional
data is gathered, I will assess any necessary measures to protect the
health and safety of all servicemembers.
Question. If women become subject to the draft, should they also be
prepared for involuntary assignment based upon the needs of the Navy
and Marine Corps?
Answer. Yes; without question. Our all-volunteer military needs
access to the broadest range of talent--male and female--that our
Nation has to offer. In the highly unlikely event of a draft, all who
have registered for the Selective Service--and all Americans--should be
prepared to defend our Nation.
Question. What is your opinion on whether men and women in combat
and special forces specialties should be subject to the same physical
requirements for participation in those specialties?
Answer. I support the 3 Dec 2015 SECDEF memo: ``The Services will
continue to apply previously developed and validated operationally
relevant and objective standards for all career fields to assure that
leaders assign tasks and career fields throughout the force based on
ability, not gender.'' I believe this approach is integral to
preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and morale.
recent changes by former secretary of the navy ray mabus
Question. Former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus made a number of
changes to Navy programs during his tenure. This Committee heard from
sailors and marines inquiring as to the reasons for these changes.
What is your opinion on requiring female sailors to purchase new
uniforms that are designed to more closely resemble the male Navy
uniform?
Answer. I am aware of the concerns about the design changes among
many sailors, as well as in the Congress. A more effective dialogue
with the force would have served to alleviate some of the concerns,
which I am told they have now been addressed.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to informing this Committee
of the rationale behind any changes to uniforms, ratings, or personnel
policies during your tenure?
Answer. Yes.
military health care
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. The Military Health System currently operates military
treatment facilities through multiple agency and command structures,
including the Service Medical Departments, multiple Regional Commands,
enhanced Multi-Service Markets, and the National Capital Region Medical
Directorate. My previous experiences in corporate consolidations
supports the consolidation of responsibilities under a component model
that will enable standardization of many business and clinical
functions, resulting in added efficiency and an improved experience of
care for our beneficiaries.
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. Transition to a component model will dynamically transform,
standardize, and streamline management of the Direct Care System. This
standardization will result in added efficiency and an improved
experience of care for our beneficiaries, all while ensuring the
Services meet their readiness mission in the most effective and
efficient manner possible.
Question. In your view, how would a component model eliminate the
current stove-piped medical command structures of the Services?
Answer. The component model provides us an opportunity to balance
consolidation of core health care management business functions and
elimination of unwarranted duplicative activities, while minimizing the
negative impacts to providing agile, rapid, and ready support to our
Navy and Marine Corps. The ``dual-hatting'' of the service intermediate
command establishes an integration point for the administration and
management of health care delivery in military treatment facilities
under the single authority, direction, and control of the Defense
Health Agency--creating a single integrated military health care
system.
Question. If confirmed, will you work with the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to reevaluate the Department's decision to proceed with a
component model to implement section 702?
Answer. I fully support the decision of the Department and, if
confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the successful implementation of
the construct of Military Departments and the Defense Health Agency
working together interdependently to meet both readiness and healthcare
delivery missions.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure a rapid and efficient
transfer of the operations of the Navy's military medical facilities to
the DHA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will remain focused on providing a
structure that maximizes the efficiencies of healthcare delivery
through standardized military treatment facility operations, resource
management, patient services, and other functions while minimizing any
adverse impact on the effectiveness of our readiness mission.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Navy reduces
its medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure (including regional
command staffs and infrastructure) to reflect the changing scope and
size of its health care mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I will monitor the transition and watch for
efficiency opportunities presented by the consolidation of
responsibilities from the Service Medical Departments to the Defense
Health Agency, under the component model. I would also look for best
practices that are used in the private sector.
family readiness and support
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues for marines, sailors, and their families, and, if
confirmed, how would you ensure that family readiness needs are
addressed and adequately resourced, especially in light of current
fiscal constraints?
Answer. I think among the most critical family readiness issues
among sailors and their families, is the unacceptable, and quite
frankly, frighteningly-high incidence of suicide, sexual assault,
domestic violence, and drug and alcohol abuse. Taking care of marines,
sailors and their families is a key element of overall readiness and
combat effectiveness. The most important family readiness issues facing
the Navy and Marine Corps are: 1) Unstable fiscal environments and the
impact on Quality of Life and readiness; 2) Effective solutions to
reduce sexual assaults, suicides, and other destructive behaviors; and
3) Improving facilities to support training, operations, and Quality of
Life. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that the outstanding
array of programs and services currently available to support Navy
families will remain a top priority when competing for austere budget
resources.
systems and support for wounded sailors and marines
Question. What is your assessment of the progress made to date by
the Department of the Navy to improve the care, management, and
transition of seriously ill and injured marines and sailors, and their
families?
Answer. Our Wounded Warriors remains one of our highest priorities.
If confirmed, I will ensure that they always are. We have made great
strides in recent years to improve their care, case management, and
transition to civilian life, but there is always room for improvement.
Through close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, these special servicemembers
are made fully aware of the support services and benefits that will be
available to them.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Department of the
Navy's support for wounded, ill, and injured marines and sailors, and
to monitor their progress in returning to duty or to civilian life?
Answer. I believe that periodic outreach through targeted social
media and telephone contact addresses our moral obligation to ensure
these deserving individuals are aware of, applying for, and receiving
the benefits and services available to them is a good start.
Partnerships with academia, the private sector and other
governmental agencies are a key factor in our ability to successfully
support our sailors' and marines' future success. The 2017 National
Defense Authorization Act provides additional authorities to expand and
enhance these relationships. If confirmed, I am committed to pursuing
those partnerships that will provide our servicemembers with the best
strategies and resources for continued success in serving our Nation or
in their transition to civilian life.
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 the Navy?
Answer. The Department of Navy's core values are honor, courage,
and commitment. The foundation of our success lies in the ability to
gain and hold the trust of our personnel and the chain of command by
setting a positive, professional and personal example, consistent with
the Navy's core values. These values are the cornerstone of the DON's
culture and they guide behavior. Senior leaders are entrusted to uphold
the highest standards of personal and professional conduct at all
times. Meeting these high standards of conduct is as critical as
meeting our high standards of material, personnel and operational
readiness. Make no mistake, if confirmed, I hold this issue as a high
priority and accountability will be the keyword.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps are held accountable for
their actions and performance?
Answer. All allegations of misconduct involving senior leaders are
and will be investigated. All completed investigations are and will be
reviewed and, when warranted by the evidence, appropriate
administrative or disciplinary actions will occur. If confirmed, I will
continue the Navy's focus on character development, and I will be
firmly committed to holding senior leaders accountable regardless of
rank or position. There is no room for any behavior, criminal or
otherwise, that undermines the trust and confidence within the services
or the civilian population..
management and development of the senior executive service
Question. The transformation of the armed forces has brought with
it an increasing realization of the importance of efficient and forward
thinking management of senior executives.
What is your vision for the management and development of the Navy
and Marine Corps senior executive workforce, especially in the
critically important areas of acquisition, financial management, and
the scientific and technical fields?
Answer. The crucial role of the senior executive cadre in meeting
the Department of the Navy mission cannot be understated as they lead
major organizations, managing the day-to-day operations of the entire
Department. It is imperative that we remain focused on supporting our
talent pool. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy and Marine Corps
team to ensure that Executives are not only placed in the correct
position, but also offered ongoing training and educational
opportunities so that they can be successful as individuals and on
behalf of the enterprise.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Navy has the
number of senior executives it needs, with the proper skills, to manage
the Department into the future?
Answer. I will work across the Department of the Navy enterprise to
ensure that the levels of senior leadership are positioned correctly to
fully support mission readiness and effectiveness. It is imperative to
ensure SES integration with military and civilian leadership on the
decisions made going forward to sustain the level of readiness
necessary to support the Navy and Marine Corps mission. I also believe
that we must provide the SES corps a robust management performance tool
in order to provide the services the best in class civilian managers.
china
Question. From your perspective, what effect is 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. From what I have read, China's growing military
capabilities are of concern to our allies and partners throughout the
Asia Pacific region-particularly in light of China's excessive
Exclusive Economic Zone claims in the SCS. Our posture should ensure we
are able to sail or fly, with allies and partners, anywhere
international law allows. The accelerated pace of China's expanding
economy and growing military, as well as its modernization could
possibly contest United States military activity within regional areas
of proximity to China. If trends continue, China may evolve its
standing as a strategic competitor for regional prominence.
Question. What can the United States Naval forces 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?
Answer. I believe a U.S. approach relies upon a continuing forward
presence of forces in contested areas so that we can, if needed, deter
conflict, contain escalation, and respond to crises, not only
unilaterally, but with our allies and partners. Accelerated investments
in technological improvements will aid in this, and studies should be
undertaken over what advancements are most important relative to
threats.
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 Conventional on the Law of the Sea? Do you believe the
United States should ratify the convention?
Answer. Yes, I support UNCLOS. And, as China is a signatory to
UNCLOS, we should hold them to those treaty standards. While we abide
by its tenants, formally ratifying UNCLOS would further enhance our
positon on this issue. So, yes, I support the ratification of UNCLOS.
asia-pacific
Question. Do you believe that helping countries in Southeast Asia
increase their naval capacities is in the strategic interests of the
United States? If so, in your opinion, what is the best approach to
maximize United States security assistance funding?
Answer. Yes, I believe it is in our interests. If confirmed, I look
forward to studying this issue in depth with the PACOM commander and
providing you a more detailed response. However, I believe we must
maximize all of the tools at our disposal to enhance the capabilities
and capacities of our partners and allies. The Asia-Pacific arena is
likely to remain the most consequential region for the security of the
United States well into the future. As such, the DON should be
committed to providing relevant, ready, and resilient forces forward
with the means and capabilities necessary to protect the Nation's
enduring interests. The Navy's strategic laydown and dispersal plan
must continue to be reviewed annually to optimize the worldwide
assignment of navy ships and aircraft.
russia
Question. Senior United States military officials have said Russia
is the number one threat to the United States.
Please describe the challenges United States Naval forces face from
Russia and what steps may be required by Naval forces to address these
concerns.
Answer. I believe that Russia is the most significant near-term,
potential threat. Their technological advancements allow them to
threaten United States naval forces and the United States Homeland now
and in the future. That said, I believe that U.S. Navy's deployed
forces remain fully ready to respond should they be called upon to do
so.
If confirmed, I would routinely assess Navy readiness and the
ability to execute operational plans against all potential adversaries,
and recommend to the President and Secretary of Defense any changes
required to ensure success.
iran
Question. Iranian malign influence appears to continue to grow
throughout the Middle East.
Please describe the challenges United States Naval forces face from
Iran and what steps may be required by Naval forces to address these
concerns.
Answer. Iran has proven by their actions that they pose a danger
throughout the Middle East. As they evolve their capabilities and
develop asymmetric tactics, techniques and procedures, this could
result in a confrontation with United States forces in the region. In
order to prepare and mitigate this evolving threat, I believe we must
maintain a United States Navy aligned with our partner nations and
allies in a forward deployed posture in these areas, particularly to
ensure the freedom of movement in the strategic approaches of the
Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, Bab-al-Mandeb (BAM),
the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal. If required, the Navy and Marine Corps
must be ready to respond with credible combat power.
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 of Defense 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. I agree with SECDEF's testimony and the DON will continue
to pursue energy initiatives that are good for the warfighter, improve
readiness, and those projects that have a strong business case. Fuel is
an essential enabler of combat capability and past and future
improvements will enable our forces to extend combat range, remain on
station longer, and reduce the vulnerability of our forces by
decreasing our logistical tail. Incorporating energy efficient
technologies, better operational procedures, and a reinforced culture
of conservation fully supports the CNO's Design for Maintaining
Maritime Superiority.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps will you take to
unleash the Navy and Marine Corps from the tether of fuel?
Answer. The DON will continue to invest in operational energy
technologies that improve combat readiness and capability, reach of the
fleet, and invest in research and development that will improve the
efficiency and combat capability of the future Fleet. Crucial to this
effort is continued partnership with private industry.
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?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to have the DON remain focused on
delivering energy solutions that enhance the flexibility of the
warfighter, improve readiness, or that have a strong business case. We
will increase the efficiency of our weapons systems and diversify our
energy sources to minimize operational risks associated with long
supply lines. The DON will maintain a strong focus on meeting the
increasing energy requirements of future platforms and weapons systems
including future surface combatants, rail guns and lasers. Our
installations require reliable, resilient, and efficient energy, and
thus, the Department will continue to improve shore energy resiliency
through innovative partnerships with commercial utilities, distributed
energy and storage solutions, and the use of micro-grid technology and
cyber security solutions.
Question. If confirmed, how will you consider operational forces'
energy needs and vulnerabilities during training exercises, operational
plans, and war games?
Answer. I believe the growing challenges from peer/near-peer
competitors around the globe exacerbates the risk to our ability to
adequately supply the energy needs of our forces. Energy risk analysis
through robust wargaming is essential to identify our vulnerabilities
and guide us toward solutions to address logistical energy challenges.
energy and acquisition
Question. How can our acquisition systems better incorporate the
use of energy in military platforms, and how, if at all, are
assessments of future requirements taking into account energy needs as
a key performance parameter?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy is
currently working to formalize energy considerations, and enhanced
participation of Navy energy officials, in its acquisition governance
processes. Although the Navy already places emphasis on energy in its
acquisition policies, this formalization will further enable effective
incorporation of energy considerations in the design of Navy and Marine
Corps platforms and systems. It is also my understanding that an energy
key performance parameter is currently mandatory as a matter of policy
for most Department of Defense acquisition programs, unless it is
waived by an appropriate requirements authority.
energy resiliency in the fight against the islamic state of iraq and
syria (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 relying on backup
generators, which is expensive and is certainly not the preferred
method of operation given the demanding tempo of sorties against ISIS.
Recently, the Air Force described an incident in the past (via open
source) in which a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) mission based in the
United States was flying a targeting mission overseas. Because of a
power outage stateside, the RPA feed temporarily lost visual and the
target was able to get ``away and is able to continue plotting against
the United States and our allies.''
If you are confirmed, how will you specifically address and make
energy resiliency and mission assurance a priority for the Navy and
Marine Corps, 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. The DON is instituting an Energy Security Framework that
sets energy security requirements, facilitates gap analysis, helps
compare gaps to mission risks, and provides a methodology to prioritize
shortfalls against available funding and third party financed options.
This framework will also inform vulnerabilities and opportunities to
reduce risk at forward operating locations.
Question. Do you support the J-4's enforcement of the energy
supportability key performance parameter in the requirements process?
Answer. Yes, and I appreciate the Joint Staff and OSD efforts to
streamline the KPP requirements so that they are applied where energy
is a key enabler of warfighting requirements, such as in aircraft or
tanks, for example.
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. The DON has already started to use this authority to
improve resilience on its installations with projects planned in fiscal
year 2018 and beyond. The DON is also conducting a DON wide review of
installation energy vulnerabilities and prioritizing projects to
resolve them through available funding programs.
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. We will continue to balance our environmental program
requirements against available resources, and maintain our commitment
to protect our natural resources and our ability to train and operate
worldwide.
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, the DON will continue to be good stewards of the
environment and will work with these agencies and other stakeholders to
ensure military readiness.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this position, to appear before this
Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?
Answer. Yes.
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 Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Yes.
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. Yes.
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. Yes.
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 John McCain
navy medical provider productivity
1. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, the Services have established a
very low provider efficiency (productivity) standard for military
physicians--40 percent of the Medical Group Management Association
median. This measure assesses provider currency and capacity,
determining the readiness potential of providers. The most current data
provided to the Committee show that only 37 percent of the Navy's
providers exceeded the goal in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017.
In other words, most of the Navy's providers failed to achieve an
already very low efficiency standard. If confirmed, what would you do
to ensure that the Navy's medical providers become more productive?
Mr. Spencer. I would to work with the Navy Medical leadership in
concert with the Defense Health Agency along with guidance from the
private sector to incorporate industry goals to increase productivity
and proven best practices that support attaining those goals.
2. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, who would you hold
accountable for the low productivity of the Navy's medical providers?
Mr. Spencer. As the Service Secretary, I am ultimately accountable.
I would also look to the leadership of Navy Medicine.
provider productivity and health care costs
3. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, an independent study by the
Institute for Defense Analyses showed that it costs the Department of
Defense (DOD) about 50 percent less to purchase health care services in
the private sector than to provide the same care in military medical
treatment facilities. In your view, how does low provider productivity
contribute to the higher relative costs to provide medical care in
those facilities?
Mr. Spencer. As the private sector has proven, higher productivity
produces lower costs (Mayo Clinic). We must address every aspect of the
delivery of care in order to lower costs.
military health system reorganization
4. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, section 702 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) 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 and
again in June, the Committee received the Department's interim reports
on section 702, which described DOD's intent to develop a component
model to administer and manage military treatment facilities (MTF).
Under this component model, the Department would establish Service
intermediary medical commands, and those commands would be subject to
two separate lines of authority--the Defense Health Agency and the
Services. Do you believe that a component model, with establishment of
new Service intermediary medical commands under two separate lines of
authority, would make the military health system flatter, more agile,
and more efficient?
Mr. Spencer. I do not believe that two lines of authority would
make the military health care system flatter, more agile, and more
efficient.
5. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, would you urge the
Secretary of Defense to reevaluate the Department's decision to proceed
with a component model to implement section 702?
Mr. Spencer. I would work in lockstep with the Service Secretaries
to craft the most efficient and effective model to deliver health care
to the military services.
6. Senator McCain. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, would you ensure that
Navy reduces its medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure
(including its regional commands and infrastructure) to reflect the
more limited scope and size of its health care mission?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
increased naval joint pacific alaskan range complex utilization
7. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Spencer, the Joint Pacific Alaskan Range
Complex (JPARC) is the largest joint overland training area in the
United States with airspace the size of Florida and maritime space the
size of Virginia. How would you propose to use this ideal location for
the advanced integrated training needed to best counter high-end and
near-peer threats, and can I get your commitment to visit Alaska in
your first year--ideally during a Red Flag Alaska or Northern Edge
exercise?
Mr. Spencer. The Navy and Marine Corps routinely participate in
training exercises based at JPARC, including Red Flag-Alaska and
Northern Edge. The JPARC facility has almost 5 times the training
airspace (13,000 vs 65,000 square miles) available at Fallon. As air
combat and strike warfare continue to evolve, with longer range
intercepts and enhanced standoff strike capabilities, additional space
for air combat maneuvering and training could become an important
consideration in selecting training locations. If confirmed, to the
best of my ability, I will attempt to visit Alaska within my first
year.
arctic strategy
8. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Spencer, the 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy
states that the ``DOD will preserve the global mobility of United
States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout the
Arctic, as in other regions. This includes conducting Freedom of
Navigation operations [FONOP] to challenge excessive maritime claims
when and where necessary.'' How would you propose to give the President
the option of conducting a surface FONOP--in all weather conditions
during all times of the year--to challenge if Russia decided to deny
access to vital United States/international shipping in the Arctic
region?
Mr. Spencer. With the briefings received to date, I understand that
the Department of Defense (DOD) has several options to conduct Freedom
of Navigation operations (FONOPS) in the Arctic. First, Navy submarines
can and do conduct FONOPS, either undersea or by surfacing. Second,
Navy surface combatants could conduct Arctic and sub-Arctic FONOPS in
open water conditions during the summer melt season. Third, the DOD's
FON Program employs every branch of Military Service, including the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Thus, USCG cutters could conduct FONOPS in the
Arctic and the new Heavy Polar Icebreakers are planned to have maritime
security capability and the capability to provide assured year-round
access to the Arctic. Fourth, the Arctic Strategy continues to
prioritize and maintain the long-standing partnerships with other
Arctic nations who have publicly committed to working within a common
framework of international law and diplomatic engagement. FONOPS
support international law. If necessary, FONOPS could be conducted by a
partner nation, as is currently being done in the South China Seas.
9. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Spencer, the United States Navy Arctic
Roadmap 2014 to 2030 discusses the need to ``identify future platforms
and their engineering requirements that will operate'' in sea ice by
the mid-2020s and the new DOD Arctic Strategy discuss the need to
``Preserve Freedom of Seas in the Arctic.'' However, last week the Navy
responded that it ``is not pursuing ice-hardened ships because there
are no validated combatant commander requirements and we can do sub-
surface FONOPs.'' For a FONOP to have the intended effect, it must be
visible. As the Navy begins its push towards 355-ships, what are your
proposed solutions to the obvious gap that exists between DOD and Navy
strategic requirements and actual capabilities?
Mr. Spencer. The Navy's undersea and air assets continue to fulfill
current operational requirements in the Arctic. Advances in the Navy's
undersea technology and modernization of both undersea and aviation
platforms (e.g. P-8A aircraft) will continue to provide greater
capabilities for the Arctic region. DOD and the Navy continue to
closely monitor the Arctic activity and will continuously re-assess
requirements with Combatant Commanders.
10. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Spencer, the DOD Arctic Strategy and the
Navy's Arctic Roadmap list numerous capabilities required for the
Arctic. What are your plans to ensure that important Navy and Marine
Corps Arctic capabilities supporting Arctic Strategy are fully
synchronized?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department
of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the Navy,
Marine Corps and Coast Guard are fully synchronized in supporting
Arctic validated requirements, consistent with the 2018 National
Defense Strategy.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
nuclear submarine replacement
11. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, our Nation's nuclear submarines
are the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. They carry about 70
percent of the Nation's deployed nuclear warheads. The Navy has begun
acquiring the replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarines (SSBN). The new Ohio-class replacement boats (aka Columbia-
class) lead ship is projected to cost $8.2 billion and then an average
unit cost of $6.5 billion for ships 2 to 12 in fiscal year 2017
constant dollars. The Navy has stated publicly that it could not afford
to buy both the new SSBNs and maintain other required procurements
under the DOD top lines that would be consistent with the defense
budget caps under the Budget Control Act. What priority would you place
on the Ohio-class replacement program in relation to other acquisition
programs?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will support the Columbia-class
Submarine Program as the Navy's top acquisition priority.
12. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, do you think this needs to be a
whole-of-DOD approach for procurement (i.e. beyond Navy budget)?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to determine
the best approach to funding the Columbia-class SSBN program. I do
support and appreciate the acquisition authorities provided by
Congress, which are helping the Navy build the Columbia-class SSBNs
more affordably.
13. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, do you think the Navy can expand
to a 355-ship fleet, while also procuring the Ohio-class replacement
SSBNs?
Mr. Spencer. The shipbuilding industrial base, with predictable,
stable and sufficient budgets can support increased procurements while
also procuring the Columbia-class SSBNs. However, increasing ship
construction funding during the years of Columbia-class SSBN
procurement will be required. This is consistent with previous SSBN
procurement periods, where ship construction funds were increased
significantly to account for SSBN procurement. As discussed in the
confirmation hearing, the BCA provides severe limitations on our
ability to grow the force.
14. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, will you ensure/
commit to us that the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine will
stay on schedule and at the current cost?
Mr. Spencer. Yes. As the Navy's top modernization priority, the
Columbia-class SSBN program must stay on schedule in order to meet
USSTRATCOM requirements for first patrol in fiscal year 2031. The
program currently remains on budget and the Navy continues to
aggressively investigate further cost reduction efforts.
audit of the department of defense
15. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, the Department of Defense has
failed in their ability to achieve a clean financial audit. In your
advance policy questions, you stated, quote, ``If confirmed I will
broadcast a tone from the top that auditability of the Department of
Navy is a priority for every member of the leadership team and ensure
that Flag/General Officers/Senior Executives understand and are engaged
and accountable for their role in moving the Department toward its
audit goals.'' As you know, the Chief Financial Officer's Act of 1990
(CFO Act) mandates the preparation of audited annual financial
statement for certain funds and accounts from executive agencies,
including DOD. Yet DOD is the only Federal agency who has not received
an unqualified (clean) audit opinion on your annual financial
statements. That's 27 years overdue. I fail to understand how the
Department of the Defense can possibly know how much funding it needs
if its senior leaders don't understand where 100 percent of their
budget dollars are spent from year to year, so I am glad that you are
changing that tone and culture. We need to be accountable to the
American taxpayer, and an audit is the first step in finding where
we're spending too much, or spending on the wrong things.
Last month, Acting Navy Secretary Stackley, said in his written
testimony that, quote, ``given the complexity and size of our
operations, we anticipate that an unqualified audit opinion will be
several years away.'' The Navy has had 27 years to get ready for this.
Why do you think more time needed?
Mr. Spencer. As I understand it, the Navy followed the OSD
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) framework and the
requirement to meet critical audit capabilities to enter into a Full
Financial Statement Audit in fiscal year 2018, which has been achieved.
If confirmed, I will continue these efforts to ensure compliance with
audit requirements. While the Department of the Navy will produce an
audit in fiscal year 2018 it will be qualified. This will be an
iterative process and I would not expect the Department to produce a
clean, non qualified audit in the immediate future.
16. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, haven't recent NDAAs required you
to be audit-ready sooner?
Mr. Spencer. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010
mandates that the Department of Defense (DOD) have audit ready
financial statements by 2017. Audit ready means the Department has
strengthened its internal controls and improved its financial
practices, processes, and systems so there is reasonable confidence the
information can withstand an audit by an independent auditor.
17. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, what actions do you think need to
be taken to ensure the Department of the Navy can achieve a clean audit
opinion the end of fiscal year 2017, as is required by law?
Mr. Spencer. The law requires that the Department of the Navy have
audit ready financial statements by 2017. If confirmed, I will focus on
meeting that requirement and on clear alignment of Navy's business
processes and enforcement of accountability across the Flag/SES
community to ensure the capability to sustain an audit environment. It
is unrealistic to expect the Department to produce a clean audit in the
immediate future.
18. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, do you think the
Department of the Navy will have a clean audit opinion by the end of
this fiscal year, as required by law? If not, when?
Mr. Spencer. The law as I understand it requires the Department
have audit ready financial statements by 2017. Due to the size and
complexity of DON, I do not believe that an unqualified opinion is
likely for several years.
threats of foreign submarines
19. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, citing public remarks by the
Russian Navy chief, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, Admiral Mark Ferguson,
Commander Naval Forces Europe, said in late-2015 that the intensity of
Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the last
year. Russia has increased its operating tempo to levels not seen in
over a decade. Russian Arctic bases and their $2.4 billion investment
in the Black Sea Fleet expansion by 2020 demonstrate their commitment
to develop their military infrastructure on the flanks, he said. Russia
planned to start construction on 5 nuclear submarines in 2015, compared
to 2 in United States shipyards. These submarines are quieter and more
advanced than we've seen previously from Russia. We're also seeing
China work to advance their submarines, and the Chinese are now on the
cusp of taking the lead in a cutting-edge propulsion technology (which
would make the engines ultra-quiet with stronger stealth capability).
Do you think the Navy is providing enough assets to track and maintain
awareness of Russian, Chinese, and other foreign submarine activity for
the foreseeable future?
Mr. Spencer. I understand that U.S. Navy's deployed forces remain
fully ready to respond to any crisis, provocation or great power
conflict. The Navy routinely assesses its readiness in force structure,
capability, and the ability to execute operational plans against all
potential adversaries. That assessment includes how well and how fast
adversaries are advancing existing and new capabilities. If confirmed I
will ensure that you have my unbiased assessment of Navy capabilities
as compared to our adversaries.
20. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, how would you work
to address this threat?
Mr. Spencer. Addressing the threat is a team effort and will
require us to leverage all of our strengths across the warfighting
spectrum. If confirmed, I will work with all Executive and Legislative
Branch agencies to ensure we collectively understand the threat and
develop solutions to defeat the threat.
21. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, what is your assessment of the
probability Russian submarines could surprise us and pop up near the
East or West Coast within cruise missile range, today and in the
future?
Mr. Spencer. My understanding is that the threat is growing with
the transfer of technology across the globe. I have not been briefed on
specific details on Russian capabilities, if confirmed keeping United
States Naval forces the preeminent force is my goal. I will work with
all Executive and Legislative branches to ensure that we avoid a
scenario as described.
attack submarine force
22. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, Admiral Harris told us earlier
this year that approximately 230 of 400 foreign submarines worldwide
are located in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. Of these, 160 belong to China,
Russia, and North Korea. He told us that as a combatant commander, he
only gets 50 percent of the submarines he needs, based on our 52-
submarine force (attack sub force). By the end of the 2020s, the Navy
projects that the attack submarine force will go down to 42. If
confirmed, do you expect to add more submarines in your new 30-year
shipbuilding plan?
Mr. Spencer. The Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment increased
the requirement for attack submarines from 48 to 66. With sufficient
and stable funding from Congress, I expect to add more submarines in
the 30-year shipbuilding plan based on the 2018 National Defense
Strategy.
23. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, do you think that 42 attack
submarines would be acceptable in 2020, when our combatant commanders
aren't getting what they need today, and threats are only growing?
Mr. Spencer. I agree that this is an unacceptable risk and I know
the Navy is pursuing several efforts to mitigate this shortfall,
including increasing attack submarine procurement (the fiscal year 2018
President's Budget added one additional SSN in fiscal year 2021),
extending the service life of current attack submarines as feasible,
developing the Virginia Payload Module to increase undersea strike
capacity, and developing a family of unmanned undersea vehicles to
support undersea missions and capabilities.
24. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, will you commit the
Navy planning to mitigate the attack submarine shortfall in the 2020s?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I commit to continuing the mitigation
efforts described above and pursuing the development of additional
efforts.
25. Senator Perdue. Mr. Spencer, what role can autonomous unmanned
vehicles (AUVs) play as a part of our future undersea capabilities?
Mr. Spencer. AUVs will be able to operate independently from or in
cooperation with manned vehicles, conducting tasks in support of
maritime missions such as Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR), Seabed Warfare, and Deception. AUVs and undersea
fixed systems will operate where manned submarines and ships can't or
shouldn't. If confirmed, know that I am committed to growing both the
size and composition of the AUV force.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
industrial science
26. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, in your testimony you noted the
value of industrial science in improving the efficiency and business
processes of large organizations. Section 217 of the Fiscal Year 2016
NDAA mandated that DOD access talent in industry and academia through a
variety of mechanisms to support management innovation and business
process reengineering efforts. To date, the Navy has not established
any significant efforts in this area, despite the numerous management
challenges it faces. This is in contrast with Navy research efforts
with academia and industry to support development of Navy warfighting
and combat support capabilities. If confirmed, will you direct the
Office of Naval Research and other appropriate entities to work with
the Navy's Chief Management Officer to establish efforts in industrial
science, management science, operations research, and data analytics to
address Navy business and management challenges?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will meet with both the Navy's
Research Organization Team and Chief Management Officer to address
Navy's business and management challenges.
climate change
27. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, Secretary Mattis has publicly
acknowledged that climate change is impacting our Armed Forces,
military infrastructure, and the physical operating environment. If
confirmed, as Secretary of the Navy, how would you make sure the Navy
addresses this risk?
Mr. Spencer. The Department of the Navy should be prepared to
mitigate any consequences of a changing climate or extreme weather
events, including ensuring that our shipyards and installations will
continue to function as required. If confirmed I will ensure that we
are so prepared.
28. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, will you explain how, if confirmed,
you would intend to ensure the Navy has every possible means of support
and opportunity to plan, prepare and implement solutions to ensure
local, regional, national, and global resilience to climate change
risks?
Mr. Spencer. Climate change is a challenge that requires a broader,
whole-of-government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department of the Navy plays its appropriate role within such a
response by addressing national security aspects.
29. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, how would you ensure
that the surrounding communities of Department of the Navy
installations are included in climate adaptation planning/preparations?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of
Navy plays its appropriate role with the other Services and the
Department of Defense within a broad, whole-of-government response.
30. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, faced with a melting Arctic, in your
view, what is the role of the Department of the Navy in overseeing the
United States Arctic Policy?
Mr. Spencer. I agree that the effects of a changing climate-such as
increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels,
desertification, among others-impact our security situation. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Navy continues to
be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we
are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat
assessments, resources, and readiness.
hybrid electric drive
31. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, as you know, years ago the USS Cole
was bombed while refueling. Today, the Navy and Marine Corps have
focused operational energy improvements toward improving combat
capability and reducing logistical vulnerability for its sailors and
marines. Technologies like the hybrid electric drive (HED) that
increase ship range, endurance, and enable a guided-missile destroyer
to remain on-station for longer periods of time on the same amount of
fuel are essential to the Navy's mission. Giving a ship the added
ability to have an unpredictable refueling schedule is an added benefit
against our adversaries. If confirmed, will you commit to funding HED
installs throughout the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will review the Navy's plan for HED
installations.
operational energy improvements
32. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, earlier this year, Secretary Mattis
told this Committee that ``the Department's acquisition process should
explore alternate and renewable energy source that . . . can relieve
the dependence of deployed forces on vulnerable fuel supply chains.''
If confirmed, will you commit to continuing to make other operational
energy improvements such as solid state lighting, stern flaps, thermal
control systems, variable speed drives, shipboard energy data
information systems like Global Energy Information System (GENISYS)?
Mr. Spencer. I will enthusiastically encourage the pursuit of
technologies that enable combat capability, improve readiness, or have
a sound business case.
expeditionary energy office
33. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, as you know, the Expeditionary
Energy Office is dedicated to making operational energy improvements
such as more efficient environmental control systems, mobile electric
hybrid power systems, expeditionary renewable energy generation assets,
fuel efficient upgrades for ground vehicles, and the development of
energy command and control systems to improve awareness of battlefield
energy use and operational reach. If confirmed, will you commit the
funding this office and its critical programs through the FYDP?
Mr. Spencer. The E2O is funded across the FYDP through the Marine
Corps POM process. If confirmed, I intend to maintain their funding at
historical levels.
installation energy resilience
34. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, you have likely already seen the
press reports that hackers possibly connected to the Russian Government
have cyber malware, specifically named ``CrashOverride'' which may have
disrupted the utility grid in Ukraine last December, and has the
potential to be deployed to attack the United States electric grid. If
confirmed, what will you do to ensure installations, shipyards, and
other assets are resilient against potential power outages, and how
will the Navy have access to resilient energy sources in the event the
grid is attacked and goes down?
Mr. Spencer. I believe the Navy is aggressively implementing a plan
that identifies cyber risks in utility and industrial controls,
provides protection to these systems and gains certified cyber
Authority to Operate. The DON has instituted a holistic Energy Security
Framework that focuses on reliability, resilience and efficiency.
Should an event occur where the electrical grid is brought down, the
DON has implemented multiple solutions across its installations to
assure continuity of operations. I will continue to focus on mitigating
this threat through targeted investments in infrastructure and systems
with the highest performance and mission risk.
aircraft readiness
35. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, as you know, legacy F/A-18 (the A
through D models) have suffered from significant readiness problems
over the last several years after they were flown well beyond their
expected service-life of 6,000 flight hours. While service life
extension programs (SLEP) can offer some relief, such efforts take
extensive time and resources for repairs to occur at our fleet
readiness centers. The Navy has requested 10 additional F/A-18 Super
Hornets (models E and F) to mitigate its fighter shortfall. However,
the first Super Hornets are expected to reach 6,000 flying hours in
2018. If confirmed, what will be your depot maintenance plan to prevent
a repeat of the readiness crisis in legacy F/A-18 fighter aircraft?
Mr. Spencer. We must leverage the lessons learned from the legacy
F/A-18A-D experience. If confirmed, my intent, beginning in fiscal year
2018, will be to fully fund in strike fighter depot maintenance to
address the gap between strike fighter inventory forecasts and the
Global Force Management Allocation Plan demands. In addition if
confirmed, I will oversee the ongoing F/A-18E/F Service Life Assessment
Program to analyze actual Fleet usage vs. structural test data to
support the design of Service Life Modifications (SLM) that will
ultimately extend the F/A-18E/F service life from 6,000 hours to 9,000
hours.
guam realignment cost and schedule delays
36. Senator Reed. Mr. Spencer, with respect to the strategic
realignment on Guam, if the H-2B visa issues is not resolved, what
would be the consequences in terms of potential cost increases and
military construction delays?
Mr. Spencer. I understand, based on briefs received to date, that
failure to extend the Guam and CNMI H-2B visa worker cap exemption,
which currently expires on December 31, 2019, would result in
significant cost increases to a program that is congressionally capped
at $8.7 billion, and create schedule delays that could negatively
impact long standing international agreements with the Government of
Japan regarding Okinawa land returns. Construction contract cost
increases are estimated to be $1.2 billion. Schedule delays are harder
to estimate, and in order to meet land return commitments made to our
strategic partners, the Department would attempt to mitigate schedule
impacts by spending even more to compete for the qualified work force
on Guam (negatively impacting the construction economy on Guam). As the
Government of Japan's cost is capped by International Agreement at $3.1
billion, this additional funding would necessarily have to come from
Congressional appropriations, requiring relief from the Congressional
cost cap.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
joint gulf range complex
37. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, the Joint Gulf Range Complex in
the Gulf of Mexico is heavily used for test and training missions of
the Navy and other Services in the Department of Defense. Currently,
the range is protected from encroachment by a moratorium on
incompatible oil and gas activities east of the military mission line
established by the bipartisan Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of
2006. Secretary Mattis, through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, has said that the ``moratorium is essential
for developing and sustaining our Nation's future combat capabilities''
and that the Department ``cannot overstate the vital importance of
maintaining this moratorium.'' The Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
General Goldfein, implored Congress to extend the moratorium now ``to
guarantee long-term capabilities for future tests.'' Will you commit to
joining the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force
in protecting this vital national asset from encroachment from oil and
gas activities east of the military mission line through an extension
of the moratorium?
Mr. Spencer. It is vital to maintain our ability to conduct testing
and training operations in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico without
encroachment, and we support maintaining the Military Mission Line
moratorium. The Department of the Navy supports domestic energy
development that is compatible with the military mission, and is
willing to explore opportunities to develop energy without encumbering
military readiness activities.
strategic dispersal and laydown plan
38. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, the Navy has long held the belief
that strategic dispersal of capital ships--particularly the aircraft
carrier--is important. In the Pacific Fleet, our carriers are dispersed
between Washington, California, and Japan. In the Atlantic Fleet, all
of our nuclear carriers--including new carriers under construction--are
stationed in Hampton Roads. Do you believe there is a need to disperse
our carrier fleet on the East Coast to reduce risk from natural or man-
made disaster?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that we must look at all factors in making
homeport decisions for all of our forces, to include our CVNs. The Navy
routinely assesses the strategic environment to determine if a homeport
change is required. If confirmed, I will be an active part of this
ongoing process to ensure that we make the best homeport decision to
reduce risk and maximize the warfighting readiness of our force.
39. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, if the issue with strategic
dispersal of our East Coast nuclear carrier fleet is one of prohibitive
cost, is there savings to be had by reducing risk in dispersing our
non-nuclear capital ships--namely amphibious assault ships, which are
virtually co-located with our aircraft carriers in the Hampton Roads
area?
Mr. Spencer. Although an element of any future strategic dispersal
decision, cost should not be the driving factor. Maximizing warfighting
readiness should be the driving factor, while looking at risk to the
force. If confirmed I will be actively involved in the Navy's Strategic
Laydown and Dispersal Planning to ensure we reduce risk and maximize
warfighting readiness to our force, to include our amphibious assault
forces.
navy reserve aviation
40. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, Navy Reserve aviation hardware
units--squadrons flying tactical air, maritime patrol, and rotary wing
platforms--have been systemically disestablished over the last 5 years.
With the exception of HSM-60, these units are all flying the oldest
variants of their aircraft in the fleet--F/A-18A, HH-60H, and P-3--with
no plan to transition them to more current series. This reduction
severely limits opportunities for aviators to serve at a cost effective
level of readiness, whether they be selected reserve or full time
support personnel. Further reduction of communities limits the
professional opportunities for full time support personnel. What would
be your plan to retain qualified, experienced aviators in the ready
reserve?
Mr. Spencer. Navy Reserve aviation is an invaluable part of the
total force. Navy Reserve provides both operational support and
strategic depth across the entire spectrum of Naval Aviation mission
sets. As an example of efforts put forth to retain qualified and
experienced aviators, Navy Reserve recently released its Officer Bonus
policy, aligning it with section 332 of title 37 of the U.S. Code, and
offers a bonuses to Naval aviators who affiliate with the Navy Reserve.
If confirmed, I will continue to monitor this area closely and
recommend adjustments where necessary to ensure an effective total
force.
navy rotary wing support to special operations
41. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, previously, the Navy had two
dedicated special operations helicopter squadrons, HSC-84 and HSC-85,
both units part of Naval Air Forces Reserve. The Navy retrograded these
squadrons from deployed positions in Central Command (CENTCOM) and
Pacific Command (PACOM) respectively in order to disestablish them.
After Congressional intervention, HSC-85 was not disestablished, and
has returned, after more than a year recovering from diminished
resources, to the PACOM area of operations in support of Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) Pacific. With HSC-84 disestablished, rotary
wing support for special operations forces (SOF) training has
drastically diminished, especially for Naval Special Warfare Command.
Additionally, several combatant commander requests for forces (RFF) for
rotary wing support of component SOF have gone unfilled. Despite this
reduction in rotary wing support from the Navy to SOCOM, the Navy has
not published a plan for recapitalization of HSC-85's aging HH-60H
helicopters. Are you concerned about the Navy's lack of a sustainment
plan for their single helicopter squadron dedicated to SOF support, on
whom SOF forces have heavily depended for training and operational
support since September 11, 2001?
Mr. Spencer. The Navy is committed to sustaining HSC-85 and
dedicated helicopter support to Special Operations Forces. The HH-60H
will continue to meet current operation requirements but will require
modernization to operate through the 2020s. It is my understanding that
the Navy is analyzing options for continuing this capability through
future investments in HH-60H modernization or platform transition. If
confirmed, I will advocate for modernized and relevant systems to
support our warfighters.
amphibious assault operations
42. Senator Nelson. Mr. Spencer, for the past 16 years, the Marine
Corps has focused on counter-insurgency operations, largely in
landlocked locations. As you prepare for potential future conflicts,
like in Asia-Pacific, the Marine Corps is returning to its amphibious
roots. What are you most concerned about in conducting amphibious
assault and other maritime operations in an anti-access area-denial
(A2/AD) environment?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will give my full support to the Navy
and Marine Corps team. I believe in order to serve as the nation's
force deployed force, and to remain agile and response, that Marines
still need amphibious shops with the capability to launch forces and
project them ashore. I also believe the Navy and Marine Corps team must
work closely to explore innovative concepts described in the Marine
Operating Concept and Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the
Global Commons. I understand these concepts drive experimentation and
new methods of employment are being explored through demonstrations and
Advanced Naval Technology Exercises.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
over the horizon missile acquisition and competition
43. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Spencer, the acquisition of DOD systems
is predicated on the free and fair competition for the best design
following a clear statement of needs by DOD. The Navy recently drove
away two United States-based competitors for the new Over the Horizon
anti-ship missile by constantly changing the top-level requirements in
an apparent effort to drive the award of the weapon system to a foreign
defense contractor, Kongsberg. I would like your commitment to:
a. Streamline the Navy's acquisition process to ensure that
requirements statements are produced in a way to ensure that our
sailors get the quality equipment that they need, at the best price
possible, rather than a defense contractor gets what it wants.
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing the Navy's
acquisition processes and procedures to ensure our sailors are getting
the quality equipment they need at the best price possible.
b. Look into this particular contract award process for the Over
the Horizon anti-ship missile system as to how it proceeded and report
back to me on how the process went and whether there were any
irregularities in the way it was handled.
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will review the process the Navy
followed in awarding the contract and report back to you.
qatar situation and impact on naval operations
44. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Spencer, what is your assessment of the
impact of the decision by the Gulf Cooperation Council to sever
diplomatic relations with Qatar, along with other related actions, on
naval operations in the Gulf region?
Mr. Spencer. It is my understanding that the rift within the GCC
has not affected U.S. military operations in the region. However, we
continue to press for a resolution to this conflict. Our common
security is a top priority, and our Gulf partners, to include Qatar,
play important roles in the region by hosting our forces and providing
support to the D-ISIS coalition. US efforts to resolve this crisis are
being led by the US Department of State, with the Department of Defense
playing a supporting role.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
military justice
45. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, the Marines United scandal
threatens readiness and our national security, yet not one
servicemember has been court martialed for this misconduct. It was
reported on July 12, 2017 that one marine was sent to a summary court-
martial. A conviction at a summary court-martial is not a criminal
conviction and the maximum punishment is 30 days in jail, with no
ability to adjudge a punitive discharge. That marine leaves the Service
with nothing on his record. Do you believe this punishment is
sufficient?
Mr. Spencer. I am not familiar with the facts of this particular
case. However, if confirmed the appropriate accountability at all
levels is of paramount importance to me. I firmly believe it is
necessary to hold accountable those who attack, harass, or otherwise
betray their fellow marines' and sailors' trust. As an institution, our
goals must be to support those who have been harmed and to hold
offenders accountable in balance with the due process rights accorded
our servicemembers.
combat integration
46. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, in your advance policy
questions, you were asked whether you believe ``it is necessary for
improved military readiness to allow women to serve in the combat
arms?'' You responded, ``I believe without reservation that every
patriot, with a desire to serve, should be afforded that opportunity,
with the singular caveat that all must meet the standards of the Navy
and Marine Corps . . . I believe the Department of the Navy is
committed to allowing all applicants to compete for any combat arms
position if they have the propensity and are fully qualified. If
confirmed, I will support that commitment.'' During your confirmation
hearing, however, you told Senator Cotton, ``I testified before this
Committee, I believe in 2015 that it was my belief that the Department
of Defense--specifically, individual Services--was not to be a Petri
dish for social experiments . . . We have to work together . . . so
readiness is the key and lethality is the product.'' Which specific
policies of the Department of Defense did you view as representing ``a
Petri dish for social experiments''?
Mr. Spencer. I used the term ``a Petri dish for social
experiments'' in prior testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee to refer to Service specific initiatives to change ratings
designators and MOS titles that were without, from my perspective,
adequate input from the force, or proper consideration of DOD-wide
policies.
47. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, do you believe the opening of
all military occupational specialties to women represented a ``social
experiment'' or a threat to ``lethality''?
Mr. Spencer. I do not.
48. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, under what circumstances, if
any, would you support the rolling back of combat integration?
Mr. Spencer. I do not foresee any circumstances that would lead to
my support for a rollback in combat integration.
transgender service
49. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, as Secretary of the Navy, you
would play crucial role in working with the Secretary of Defense and
senior military leaders to shape personnel policy. In late June,
Secretary of Defense Mattis announced a 6-month delay in the
implementation of the Pentagon's transgender accessions policy
following requests from Army, Air Force, and Navy leaders. Congress has
not heard of any specific incidents or problems from the Military
Departments since the decision to retain openly transgender
servicemembers took effect in October. Do you believe this policy is a
``social experiment''?
Mr. Spencer. I do not.
50. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, do you believe the Navy
requires additional time to prepare for the accession of openly
transgender individuals into service?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that a delay would enable the Department of
the Navy to assess the effectiveness of the policy to evaluate, treat
and integrate transgender servicemembers. Additionally, I believe a
delay would provide the ability to identify any potential impacts of
transgender service on readiness and deployability while standardizing
and clarifying Department of the Navy policies and procedures as
necessary to preclude such impacts.
51. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, what do you believe the Navy
needs to examine about transgender service that the Department has not
already learned during the past year of transgender retention?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that more medical readiness data would be
valuable to validate an accessions policy for transgender applicants.
This additional data would enable the Services to recruit and access
talented individuals who desire to serve and who will enhance the
readiness and lethality of the military. The Services have been in
implementation for less than 1 year for currently serving members and
believe there would be benefit from applying the experience of these
efforts to fully understand any potential impacts.
52. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, how would you recommend the
Navy execute this continued examination of transgender accessions?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will recommend the DOD include impact
to combat readiness as a factor in the examination of transgender
accessions.
personnel
53. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, the Navy has been forward
leaning on personnel reforms with programs such as Sailor 2025 and the
Career Intermission Program, which attempt to address the needs and
lives of a 21st Century workforce and their families. As Secretary,
will you support and build on these efforts?
Mr. Spencer. I will.
54. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Spencer, what other changes to
personnel policy would you implement to strengthen the Navy and the
Marine Corps?
Mr. Spencer. I understand the Department of the Navy is taking a
holistic approach in improving personnel policies and programs to make
the Department an employer of choice for current and prospective
sailors and marines. To attract and retain the very best sailors,
marines, and civilians, in an increasingly competitive talent market
will require continued flexibility and opportunity in our policies and
practices. If confirmed, I will assess existing personnel policies for
their effectiveness in strengthening the Navy and Marine Corps and will
make recommendations for further reforms to the Secretary of Defense in
cases where I find such reforms to be advisable. I will also look to
high performing private sector organizations in order to potentially
adopt their best practices to cultivate and retaining exceptional
talent.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Donnelly
nuclear modernization
55. Senator Donnelly. Mr. Spencer, the Navy in the midst of
modernization of the sea-based leg of our nuclear triad. This is a
massive undertaking, and it comes with a heavy--but necessary--price
tag. There is strong bipartisan support for modernizing our nuclear
deterrent, but we all need to work together to find ways of reducing
cost and risk in these programs. One approach is by enhancing
commonality and collaboration across the Services--sharing parts,
expertise and even personnel when it makes sense. If confirmed, how
will you approach the need to maximize efficiency in nuclear
modernization not only in the Navy but across the Department of
Defense?
Mr. Spencer. Nuclear modernization across the Department of Defense
is of highest priority and fundamental to deterring our adversaries and
assuring our allies. I agree that seeking opportunities within the Navy
and across the Services to leverage technologies, particularly niche
capabilities that are unique to our strategic weapon systems, is key to
reducing overall programmatic risk and cost of modernizing our nuclear
triad. If confirmed, I commit to investigate opportunities to further
collaborate across the services and maximize efficiencies while also
ensuring essential diversity in our nuclear triad to hedge against any
unforeseen technical risk.
56. Senator Donnelly. Mr. Spencer, our nuclear weapons have some
truly unique requirements--like electronic parts that are hardened to
withstand the radiation levels of a nuclear event. I am concerned that
today we are down to just one U.S. industrial base supplier for these
rare parts. One significant challenge in maintaining industrial base
capabilities to meet these requirements is the variable demand from
year to year. We have not planned our procurement of high reliability,
radiation-hardened microelectronics strategically across nuclear
modernization efforts in the various Services. If we lose this
capability, we may face significant growth in both cost and risk in our
nuclear modernization programs. What do you think about collaboration
at the Service Secretary level or above to coordinate acquisition
efforts across different programs with this kind of problem in mind?
Mr. Spencer. The industrial base for certain critical capabilities
unique to strategic weapon systems faces challenges. Meeting the
requirements associated with radiation hardened electronics in our
strategic weapon system is critical. If the industrial base loses this
capability it will certainly introduce cost, schedule, and technical
risk to our modernization programs. If confirmed, I commit to
investigate this issue, including opportunities to potentially
coordinate acquisition efforts across different programs at the
appropriate level.
hypersonics
57. Senator Donnelly. Mr. Spencer, conventional prompt strike (CPS)
is DOD's most advanced hypersonic development effort. Testifying to
this Committee earlier this year, the Commander of Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) advocated for fielding a CPS capability by the mid-2020s. I
believe the Navy has a vital role to play in fielding CPS. If
confirmed, will you commit to getting read-in on this defense-wide
program quickly and coming back to me for another conversation on it?
Mr. Spencer. I agree that conventional prompt strike (CPS) is vital
capability and the Navy can contribute to the development the
capability. If confirm, I commit to getting read-in on this program,
updated on the Navy's role to-date, including the status of the
upcoming flight test Navy Strategic Systems Programs is leading in
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and
continuing an open and productive dialogue on the capability with the
Committee.
mental health
58. Senator Donnelly. Mr. Spencer, I've been pleased to see the
Navy's commitment to improving the mental health and resiliency of our
servicemembers and families. I share that commitment. Congress passed
the Sexton Act as a part of the Fiscal Year 2015 NDAA, requiring that
every Service provide a robust annual mental health assessment for
every servicemember--Active, Guard or Reserve. That legislation was
named after my constituent Jacob Sexton, who was lost to suicide in
2009. If confirmed, will you uphold the commitment to implementing the
Sexton Act requirement for annual mental health assessments no later
than October of this year?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, if confirmed, I will uphold the commitment to
ensure annual mental health assessments are performed for all sailors
and marines. I would ask the Committees indulgence for me to explore
the reasonableness of the action date to be no later than October of
this year.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
acquisition reform
59. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, the Senate Armed Services
Committee consistently hears about program cost overruns and schedule
delays on some of our high-profile weapons systems. Cost overruns and
delays are not new to DOD. We have had many panels and commissions
provide recommendations over many decades and yet we still have
problems. Why do you think the problem has not been solved?
Mr. Spencer. There are many variables that contribute to cost
growth and schedule delays on programs including the level of technical
risk in a program as well as the timing of program funding. If
confirmed, I will apply my skills in managing large, complex programs
and work with the Congress to attain the dedicated funding needed to
efficiently deliver programs on time and within budget.
60. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, what will you bring to the table
that is different from what has been called ``acquisition reform'' over
the past 40 or 50 years?
Mr. Spencer. Over the past 36 years, I have successfully led large,
complex operations, honing my ability to identify critical issues,
provide the vision to organize people and large organizations toward
development of solutions and, ultimately to be personally responsible
for outcomes. If confirmed, I will apply these skills to the
acquisition process. Programs will be closely managed with a clear
alignment of authority, responsibility and accountability. I am the
accountable person ensuring that the Department of the Navy has
accountable leaders and adequately trained, accountable acquisition
personnel to manage, execute, and oversee its programs will be a
priority for the Department.
energy efficiency
61. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, the Navy has made significant
progress in the area of energy efficiency. What are your initial
thoughts for this area and do you intend to build on the success the
energy policies currently in place?
Mr. Spencer. Energy efficiency is an important pillar in our Energy
Security program.
I will ensure the DON intends to continue investments in energy
where it helps the warfighter, improves readiness and has a defensible
return on investment.
62. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, based on your experiences in the
private sector, how can the Department of Navy strengthen partnerships
with industry through diverse contracting mechanisms such as Energy
Savings Performance Contracts, Power Purchase Agreements, and others,
to achieve even greater savings through improve energy efficiency and
energy resiliency?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will continue to seek out
opportunities in targeted locations to maximize mission and economic
benefits. I will insure that we will continually query the energy
community as to developments that will enhance our readiness.
63. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, in your opinion, does the
Department of Navy adequately calculate lifecycle energy costs in the
cost estimate for major acquisition programs?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, major acquisition programs consider many factors,
of which energy is one. If confirmed, I will also insure that we are
continually looking for best practices within the Department and the
private sector in order to generate the best lifecycle costs for our
invested resources.
64. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, do additional opportunities exist
to achieve significant savings on platforms and weapons systems if
lifecycle energy costs are a central consideration in cost estimates?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
south china sea freedom of navigation
65. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, at the Shangri-la Dialogue Summit,
a number of defense ministers from allied countries called for the
continuation of United States Navy freedom of navigation patrols in the
South China Sea. What are your thoughts on conducting freedom of
navigation exercises?
Mr. Spencer. Freedom of Navigation Operations serve the U.S.
national interest in preserving the freedom of the seas--which includes
all of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace
recognized in international law--and reinforce the international rules-
based order that benefits all countries. If confirmed, I will support
United States forces operating wherever international law allows
including in the South China Sea.
66. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, if they should be continued, are
there opportunities to collaborate with allies in conducting them?
Mr. Spencer. To my knowledge, however, no other countries have a
Freedom of Navigation policy or program similar to the United States.
That being said, I do believe there opportunities to collaborate with
our allies in this effort.
67. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, at what level should the decision
to conduct freedom of navigation patrols be delegated to ensure that
these operations are effective and responsive?
Mr. Spencer. Geographic Combatant Commanders are responsible for
Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in their respective
geographic areas of responsibility. If confirmed, I will support policy
measures that ensure U.S. forces can conduct FONOPs in a routine manner
throughout the globe to preserve the global mobility of U.S. forces.
defense industrial base
68. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, to ensure our projection of power
as we seek to increase the size of our Navy, not only must future
budget planning include additional funding for the ships, but also
stronger support to the industrial base that builds them. Is the Navy
postured to respond to possible significant challenges for the
industrial base as it increases the fleet to roughly 355 ships?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Navy is ready to
respond to industrial base challenges as it increases the fleet. The
Navy is engaging shipbuilders and suppliers on ways to increase
shipbuilding capacity, increase employment levels, promote retention of
critical skills, and evaluate capital expenditures and other
investments to address facility requirements. The Navy has utilized
multi-year procurements, block buy contracts, and economic order
quantity buys to provide a stable commitment to its industry partners.
69. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, as the Navy looks to expand its
fleet size, what steps should the Government take to facilitate such a
ramp up in construction for the industrial base?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Navy takes the
proper steps for the industrial base to facilitate ramping up
construction. The shipyards constructing these vessels have a vast
infrastructure of suppliers supporting them and we must appreciate the
need for supply chain management. Stable, consistent funding is by far
the most critical factor in supporting industrial base ramp up. This
would include amending the defense spending caps and ending the defense
sequester.
70. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, how can the Navy get involved in
workforce development and expansion, particularly for shipyard who are
having a difficult time build and maintain a qualified work force?
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Navy continues to
maintain stability and build relationships with our industrial
partners. The Navy is engaging shipbuilders and suppliers on ways to
increase shipbuilding capacity, increase employment levels, promote
retention of critical skills, and evaluate capital expenditures and
other investments to address facility and process requirements.
public shipyards
71. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, the Navy is currently assessing
the requirements of all public shipyards as it pertains to dry dock
capacity and infrastructure needs. In addition to the public yards, the
surface ship requirements are also being reviewed. The Navy is also
looking at right sizing the shipyards for both manning levels and
facilities for both the current and future size of our ship fleet.
These seem to be separate and related efforts. If confirmed, how will
you ensure that these processes and assessments are being aligned in a
seamless effort?
Mr. Spencer. Ensuring the required capacity in public and private
shipyards to maintain the fleet we have today and the expanded future
fleet is critical. The Navy must look holistically across all of the
shipyards (both public and private) to ensure that they have the
required infrastructure and workforce to meet the capacity of a growing
fleet. If confirmed I commit my personal involvement in understanding
the challenges present to ensure that we have one approach that
maximizes the capacity resident in our public and private shipyards.
72. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, which Navy entities are
responsible for each effort and who is responsible for integrating the
information to form a holistic view of our shipyard requirements?
Mr. Spencer. It is my understanding that Naval Sea Systems Command,
in coordination with the Fleet Commanders, Commander, Naval
Installations Command, and Navy Staff, is the lead to develop a
holistic view of shipyard requirements to meet Fleet demand.
73. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, what are the details on the timing
of each of these assessments and how and when they will correlate into
budgetary requirements and requests?
Mr. Spencer. It is my understanding that the Naval Sea Systems
Command is currently working a detailed plan that provides the
necessary resources to recapitalize, where required, our public
shipyards, and to implement yard design changes to improve productivity
and workflow. This will not happen overnight and will be phased in over
time. Some of these recommendations are included in the Navy's PB-18
submission. If confirmed I will continue to examine what resources are
required in future budgets to ensure our public yards have the
resources required to support the fleet. In addition, I will ask my
team what steps Navy can do, in partnering with Congress, to ensure the
private yards are incentivized to improve their infrastructure to
better support the Fleet.
pacific missile range facility
74. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, over the past few years, Congress
has taken note of the unmatched and critical role the Barking Sands
Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR) at Pacific Missile Range Facility
(PMRF), plays in sustaining the Navy's superiority in the undersea
domain. BARSTUR is now almost 3 years past its 20-year service life and
the range components are visibly degrading. In fact, Congress provided
$9 million in fiscal year 2017 to jump start the recapitalization and
modernization of this critical training element. Please detail the
Navy's plan to rapidly and responsibly recap BARSTUR without incurring
any gaps in usage. How long will this plan take and how much will it
cost?
Mr. Spencer. The Navy is currently developing and refining a plan
to replace BARSTUR and Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE)
in-water-system (range tracking instrumentation) as well as the shore
based controls and displays that directly support it. As part of the
planning process, we will do our best to minimize unavailability of the
range and limit any impacts to the training community. The Navy plans
to leverage lessons learned from the in-progress installation of the
Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) off the coast of Jacksonville,
FL to fully inform modernization requirements. Because BARSTUR and
BSURE ranges are adjacent, it is my understanding that the Navy plans
to conduct concurrent repair of the BARSTUR range instrumentation and
BSURE communications suite to achieve significant cost avoidance over
separate repair efforts.
75. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, how is the Navy budgeting for this
recap?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that as part of the budgeting process, the
Navy assesses training requirements to ensure fleet readiness. The Navy
has been allocated $9 mil of RDT&E in fiscal year 2017 to begin BARSTUR
improvements. Due to fiscal constraints, the full redevelopment of
BARSTUR and BSURE is not currently funded though it will continue to be
evaluated in future budget cycles.
76. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, could the Navy expedite the recap
over 3 years potentially creating savings over the life of the project?
Mr. Spencer. As we refine the plan to recapitalize BARSTUR, we will
try to minimize the time and costs to complete the effort. At this
point in time, it would be difficult to commit to a specific time frame
but I can commit to you that we will attempt to do this in the most
expeditious and practical manner. The Navy is committed to providing
the Congress a detailed plan in October of this year.
77. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, can you provide the Committee with
an explanation of how a modernized underwater training range is crucial
to sustaining our tactical superiority over our near-peers and
adversaries?
Mr. Spencer. It is my understanding that a modern underwater
training range is critical to performing operationally realistic
training. It has the instrumentation and data collection systems
required to safely conduct operations and to provide to the training
community the data needed to assess training exercises, Tactics,
Techniques & Procedures (TTPs) and concept of employment/operations.
78. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed will you keep me
informed on the status of the recapitalization and modernization of
this important asset?
Mr. Spencer. Yes. The Navy has already committed to provide a
report on the BARSTUR redevelopment and modernization to satisfy the
previous House and Senate requests to Congress by 13 October 2017.
corrosion prevention
79. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, estimates show that corrosion
costs the Department of Defense over $21 billion dollars annually.
Reports show that over half of the Marine Corps' F-18's are not fit to
fly because of corrosion issues. The Navy has similar issues. The
Department of Defense has a Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and
the Services are required by law to have corrosion executives but I am
not convinced that adequate progress is being made. As such, this
Committee has some provisions in the NDAA related to the corrosion
functions within the Departments as well as a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) review of DOD's corrosion activities. What are your
thoughts on the issue of corrosion control and the $21 billion annual
price tag?
Mr. Spencer. I believe that the Navy is aware it needs to address
corrosion concerns while still utilizing some of the resources on
warfighting capabilities. If confirmed, I will review Navy's current
policies and processes and work across the Department of Defense, other
Agencies and with Industry to determine how it might reduce such a
large capital expenditure made on corrosion.
80. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, as acquisition processes are being
refined, if confirmed, will you ensure that corrosion prevention
measures and processes are fully considered throughout the acquisition
process for Navy weapons systems including aircraft?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
81. Senator Hirono. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, will you fully
support DOD and Navy efforts in corrosion control?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
ddg-51 multiyear procurement strategy
82. Senator King. Mr. Spencer, in every previous DDG-51 multiyear
procurement--as pointed out by both GAO and the Congressional Research
Service- the Navy built multiple ships of a new configuration before
seeking and employing multiyear procurement. While some have argued
that the DDG-51 Flight III merely represents an update to the current
configuration, there are substantial changes to the design and to the
ship well beyond combat system changes. Please explain your views on
the Flight III acquisition strategy and how you plan to ensure this
strategy complies with applicable laws and regulations, results in a
stable design before multiyear procurement proposals are formally
solicited or contracts awarded, prevents cost overruns and delays in
this critical program, and ensures the health of the critical dual-
source destroyer shipbuilding industrial base.
Mr. Spencer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Navy continues to
comply with all statutes in regards to the DDG 51 Flight III Multi-Year
Procurement (MYP) contract. If the Committee would allow me the
appropriate time to become educated on the subject matter I will
respond with the Navy's decision. The decision will be made under the
mandates that the ship will be produced in a competitive and cost
effective manner.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
navy land testing at white sands
83. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, the relationship between White
Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and the Navy is outstanding. Right
now, the Navy is investing in land-based testing infrastructure such as
Desert Ship and other facilities at White Sands. Testing Navy weapon
systems over land can reduce development and testing costs, and allow
for better data collection. If confirmed, will you continue the Navy's
strong relationship with White Sands to facilitate the development and
deployment of new weapon systems?
Mr. Spencer. Yes. The White Sands Missile Range plays an integral
part in Navy test programs. It also provides capability not available
at Navy test ranges and will continue to play an integral role in the
future.
directed energy
84. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, the Navy has been very active in
the area of Directed Energy Weapon Systems, and I applaud Admiral
Richardson and the Navy for their forward-thinking. In this year's
defense bill, this Committee established a program to accelerate the
transition of these systems to the military. The provision authorizes
specific funding to be used only for the purposes of prototyping and
conducting demonstrations of high-energy-laser and high-power-microwave
weapons that are furthest along in development. These systems have
game-changing potential for ship-defense and naval base protection.
Have you been briefed on the various directed energy weapon systems
being developed by the Navy?
Mr. Spencer. I have not been briefed on these weapon systems
technologies.
85. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, if you have, what are your
thoughts?
Mr. Spencer. I have not been briefed on these weapon systems
technologies.
86. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed, will you work to
accelerate the deployment of directed energy weapon systems and utilize
the program required by this Committee?
Mr. Spencer. Once briefed I look forward to speaking with the
Committee on the status of these technologies.
``uss los alamos''
87. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, if confirmed as Secretary of the
Navy, you would have the distinct honor of naming our Nation's
submarines. Next year, 2018, will mark the 75th anniversary of Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos has made enormous contributions
to the Navy through the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad and the
nuclear propulsion systems on submarines and aircraft carriers. On
behalf of the residents of Los Alamos and the State of New Mexico, I
would request that you take a close look at their critical
contributions to the Navy and the nuclear triad when naming the next
submarine.
Mr. Spencer. Duly noted.
energy resiliency
88. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Spencer, section 2805 of the Fiscal Year
2017 NDAA gave the Department new authority to plan and fund military
construction projects directly related to energy resiliency and mission
assurance. This Committee provided a $10 million increase for this
effort in this year's defense bill. What are your thoughts on energy
resilience, and how will you invest Navy resources to ensure Navy
assets are more agile and energy resilient?
Mr. Spencer. The DON will explore and execute energy resilience
projects that support the warfighter, improve readiness or have a good
business case. We have initiated a holistic Energy Security Framework
that sets resilience benchmarks, enables system gap analysis and
prioritizes projects that address DON energy resilience concerns.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Richard V. Spencer
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 6, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Richard V. Spencer, of Wyoming, to be Secretary of the Navy, vice
Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr.
------
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Richard V. Spencer, which
was transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Mr. Richard V. Spencer
Education:
Rollins College
September 1972 to June 1976
BA Economics
Employment record:
List all jobs held since college including title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA
- 2ndLt, The Basic School
- June 1976 to January 1977
United States Marine Corps, Pensacola/Milton, FL
- 2ndLt. Naval Flight School
- February 1977 to May 1978
United States Marine Corps, MCAS Tuslin, CA
- 1stLt/Capt, HMT-301/HMM-161, H-46 Pilot
- June 1978 to June 1981
Spirit Airways, San Francisco, CA
- Operations Officer/Pilot
- July 1978 to January 1981
Bank of Boston, Boston, MA
- Assistant Vice President, Municipal Finance
- February 1981 to June 1982
AG Becker & Company, New York, NY
- Vice President, Corporate Debt Origination
- June 1982 to January 1984
Paine Webber, Inc., New York/Atlanta
- Vice President, Corporate Debt Banking
- January 1984 to February 1986
Goldman Sachs & Company, New York/Los Angeles
- Vice President, Debt Capital Markets
- February 1986 to December 1988
Bear Stearns & Co., Boston, MA
- Director, Investment Banking Division
- December 1988 to November 1990
First Chicago Corp., Chicago, IL
- Vice President, Institutional Banking
- November 1990 to April 1994
Merrill Lynch & Co., Atlanta, GA
- Director, Private Equity Group
- May 1994 to December 1996
Donaldson, Lufkin, Jenrette, Atlanta, GA
- Managing Director, Private Equity Funds Group
- December 1996 to December 1998
Crossroads Group LLC, Atlanta/Dallas
- President, Private Equity Fund of Funds
- December 1998 to September 2001
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., Atlanta, GA
- Vice Chairman/Chief Financial Officer, Electronic Securiies
Exchange
- October 2001 to December 2007
Fall Creek Manaagement, LLC, Wilson, WY
- Managing Director, Investment Company
- January 2008 to Present
Honors and Awards:
Federal Civilian Awards--DOD Exceptional Public Service
Award--April 2015
------
[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. Richard V.
Spencer 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. Unless otherwise required, an answer of yes,
no, or not applicable is appropriate.
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.)
Richard Vaughn Spencer
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Navy
3. Date of nomination:
June 6, 2017
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
1954, Waterbury, CT
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married, Sarah Pauline Finch Spencer
7. Names and ages of children:
Averil Dickinson Spencer
Pierce Carlyle Spencer
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Brooks School, 1972 (High School Diploma)
Rollins College, 1976 BA Economics
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.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., Atlanta, GA
- Vice Chairman/Chief Financial Officer, Electronic Securities
Exchange
- November 2001 to December 2007
Fall Creek Management LLC, Wilson, WY
- Managing Member, Consulting, Investing and Charitable Giving
- January 2008 to Present
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.
Vice Chairman (2014), Defense Business Board,
Department of Defense, January 2010 to December 2014
Member, CNO, Executive Panel, February 2016 to December
2016
Corporate Advisor, Chief of Naval Operations, December
2016 to Present
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.
Board Member, CX Technologies, LLC, Atlanta, GA
Board Member, 86 Borders LLC, Atlanta, GA
Board Member, StarPound Technologies, LLC, Atlanta, GA
Board Member, Global Atlantic Financial Group, New
York, NY
ENGAGEcx, Atlanta, GA
Global Financial Life Limited, Hamilton, Bermuda
Ariel Re Limited, Hamilton, Bermuda
Commonwealth Annuity and Life Insurance Company,
Southborough, MA
First Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company,
Southborough, MA
Accordia Life and Annuity Company, Des Moines, IA
Forethought Life Insurance Company, Batesville, IN
Forethought National Life Insurance Company, Houston,
TX
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Chairman of the Board, Veterans Campaign, Washington,
DC
Board Member, Honoring Our Veterans, Jackson, WY
Board Member, Community Foundation of Jackson Hole,
Jackson, WY
Board Member, Teton County Search & Rescue Foundation,
Jackson, WY
Vice Chairman, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation,
Quantico, VA
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),
whether you were elected/appointed/candidate, the year(s) the election
was held or the appointment was made, and the term of office (if
applicable).
No.
(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 of $100 or more for the past 5
years. List each individual contribution and not the total amount
contributed to the person or entity during the year.
Rob Portman for Senate Comm. $1,300 09/30/2014
Allen Weh for Senate, $500 02/11/2014
Allen Weh for Senate, $2,000 07/24/2014
Allen Weh for Senate, $2,700 09/08/2014
Angus King for Senate, $333.33 09/10/2012
Romney Victory, Inc., $250 05/16/2012
Romney Victory, Inc., $2,500 05/30/2012
Rep National Comm., $250 05/30/2012
Romney for President, Inc., $250 05/12/2012
Romney for President, Inc., $2,250 05/30/2012
Rep. National Comm., $500 07/19/2016
Donald J. Trump for President, $2,000 06/14/2016
Ben Carson for President, $2,000 03/24/2016
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for
Exceptional Public Service
For exceptional public service as a Member of the
Defense Business Board
January 2010 to December 2014 and as Vice Chairman from
March 2014 to December 2014
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.
Testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee November
2015
``Managing the Department of Defense''
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.
Richard V. Spencer
This 7th day of June, 2017
------
[The nomination of Richard V. Spencer was reported to the
Senate by Chairman McCain on July 13, 2017, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2017.
[all]