[Senate Hearing 115-907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-907
NOMINATIONS OF MARK T. ESPER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; ROBERT L.
WILKIE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS;
JOSEPH D. KERNAN TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE; AND
GUY B. ROBERTS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR,
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-950 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 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
_______________
November 2, 2017
Page
Nominations of Mark T. Esper to be Secretary of the Army; Robert 1
L. Wilkie to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness; Joseph D. Kernan to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence; and Guy B. Roberts to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs.
Members Statements
McCain, Senator John............................................. 1
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 4
Tillis, Senator Thom............................................. 6
Witness Statements
Wilkie, The Honorable Robert L., to be Under Secretary of Defense 7
for Personnel and Readiness.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 40
Questions for the Record....................................... 59
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 64
Biographical Sketch............................................ 64
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 66
Signature Page................................................. 70
Esper, Mark T., Ph.D., to be Secretary of The Army............... 10
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 70
Questions for the Record....................................... 105
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 120
Biographical Sketch............................................ 120
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 122
Signature Page................................................. 125
Kernan, Joseph D., to be Under Secretary of Defense for 14
Intelligence.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 126
Questions for the Record....................................... 136
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 140
Biographical Sketch............................................ 140
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 141
Signature Page................................................. 144
Roberts, Guy B., to be Assistant Secretaryof Defense for Nuclear, 16
Chemical and BiologicalDefense Programs.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 144
Questions for the Record....................................... 154
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 158
Biographical Sketch............................................ 159
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 160
Signature Page................................................. 165
(iii)
NOMINATIONS OF MARK T. ESPER TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; ROBERT L.
WILKIE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS;
JOSEPH D. KERNAN TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE; AND
GUY B. ROBERTS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR,
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 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, Perdue, Sasse, Reed,
Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman McCain. Good morning. The Senate Armed Services
Committee meets today to consider the nominations of Mark T.
Esper to be Secretary of the Army; Robert L. Wilkie to be Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (P&R); Joseph
D. Kernan to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
(USD(I)); and Guy B. Roberts to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.
I would like to say that I have been pleased with the
reaction of the Secretary of Defense and the Administration in
being cooperative in responding to our questions and to our
ability to carry out our responsibilities on the defense
authorization bill. I think that most members were happy with
the briefing that we received concerning the accidents on the
USS McCain and others, and so we are glad to begin this
hearing.
We thank you all for joining us this morning. We welcome
your family and friends here 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 would ask that you each provide responses to the following
questions.
For the years that I have been a member of this Committee,
it has not been an important issue. It is now an important
issue because we are not receiving the information and
communication that is the constitutional responsibility of this
committee.
I urge you to consider your answers very carefully when I
ask these questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in hearings?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this Committee?
[Chorus of ayes.]
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?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman McCain. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
[Chorus of nays.]
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Wilkie, over half of the annual defense budget is spent
on personnel costs, to include training, health care, and
compensation. Our force is facing a readiness crisis. Our
personnel are facing the strain of 16 years of continuous
conflict.
I wish you could have heard our Navy testimony yesterday
concerning the accidents that have taken place. We all know
that this Congress bears significant responsibility for the
lack of funding, the lack of readiness, and the lack of
capability of our military, which then makes for 100-hour
workweeks, which then leads to accidents. I am sure you are
aware of the testimony of the Chief of Naval Operations.
Our force is facing, as I said, a readiness crisis.
Personnel are experiencing the strain of 16 years of continuous
conflict.
The next Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness will be the senior official responsible for issues
that have been a priority for this committee in the last 3
years. The sweeping personnel reforms Congress has passed in
recent defense authorization bills reflect the importance we
place on these issues.
If confirmed, we expect that you will work to faithfully
implement these reforms and be a forward-thinking partner to
this committee as we look to ensure that serving in defense of
our Nation remains a compelling calling for our best and
brightest Americans.
Admiral Kernan, if confirmed as the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, you will serve as the principal
intelligence adviser to the Secretary of Defense and will be
dual-hatted as the director of defense intelligence in the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
It has been nearly 15 years since this position was
created, and the security environment has changed dramatically
during that time. The scope and complexity of global threats is
unlike anything the Nation has faced during the last 7 decades.
That is why it is more important than ever that this committee
and the department make certain that the defense intelligence
enterprise is appropriately structured to integrate and
prioritize intelligence resources and capabilities throughout
the department.
I look to our nominee to explain how he intends to reassess
this structure and ensure that the military has timely and
accurate intelligence to defend the Nation against a rapidly
evolving series of security challenges.
Mr. Roberts, if confirmed, you will be the principal
adviser to the Secretary of Defense on nuclear weapons and
chemical and biological defense, as well as the executive
director of the Nuclear Weapons Council. As such, you will have
a key role in shepherding the modernization programs of the
nuclear triad, including the bomber, the submarine, the ICBM
[intercontinental ballistic missile], the Long-Range Stand-Off
Weapon, and nuclear command and control.
If confirmed, we will expect you to advocate for the timely
and responsible execution of these programs, which remain a
cornerstone of our national defense, especially in the current
strategic environment.
We also expect you will work with the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Energy
(DOE) to support the recapitalization of the critical
infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Many of those facilities are in a disgraceful state of
disrepair, and strong leadership from both the Department of
Defense (DOD) and DOE will be required to keep all of these
programs on time and at cost.
Dr. Esper, there is no clearer illustration that our Army
remains at war than the combat loss of four of our
noncommissioned officers in Niger last month. After 16 years of
war, the Army, perhaps more than any other service, has been
tested. Repeatedly, our soldiers have met that test and proved
their commitment, courage, skill, and determination.
Today, however, our Army is facing a crisis. The burden
imposed on our soldiers only grows as threats to our Nation
increase and sequestration remains the law of the land. Given
current operational demands, restoring readiness must be the
Army's first priority. We have made some progress this year
toward improving the number of ready brigades that are
available for deployment. But too many of our soldiers remain
in brigades that are currently nondeployable, and the Army
still does not plan to return to full spectrum readiness until
2021 at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the Army is woefully behind on modernization,
and our soldiers are increasingly unprepared to confront the
harsh realities of 21st Century warfare. With glaring
capability gaps in mobility, lethality, and survivability,
these problems will only get worse as our adversaries continue
to modernize their forces. Put simply, our Army lacks both the
adequate capacity and the key capabilities to win decisively.
If confirmed, we will expect you to implement the six key
priorities for force modernization that the Army announced last
month. You must work to turn these program goals into real
weapons and equipment, and put them into the hands of soldiers
as soon as possible. Our soldiers cannot afford the false
choice between readiness and modernization. Building a ready,
modern Army will require visionary leadership and a clear
strategy.
If confirmed, we will expect you to lead the Army to those
ends. You will have to learn the lessons of the past, make
tough decisions, take and manage real risks, and hold yourself
and those working for you accountable for results. When you do
so, you will always have an ally in this chairman and this
committee.
Finally, Dr. Esper, I would be remiss if I did not
reiterate my concerns about the number of nominees from defense
industry filling out the leadership ranks at the Department of
Defense. I want to be clear that my reservations grew out of
early consultations I had with the Administration about
potential nominations, including yours and a handful of others
that were yet to be nominated. It was then that I decided that
I couldn't support further nominees with that background,
beyond those we had already discussed.
I appreciate your commitment not only to recuse yourself
from matters related to the Raytheon Company but further not to
seek or accept waivers to your recusal obligation. And I would
like to submit your letter stating that commitment into the
record, without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in
the Committee's executive files.]
Chairman McCain. Again, let me thank our witnesses for
their willingness to serve our Nation at this challenging time.
The length of my opening statement was directly related to
the importance of the tasks that you will be asked to
undertake.
Senator Reed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me join you in welcoming our nominees, and to thank
them and their families for their willingness to serve in
positions with great responsibility in the Department of
Defense.
I also would like to, as you will as you introduce your
families, acknowledge the critical role they play in supporting
your efforts and supporting the men and women in uniform.
Dr. Esper, you have been nominated to lead one of our
greatest institutions, the United States Army. If confirmed,
you will serve during a time in which the organization is
facing many challenges, including how to improve full spectrum
readiness while we continue to deploy soldiers around the
world. The Army also continues to grapple with modernization,
to include how best to make targeted investment in programs and
canceling those efforts that are underperforming or cost-
prohibitive.
Dr. Esper, you have a wealth of experience, including your
service in the Army, as well as your extensive experience in
both the public and private sector. If confirmed as the next
Secretary of the Army, your unique perspective will allow you
to tackle these challenges head-on, and I look forward to
hearing your views on these issues.
Mr. Wilkie, if confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, you will face many challenges in
ensuring, first and foremost, that our military has adequate
numbers of ready and trained servicemembers of sufficiently
high character and talent to meet national defense objectives.
This overarching imperative implies many organizational
challenges. Military personnel costs have continued to rise at
rates exceeding the increase to the overall defense budget,
even as the overall number of Active Duty soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines has dropped from over 2 million in 1980 to
1.3 million today, despite an increase to the defense budget
over that time frame.
Mr. Wilkie, your vast experience within the department and
Congress should serve you well, if you are confirmed. I look
forward to working with you. You will be tackling difficult
issues, and I know you will do them well.
Admiral Kernan, you have been nominated to serve as the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence at a very critical
time. Intelligence and operations are more integrated than ever
before. But at the same time, the demand for accurate and
timely intelligence continues to outstrip supply.
This challenge is exacerbated by the inefficient allocation
process of available airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities among the geographic combatant
commands. As tactical intelligence-gathering capabilities
continue to advance at an exceptional pace, we are also
experiencing a shortfall in the personnel and analytical tools
necessary to make effective use of the overwhelming amount of
raw intelligence that is being generated.
Given your more than 3 decades of service in the Navy, you
bring important experience to the position of the USDI, which
you should serve with great distinction, as you have in the
past.
Mr. Roberts, if confirmed, you will serve in a position
that dates back to the 1946 Atomic Energy Act. Since its
creation, this office has assumed other important missions,
including threat reduction, nonproliferation, and treaty
verification. However, its core mission has not changed, which
is to serve as the interface between the Department of Defense
for its stockpile requirements to support its nuclear
deterrence mission and the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA.
In no uncertain terms, I expect you, as your predecessors
have done, to hold the NNSA accountable in meeting the
department's stockpile needs and, in particular, restoring our
ability to produce plutonium pits as we recapitalize our triad
over the next 20 years.
Since 2011, following the ratification of the New START
Treaty, this committee has extended considerable time and
effort holding the NNSA accountable to this mission, and we
expect you to continue it.
Again, thank you for your willingness, gentlemen, to serve
the Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
I note the presence of our respected friend, Senator
Tillis, who would like to, I believe, introduce one of the
witnesses.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOM TILLIS
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member,
and distinguished colleagues on Senate Armed Services.
I have the privilege of making a few comments about Robert
Wilkie, or Colonel Robert Wilkie. He has an extensive resume
that I am sure is in the record, but I think it bears repeating
some of the more important things that I believe make him
uniquely qualified for this role.
Many of you probably met Robert when he was working for the
nomination of Secretary Mattis. We seconded Robert over to the
Office of Personnel Transition to help with the transition.
He has several years of private sector experience,
including working on projects that were to reform and
reorganize the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense supply chain
and logistics system. He also served in the Bush administration
for both Gates and Rumsfeld as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Before that, he served under Condoleezza Rice. I could go
through the full resume, but I will not.
I have to tell you that being a junior Senator coming in
and having someone of Robert's caliber willing to serve with me
was a real honor. He started under Jesse Helms, and he has
worked on Capitol Hill for many years, up to and including
serving in the Leader's office.
He has a grasp of history that is unparalleled. We play a
game in my office called ``Stump Robert''. We have not figured
out how to do it yet. He also has a very broad base of
educational experience of all the lines of service.
But, Mr. Chair, in your comments about taking readiness
seriously, there is probably not a day that goes by that we are
not talking about that. It is one of the reasons, when we were
looking at subcommittees that I may serve on, that he was the
one to say it would be great for you to get the Personnel
Subcommittee, because that is an area where we can do a lot of
work. We focused on it, and we have made progress with the
great staff. I am pretty sure most of the Senate Armed Services
staff have a high opinion of Robert.
I will tell you we also call him Forrest Gump because there
is not a single story he cannot put in context of some
experience he had during his working career or dating back to
the Roman times.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tillis. He is going to be a great addition to the
Department of Defense, and I am personally--it is bittersweet
to lose him, but in my capacity on the Personnel Subcommittee
on Senate Armed Services, I get the opportunity to continue to
work with him and do great work, so I wholeheartedly support
his nomination and appreciate the opportunity to introduce
them.
Chairman McCain. Thank you, Senator Tillis, and thank you
for your very good words. Your opinion is shared on this dais
as well. I thank you very much.
Maybe we will just begin with you, Mr. Wilkie, if you would
like to proceed?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. WILKIE, TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed, and
distinguished Members of the Committee on Armed Services. This
is the second time I have appeared in this chair.
Chairman McCain. I hope it is better than the last time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilkie. As in 2006, I was blessed to have my wife Julie
with me. We grew up together outside of Fort Bragg, and she is
the foundation of our family in both our civilian and military
lives. Unlike 2006, my daughter Megan is now old enough to sit
here. She is escaping from her junior high school classes at
Washington and Lee, and is also representing her brother Adam,
who is a first semester mechanical engineering student at
Clemson University. I am also proud to have my sister-in-law
Carla Council here. We, too, went to high school in
Fayetteville.
Chairman McCain. We welcome them to the Committee. Thank
you.
Mr. Wilkie. Mr. Chairman, in 2006, I was honored to be
introduced by a former member of this committee and a truly
great Senate leader, Trent Lott. I am equally humbled today not
only by the confidence placed in me by the President and
Secretary Mattis but to be introduced by Senator Tillis.
Senator Helms said that for any senator to truly represent
North Carolina, that senator must understand North Carolina
Highway 24. That is the road that the next 45 percent of the
entire United States Marine Corps in the eastern part of our
State to the place Senator Reed calls the hub of the universe,
Fort Bragg. Senator Tillis has met Senator Helms' charge and
exemplifies what all of us who have been part of the military
life strive to be, and that is a servant leader.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will be charged with making
life easier for the men, women, and families, military and
civilian, who carry our future on their shoulders. I have been
privileged to see this military life from many angles, as a
dependent, as the son of a gravely wounded combat soldier, as
an officer with a family in the military health care system,
and as a senior leader in the White House and the Pentagon.
My earliest memories are of the massed jumps of the 82nd
Airborne Division on the Normandy and Sicily drop zones at Fort
Bragg, and of the artillery half section rolling across the old
post quadrangle at Fort Sill.
I have witnessed firsthand the transition from the
conscript military to the all-volunteer total force of Guard,
Active, and Reserve envisioned by the late Army Chief of Staff
Creighton Abrams.
Mr. Chairman, since Desert Storm, readiness has meant the
ability to mobilize, fight, and win two wars. Without
prejudging Secretary Mattis' strategic review, that notion of
readiness is a good place for P&R to start when assessing the
quality of the total force.
In my opinion, as the chairman mentioned, the department
has too often been caught up in chasing the shiny object, the
new carrier or the new fighter. There have been few champions
for readiness to work with this committee.
Simply put, we need to get people back on the range and in
the motor pools, and prepare for the full spectrum of conflict,
a spectrum that now includes cyber and space.
The threshold question is whether each decision made by the
department enhances America's ability to deter and, if need be,
defeat any enemy while keeping our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines alive, and getting them back home quickly.
When they return, we owe them and their families the same
level of care and attention.
This is not the military that Senator McCain or my father
joined at the dawn of the Kennedy administration. Yet we are
hamstrung by policies and procedures in place then to run that
force of multiple millions, refreshed each year by thousands of
draftees and ROTC [Reserve Officers' Training Corps] graduates.
Today, our military is vastly different, comprised entirely
of high-quality volunteers. Seventeen percent of the force is
female, many of whom are serving on the frontlines in numbers
and missions unmanageable in the days of the WACs [Women's Army
Corps].
But our headquarters are bloated. We rely on a 20-year up-
or-out model for service men and women who are forced to leave
the military in their prime. Promotion models often see the
bottom performer advance at the same pace as the frontrunner.
Success in the Information Age will increasingly rely on
the technical ability of our troops, yet our assignment system
values breadth over depth of experience. Recruiting can be
stovepiped and not reach a wide audience online. Servicemembers
cannot move freely amongst Active, Guard, and Reserve
components to meet changing circumstances in their lives.
In my father's day, few soldiers had families. Today, over
60 percent do. For our families, the center of their lives can
be their military health care system. But that system has been
slow to keep up with modern medical advances for conditions
like autism and other behavioral disorders, as Senators
Gillibrand and Tillis have made clear. We still have military
families making their medical appointments on paper.
Constant rotation, again, based on a 19th century Army
model, prevents spouses from putting down roots and garnering
meaningful employment. Child care is, at best, uneven.
The bottom line, as the chairman said in his remarks to
Secretary Mattis, is that if the families are not happy, the
soldier walks.
The All-Volunteer Force has performed miracles, but dwell
times for frontline Marine Corps and Army infantry units are
now down to 1:1.14 years. On any given day, 15 percent of the
Army is medically unable to deploy.
Mr. Chairman, we must address those hard facts or the force
will break.
This Committee has kept pace and faith with the finest
military in the world, and the solutions for many of the issues
I mentioned have already begun to be put in place. If
confirmed, I pledge to build on your work and also work with
the great patriots, part of their family, the patriots who man
OSD P&R, and help you keep that faith.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkie follows:]
Prepared Statement by Robert L. Wilkie
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed and distinguished members of the
Committee on Armed Services. This is the second time I have appeared in
this chair. In 2006, I was honored to be introduced by a truly great
Senate leader, Trent Lott. I am equally humbled today not only by the
confidence placed in me by the President and Secretary Mattis, but to
be introduced by Senator Tillis.
Jesse Helms said that to truly represent North Carolina one must
understand HWY 24--that is the road that connects 45% of the entire
Marine Corps in the eastern part of our state to the place Senator Reed
calls the ``hub of the universe,'' Fort Bragg. If America is called to
action Marines and soldiers from North Carolina will be probably be the
tip of the spear--currently they are deployed in 120 countries.
In two years in the Senate, Senator Tillis has spent weeks walking
and talking with Marines and paratroopers and their families, turning
those conversations into positive results for them. He exemplifies what
all of us in the military world strive to be--the servant leader.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will be charged with making life
easier for those men and women who carry our future on their shoulders.
I have been privileged to see this military life from many angles;
as a dependent; as the son of a gravely wounded combat soldier; as an
officer with a family in the military health care system and as a
senior leader in the White House and the Pentagon.
My earliest memories are of massed jumps of the 82nd Airborne
Division on the Normandy and Sicily drop zones at Fort Bragg and the
artillery half section rolling across the old post quadrangle at Fort
Sill.
I have witnessed first-hand the transition from the conscript
military to the all-volunteer total force of National Guard, Reserve
and active components--envisioned by the late Army Chief of Staff
Creighton Abrams.
Secretary Mattis notes that lethality comes from readiness. General
Milley was clear when he said his three priorities are ``readiness,
readiness, and readiness''. Since Desert Storm ``readiness'' has meant
the ability to mobilize, fight and win two regional wars. Without
prejudging Secretary Mattis' strategic review--that notion of readiness
is a place for P&R to start when assessing the quality of the force.
In my opinion, the Department has too often been caught up in
chasing the shiny object--the new carrier or fighter. There have been
few champions for readiness to work with this Committee. We need to get
people back on the range and in the motor pools and prepare for the
full spectrum of conflict--a spectrum that now includes cyber and
space.
Regarding the full spectrum of conflict, the People's Liberation
Army has two entire divisions dedicated to nothing other than cyber
operations against America's military. We have faced revolutionary
technical challenges before. In the 1940s, George Marshall and Hap
Arnold brought into the military from the civilian sector, Americans on
the cutting edge of new technologies who were immediately set to
mastering: photo reconnaissance and psychological and deception
operations.
We now must bring in our cyber, engineering and scientific talent--
by reopening that old system of lateral accessions. Marshall and Arnold
looked to Hollywood and Madison Avenue during World War II, we need to
look to Route 128 and the Research Triangle.
The threshold question then is whether each decision made by the
Department enhances America's ability to deter--and if need be defeat--
any enemy while keeping our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines alive
and getting them back home quickly. When they return home, we owe them
and their families, the same level of care and attention.
This is not the military that Senator McCain or my father joined at
the dawn of the Kennedy Administration, yet we are hamstrung by the
policies and procedures in place then to run that force of multiple
millions refreshed each year by tens of thousands of draftees and
thousands of ROTC graduates. Today, our military is vastly different.
Comprised entirely of high-quality volunteers. Seventeen percent of the
force is female--many of whom are serving on the frontlines--in numbers
and missions unimaginable in the days of WACs.
We rely on a twenty year up or out model for servicemen and women
who are forced to leave the military in their prime. Promotion models
often see the bottom performer advanced at the same pace as the front
runner. Success in the information age will increasingly rely on the
technical ability of our troops, yet our assignment system values
breadth over depth of experience. Recruiting is stove piped and not
reaching a wide audience online. Service members cannot move freely
amongst active, Guard and Reserve components to meet changing
circumstances in their lives.
In my father's day, few soldiers had families--today over sixty
percent do. For our families, the military health system has been slow
to keep up with modern medical advances for conditions like autism and
other behavioral disorders as Senators Gillibrand and Tillis have
pointed out. We still have military families making their medical
appointments on paper.
Constant rotation--again based on a 19th century Army model--
prevents spouses from putting down roots and garnering meaningful
employment. Childcare is at best uneven. The bottom line is that
readiness is holistic--if the families are not happy, the soldier
walks.
The all-volunteer force has performed miracles but dwell times for
frontline Marine and Army infantry units are now down to 1:1.14 years
and on any given day 10 to 15 percent of the Army is medically unable
to deploy. We must address those hard facts, or the force will break.
Mr. Chairman, this committee has kept faith with the finest
military in the world and the solutions for many of the issues I
mentioned have already begun to be put in place. If confirmed I pledge
to build on your work and help keep that faith.
Chairman McCain. Thank you for an excellent statement.
Dr. Esper?
STATEMENT OF MARK T. ESPER, Ph.D., TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Dr. Esper. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members of
the Armed Services Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to
appear before you this morning as the President's nominee for
Secretary of the Army.
I want to thank the President and Secretary Mattis for this
opportunity and their confidence in me.
I would like to begin by recognizing my wife, Leah, and our
children, Luke, John, and Kate, who are with me today. Like
many military families, they made sacrifices in support of my
service in the Army.
Chairman McCain. They are welcome here.
Dr. Esper. Less than a year after we married, my wife
experienced anxious days and nights during my 7-month
deployment with the 101st Airborne Division to the Gulf War.
Later, she gave birth to our first son at an Army hospital in a
foreign country while I was commanding an airborne rifle
company that trained throughout Europe as part of a NATO [North
Atlantic Treaty Organization] rapid reaction force. We moved
four times in 5 years, but she always made a home for our
growing family wherever the Army sent us.
After I transitioned from Active Duty on the Army staff to
the Virginia Guard, she shouldered additional parenting duties
during those long drill weekends, annual training, and
everything in between. This would continue for several more
years, during my various jobs in the Senate, the House, and as
a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, until my retirement
from the Army Reserve in 2007.
I tell this story because of the big thanks I owe my wife
for all of the support she gave me during those years, and the
terrific job she did raising our children when I was gone. Her
support is something I know I will lean on again, should I be
confirmed as the next Secretary of the Army.
I also share this story to give you a sense of my
experiences in the Army.
From my first day as a cadet at West Point until my
retirement, I wore an Army uniform for over 25 years. I was
privileged to serve in some of the best Active and Guard
infantry units, attend the Army's top training and leadership
schools, and serve on three separate continents in defense of
our country. I understand well the challenges of military
service, the importance of readiness, the rigors of wartime
deployment, and how it all impacts our soldiers and their
families.
Throughout my military career, I was fortunate to serve
with America's best, the soldiers, NCOs [noncommissioned
officers] officers, and civilian employees of the United States
Army whose selflessness and vigilance keep our great Nation
safe. I have learned a good deal from all of them and would not
be here today were it not for many of them. Their welfare and
readiness will always be my top priority.
Today's Army is the greatest ground combat force in
history. Despite this fact, the service faces many challenges.
This committee knows them well.
The Army is at a critical inflection point, pivoting to
address the rise of aggressive near-peer adversaries while our
soldiers fight terrorist groups abroad, and global demand for
ready forces increases and fiscal pressures at home continue.
The next Secretary must lead the world's premier ground
force to success in these difficult times, and ensure it is
prepared for the future fights as well.
My vow, if confirmed, is to leverage my values, my
experiences, and all my energies to make the hard choices and
address these issues. If confirmed, my first priority will be
readiness, ensuring the total Army is prepared to fight across
the full spectrum of conflict.
With the Army engaged in over 140 countries around the
world, to include combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,
training rotations to Europe to deter Russia, and forward-
deployed units in the Pacific defending against a bellicose
North Korea, readiness must be our top priority. This means
recruiting and retaining the best our Nation has to offer,
ensuring these young men and women are well-trained and well-
led, and equipping them with the best weapons and technology
available. Every unit must be prepared to deploy and accomplish
its mission.
These are the fundamental title 10 duties of the Secretary
of the Army, and, if confirmed, I intend to do them well.
A second priority will be modernization, building capacity
and capabilities in the longer term. This means growing the
force while maintaining quality, reshaping it to be more robust
and successful in all domains, and modernizing it with the best
weapons and equipment available to guarantee clear overmatch in
future conflicts.
For modernization to be successful, the Secretary must
articulate a clear vision, reforms championed by this committee
must be fully implemented, and the acquisition process must be
greatly improved. This includes changing how requirements are
set, modifying the personnel system to promote success and
ensure accountability, prototyping and demonstrating systems
early, and involving the private sector much more.
In short, we must provide our soldiers the tools they need
to fight and win, when they need them.
Defense dollars are not where they need to be, and I know
the Armed Services Committees are working hard to change that.
But in the meantime, the Army must exercise better stewardship
of its resources.
A third priority is efficiency. To achieve this, I intend
to play a very active role in the Army's top acquisition
programs, reduce bureaucracy, wring inefficiency out of Army
organizations and processes, and promote an audit-ready culture
that will facilitate much of this. We must free up time, money,
and manpower to be utilized or invested in our top priorities.
Lastly, if confirmed, I will approach my duties with the
values and behaviors proven to maximize the effectiveness of
any team: act with integrity; collaborate broadly; treat others
with respect; encourage innovation, critical thinking and
straight talk; empower people; and hold leaders accountable.
These principles must be lived, promoted, and upheld day-in and
day-out by leaders at every level.
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, members of this
committee, thank you for your time and consideration today.
Having served on Capitol Hill, I know well the critical Article
I responsibilities of the Armed Services Committees, and when
it comes to our Nation's security, what you expect. I look
forward to working closely and continuously with the committee
to ensure the United States Army is ready to deploy, fight, and
win on any battlefield, on any day, under any conditions, and
that the total Army family, our soldiers, civilians, and their
loved ones at home, are well cared for.
I am grateful for your consideration of my nomination, and
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Esper follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Mark T. Esper
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Members of the Armed Services
Committee--it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you this
morning as the President's nominee for Secretary of the Army. I want to
thank the President and Secretary Mattis for this opportunity and their
confidence in me.
I would like to begin by recognizing my wife, Leah, and our
children--Luke, John, and Kate--who are with me today. Like many
military families, they made sacrifices in support of my service in the
Army.
Less than a year after we married, my wife experienced anxious days
and nights during my seven month deployment with the 101st Airborne
Division to the Gulf War. Later, she gave birth to our first son at an
Army hospital in a foreign country while I was commanding an airborne
rifle company that trained throughout Europe as part of a NATO rapid
reaction force. We moved four times in five years, but she always made
a home for our growing family wherever the Army sent us.
After I transitioned from active duty on the Army Staff to the
Virginia Guard, she shouldered additional parenting duties during those
long drill weekends, annual training, and everything in between. This
would continue for several more years, during my various jobs in the
Senate, the House, and as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
until my retirement from the Army Reserve in 2007.
I tell this story because of the big thanks I owe my wife for all
of the support she gave me during those years, and the terrific job she
did raising our children when I was gone. Her support is something I
know I will lean on again should I be confirmed as the next Secretary
of the Army.
I also share this story to give you a sense of my experiences in
the Army. From my first day as a cadet at West Point until my
retirement, I wore an Army uniform for over twenty-five years. I was
privileged to serve in some of the best Active and Guard infantry
units, attend the Army's top training and leadership schools, and serve
on three separate continents in defense of our country. I understand
the challenges of military service, the importance of readiness, the
rigors of wartime deployment, and how it all impacts our Soldiers and
their families.
Throughout my military career I was fortunate to serve with
America's best--the Soldiers, NCOs, Officers, and Civilian employees of
the U.S. Army whose selflessness and vigilance keep our great Nation
safe. I have learned a good deal from all of them, and would not be
here today were it not for many of them. Their welfare and readiness
will always be my top priority.
Today's Army is the greatest ground combat force in history.
Despite this fact, the Service faces many challenges; this committee
knows them well. The Army is at a critical inflection point, pivoting
to address the rise of aggressive near-peer adversaries while our
Soldiers fight terrorist groups abroad, as global demand for ready
forces increases and fiscal pressures at home continue. The next
Secretary must lead the world's premier ground force to success in
these difficult times, and ensure it is prepared for the future fights
as well. My vow, if confirmed, is to leverage my values, my
experiences, and all my energies to make the hard choices and address
these issues.
If confirmed, my first priority will be Readiness--ensuring the
Total Army is prepared to fight across the full spectrum of conflict.
With the Army engaged in over 140 countries around the world, to
include combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, training rotations
to Europe to deter Russia, and forward deployed units in the Pacific
defending against a bellicose North Korea, readiness must be our top
priority.
This means recruiting and retaining the best our Nation has to
offer, ensuring these young men and women are well-trained and well-
led, and equipping them with the best weapons and technology available.
Every unit must be prepared to deploy and accomplish its mission. These
are the fundamental Title 10 duties of the Secretary of the Army, and,
if confirmed, I intend to do them well.
A second priority will be Modernization--building capacity and
capabilities in the longer term. This means growing the force while
maintaining quality, reshaping it to be more robust and successful in
all domains, and modernizing it with the best weapons and equipment
available to guarantee clear overmatch in future conflicts.
For modernization to be successful, the Secretary must articulate a
clear Vision, reforms championed by this Committee must be fully
implemented, and the acquisition process must be greatly improved. This
includes changing how requirements are set, modifying the personnel
system to promote success and ensure accountability, prototyping and
demonstrating systems early, and involving the private sector much
more. In short, we must provide our Soldiers the tools they need to
fight and win, when they need them.
Defense dollars are not where they need to be, and I know the Armed
Services committees are working hard to change that. But in the
meantime, the Army must exercise better stewardship of its resources.
So a third priority is Efficiency. To achieve this, I intend to play a
very active role in the Army's top acquisition programs, reduce
bureaucracy, wring inefficiency out of Army organizations and
processes, and promote an audit-ready culture that will facilitate much
of this. We must free up time, money, and manpower to be utilized or
invested in our top priorities.
If confirmed, I will approach my duties with the values and
behaviors proven to maximize the effectiveness of any team: act with
integrity; collaborate broadly; treat others with respect; encourage
innovation, critical thinking and straight talk; empower people; and
hold leaders accountable. These principles must be lived, promoted, and
upheld day-in and day-out by leaders at every level.
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Members of this committee,
thank you for your time and consideration today. Having served on
Capitol Hill, I know well the critical Article I responsibilities of
the Armed Services Committees when it comes to our Nation's security
and what you expect, so I look forward to working closely and
continuously with the committee to ensure the United States Army is
ready to deploy, fight and win on any battlefield, on any day, under
any conditions, and that the Total Army family--our Soldiers,
Civilians, and their loved ones at home--are well cared for.
I am grateful for your consideration of my nomination, and I look
forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Kernan?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. KERNAN, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Kernan. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and
distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and for your
consideration of my nomination to be the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence.
I am appreciative of the trust and confidence that
President Trump and Secretary Mattis have placed in me. If
confirmed, I look forward to assuming the responsibilities of
the USD(I), a role that I view as extremely important to our
Nation's security.
I would like to recognize my family, who are not here in
person but in spirit, and fully supportive of this commitment,
should I be confirmed. They have all influenced me greatly.
My father, who left Columbia Medical School in 1939 to fly
B-17s in World War II; my father-in-law, who flew Navy Corsairs
during World War II; my brother, Bob, a career Navy pilot; and
two sisters, Martha and Mary, who, with their families, are
active humanitarians on many fronts; and most importantly, my
wife, Jan, always patriotic, always supportive, and always
caring. She was alone for much of my military career, raising
our two children, Sean and Shannon, and too often was called
upon to support and console the families of casualties from my
command.
Lastly, the preeminent reason for me and my willingness to
serve is for the men and women who stand in defense of our
country. They deserve the best we can provide them and should I
be confirmed, they will have my unwavering commitment to that
task.
The fidelity of intelligence, when combined with the skill
and courage of those men and women, along with its impact on
leader decision-making, is crucial to our Nation's security.
During combat and contingency operations, I placed a high value
on intelligence support because that intelligence allowed us to
plan effectively, mitigate risk, prosecute high-value targets,
and exploit intelligence on those target sites.
In my experience, my country's and our allies' intelligence
and law enforcement enterprises were routinely vital
contributors to our military operations. My commitment to the
value of leveraging collective and collaborative intelligence
capabilities, partnering, and collaborating remains firm, and
if confirmed, that will continue.
If confirmed, my initial priorities would include:
Providing intelligence support to warfighters and national
security decision-makers; proactively collaborating across the
Department of Defense, the intelligence enterprise, and with
our allies and emerging foreign partners; and finally,
leveraging commercial technologies and innovations where they
can support mission success and address other internal and
external security threats and challenges.
In this complex security environment, we must collect,
process, and analyze information from all domains--human, sea,
air, land, space, and cyber--to counter the traditional and
nontraditional adversaries that constantly maneuver and adapt.
Our intelligence enterprise must be trained and equipped to do
so as well.
If confirmed, I will relentlessly pursue the resources,
technologies, and solutions that meet our military and our
Nation's intelligence needs.
In closing, I am committed to working very closely with
this committee and other committees of jurisdiction to provide
the information needed to carry out oversight responsibilities.
Thank you for your consideration of my nomination. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kernan follows:]
Prepared Statement by Joseph Kernan
Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished members of
this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and for your consideration of my nomination to be the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)).
I am appreciative of the trust and confidence that President Trump
and Secretary Mattis have placed in me, and if confirmed, I look
forward to assuming the responsibilities of the USD(I), a role that I
view as extremely important to our nation's security.
I would like to recognize my family, who are not here in person,
but in spirit and fully supportive of this commitment should I be
confirmed. My father who left Columbia Medical School in 1939 to fly B-
17's throughout WW-II, my father-in-law who flew Navy Corsairs in WW-
II, my brother Bob, a career Navy pilot, and two sisters, Martha and
Mary, who, with their families, are active humanitarians on many
fronts. Most importantly, my wife Jan, always patriotic, supportive,
and caring. She was alone for much of my military career, raising our
two children, Sean and Shannon, and too often was called upon to
support and console the families of casualties from my command. Lastly,
the preeminent reason for my willingness to serve, the men and women
who stand in defense of our country--they deserve the best we can
provide them--and should I be confirmed, they will have my unwavering
commitment to that task.
The fidelity of intelligence, when combined with the skill and
courage of those men and women along with its impact on leader
decision-making, is crucial to our nation's security. During combat and
contingency operations, I placed a high value on intelligence support
because that intelligence allowed us to plan effectively, prosecute
high-value targets, and exploit target sites. In my experience, our
country's and our allies' intelligence and law enforcement enterprises
were routinely vital contributors to our military operations. My
commitment to the value of leveraging collective intelligence
capabilities, partnering, and collaborating remains firm and, if
confirmed, that will continue.
If confirmed, my initial priorities would include: providing
intelligence support to warfighters and national security decision-
makers; proactively collaborating across the Department of Defense, the
Intelligence Enterprise, and with our allies and emerging foreign
partners; and finally, leveraging commercial technologies and
innovations, where they can support mission success and address other
internal and external security threats and challenges.
In this complex security environment, we must collect, process, and
analyze information from all domains, human, sea, air, land, space, and
cyber, to counter traditional and non-traditional adversaries that
constantly maneuver and adapt--our intelligence enterprise must be
trained and equipped to do so as well. If confirmed, I will
relentlessly pursue the resources, technologies, and solutions that
meet our intelligence needs.
In closing, I am committed to working closely with this committee
and other committees of jurisdiction to provide the information needed
to carry out oversight responsibilities.
Thank you for your consideration of my nomination. I look forward
to your questions.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts?
STATEMENT OF GUY B. ROBERTS, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed,
and members of the committee for your consideration of my
nomination to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. It is, indeed, an
honor and a privilege to be considered for this important
position.
I wish to thank the President and Secretary Mattis for
their confidence in me and their support for my nomination.
And, of course, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my
family: my wife, Helene, and my two sons, Matthew and
Alexander, who regrettably could not be here today. But their
love, support, and sacrifice have been uplifting, and without
it, I certainly wouldn't be here today.
I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the
men and women who have served and who continue to serve our
Nation in uniform today. Their sacrifices, and those of their
families, are enormous. As I can attest firsthand, and we
cannot thank them enough. I feel no stronger sense of purpose
and inspiration than, if confirmed, to dedicate myself to
ensure that they as well as all Americans are fully protected
from the threat of weapons of mass destruction, proliferation,
and use.
Likewise, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the
rest of the Department of Defense team to support Secretary
Mattis in implementing the President's plan to rebuild our
military and to ensure the safety and security of the American
people, particularly regarding modernizing our nuclear
enterprise and our antiproliferation initiatives and programs.
I believe my 35 years of experience participating in and
negotiating multilateral and bilateral agreements on arms
control and proliferation issues, and overseeing our NATO
nuclear posture, make me uniquely qualified for this position.
This includes serving as a military officer tasked with
representing the Department of Defense in various conventional
and strategic arms control negotiations; working in the private
sector as a subject matter expert on nonproliferation training
programs and as an academic teaching classes on
nonproliferation, arms control, and deterrence strategy; and as
a senior official in OSD policy, where I worked on issues that
continue to bedevil us, including Russia, North Korea, our
nuclear deterrence and missile defense policy, and a range of
arms control and counterproliferation initiatives.
Additionally, as NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General
for WMD [weapons of mass destruction] Policy and the director
for Nuclear Policy, I worked closely with our allies to help
shape our policy towards a revanchist Russia, developed and
implemented NATO's comprehensive policy to prevent WMD
proliferation, and oversaw NATO's nuclear deterrence posture.
While there, I developed a keen appreciation for the
importance of regular consultations and working closely with
our allies and partners, as well as other international actors
and industry.
If confirmed, I anticipate continuing to work closely with
our allies and partners, as well as my interagency
counterparts, to help synchronize our efforts regarding U.S.
foreign nonproliferation and counterproliferation policy
objectives.
Most importantly, the President has prioritized nuclear
modernization as the highest priority among national defense
requirements. If confirmed, I will work to first ensure we have
a robust nuclear enterprise with a full set of flexible,
credible, ready, and survivable nuclear capabilities; second,
work to develop a nuclear posture that is responsive to today's
threats and challenges; and third, institute declaratory
policies that, in any adversary's eyes, credibly convey the
message that aggression of any kind is not a rational option.
I believe we must maintain a second-to-none robust
deterrence posture to complement our efforts to stop and
counter the threat of WMD possession and use.
Additionally, if confirmed, I will work closely with other
DOD components as well as our inter-agency partners and allies
to ensure that state and non-state actors never have the
opportunity to acquire and use these weapons of mass
destruction and disruption against our forces, our allies, and
our Homeland.
Finally, if confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee to support developing and modernizing the needed
capabilities to deter our adversaries; reassure our allies;
prevent the spread of, protect against, and effectively respond
to the threat of WMD proliferation and use.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement by Guy B. Roberts
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed, and members of the
committee for your consideration of my nomination to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to be considered for
this important position.
I wish to thank the President and Secretary Mattis for their
confidence in me and their support for my nomination, and of course, I
owe an immense debt of gratitude to my family, my wife Helene, and my
two sons, Matthew and Alexander who regrettably could not be here
today. Their love, support and sacrifice have been uplifting and
without it I certainly wouldn't be here today.
I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the men and
women who have served, and who continue to serve our nation in uniform
today. Their sacrifices, and those of their families, are enormous, as
I can attest first hand, and we cannot thank them enough. I feel no
stronger sense of purpose and inspiration than, if confirmed, to
dedicate myself to ensure that they as well as all Americans are fully
protected from the threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation
and use.
Likewise, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the rest of
the Department of Defense team to support Secretary Mattis in
implementing the President's plan to rebuild our military and to ensure
the safety and security of the American people, particularly regarding
modernizing our nuclear enterprise and our anti proliferation
initiatives and programs.
I believe my 35 years of experience participating in and
negotiating multi-lateral and bilateral agreements on arms control and
proliferation issues and overseeing our NATO nuclear posture make me
uniquely qualified for this position. This includes serving as a
military officer tasked with representing the DOD in various
conventional and strategic arms control negotiations; working in the
private sector as a subject matter expert on non-proliferation training
programs, as an academic teaching classes on non-proliferation, arms
control and deterrence strategy; and as a senior official n OSD policy
where I worked on issues that continue to bedevil us including Russia,
North Korea, our nuclear deterrence and missile defense policy, and a
range of arms control and counter proliferation initiatives.
Additionally, as NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for WMD
Policy and the Director for Nuclear Policy I worked closely with our
allies to help shape our policy towards a revanchist Russia, developed
and implemented NATO's comprehensive policy to prevent WMD
proliferation, and oversaw NATO's nuclear deterrence posture. While
there I developed a keen appreciation for the importance of regular
consultations and working closely with our allies and partners as well
as other international actors and industry.
If confirmed, I anticipate continuing to work closely with our
Allies and partners as well as my interagency counterparts to help
synchronize our efforts regarding U.S. foreign non-proliferation and
counter proliferation policy objectives.
Most importantly, the President has prioritized nuclear
modernization as the highest priority among national defense
requirements. if confirmed, I will work to first ensure we have a
robust nuclear enterprise with a full set of flexible, credible, ready
and survivable nuclear capabilities; second, work to develop a nuclear
posture that's responsive to today's threats and challenges; and third,
institute declaratory policies that, in any adversary's eyes, credibly
convey the message that aggression of any kind is not a rational
option.
I believe we must maintain a second-to-none robust deterrence
posture to complement our efforts to stop and counter the threat of WMD
possession and use. Additionally, if confirmed, I will work closely
with other DOD components as well as our inter-agency partners and
allies to ensure that state and non-state actors never have the
opportunity to acquire and use these weapons of mass destruction and
disruption against our forces, our allies and our Homeland.
Finally, if confirmed, I look forward to working with this
Committee to support developing and modernizing the needed capabilities
to deter our adversaries, reassure our allies, prevent the spread of,
protect against, and effectively respond to the threat of WMD
proliferation and use.
Thank you again and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts.
I would just like to make a comment here, and that is the
reason why these nominations have not been acted on as rapidly
as possible is because of failures of communication between
this committee and the Pentagon, which is a shame since I have
known them for many, many years.
We expect from you, as in the opening questions that I
asked, not only communication but cooperation. That is
something that is our constitutional responsibility, and I hope
that you appreciate it.
Dr. Esper, from time to time, there is frustration on this
committee because of failures of major weapons systems. For
example, over the last 10 years or so, we have wasted about $40
billion on programs like the Future Combat Systems, the
Comanche attack helicopter, the Crusader howitzer, the Joint
Tactical Radio System, and the Distributed Common Ground
System-Army. Most recently, the committee has learned of the
failure of the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, known
as WIN-T. This program has cost the taxpayer over $6 billion
and has yet to meet the requirements of our warfighters.
Let me just tell you now, that is not acceptable. It is not
acceptable to the taxpayers of America. It is not acceptable to
the members of this committee.
Now, we have made several changes over the last couple
years in the defense authorization bill, but we do not want any
more of these failures. You lose credibility with the American
people when a program has to be canceled but it cost the
taxpayers over $6 billion.
Please keep that in mind, and we will be exercising careful
scrutiny. We just cannot keep wasting billions of dollars like
this. We just cannot. I hope that is the message that you get
from every member of the committee on both sides.
Could I ask, Dr. Esper, you have an end-strength of over 1
million soldiers. The Army remains the one service in the
greatest demand by the combatant commanders. All the while, it
works to build readiness.
Is the current budget adequate to support operations,
maintain readiness, and modernize the Army for 21st Century
warfare?
Dr. Esper. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the current budget
is adequate to maintain current readiness or prepare for future
readiness.
Chairman McCain. Mr. Wilkie?
Mr. Wilkie. No, sir, it is not.
Chairman McCain. And, Mr. Kernan?
Mr. Kernan. No, Chairman. I do not believe it is
sufficient.
Chairman McCain. May I just say, again, Dr. Esper, for over
2 years, Army leaders have asserted readiness is priority
number one. Do you believe that the Army is at a level of
readiness to conduct combined arms maneuver warfare against a
peer competitor?
Dr. Esper. Mr. Chairman, I think the Army faces many
readiness challenges right now, not least of which, most
importantly, is to engage a near-peer competitor in a high-end
fight. I think with only one-third of the brigade combat teams
and 25 percent of the combat aviation brigades ready, engaging
in such a conflict would be conducted at significant risk.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Kernan, almost every day, we hear of another issue
concerning cyber, either revelations of old attacks, an
increase in the knowledge that we have concerning what Russians
did to try to affect the outcome of our elections. As far as we
can tell, for the last 8 years, there has not been a strategy
on cyber, which then would be translated to policy, which would
then be translated to action.
Now, we have provisions in the defense authorization bill,
and we have a cyber subcommittee.
How serious do you think this issue is?
Mr. Kernan. Sir, I think the cyber threat is probably one
of the most concerning threats that face our Nation today,
certainly in terms of what it can do to malicious activity
inside of our infrastructure for our Nation, but as well cyber
activities that are occurring inside the Department of Defense.
We have to commit ourselves to protecting our networks, to
mitigating the impacts of malicious activity. We also need to
develop an offensive and a defensive capability.
Again, I think it is a very, very serious threat that we
have to take seriously. It is a warfare domain in my mind. It
is a borderless warfare domain. There are actors out there that
are taking advantage of that domain that is difficult to be
tracked, to undermine our democracy, again, whether it be
stealing our technology or whether it be trying to influence
our elections.
Chairman McCain. I thank you, and we look forward to
working with you, because, still to this day, we do not see a
discernible strategy on confronting an issue that could have,
under certain circumstances, undermined democracy and are our
fundamentals of selecting our leaders.
Could I just add, finally, we intend to move your
nominations through as quickly as possible. We need you to get
to work.
Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Again, gentlemen, thank you for your testimony and for your
service.
Dr. Esper, let me associate myself with the chairman's
initial remarks about the unfortunate--and that is a mild
term--failures on programs going all the way back to the
Crusader, the fighting systems, the land systems, et cetera,
with the Army.
Can you give us a sense of how you are going to approach
this issue, how you are going to take it on?
Dr. Esper. Senator, first of all, I share your and the
chairman's concerns, and the rest of the committee's, with
regard to the Army's modernization record. It is certainly
fraught with a number of mistakes in the past that not only
cost the taxpayers billions of dollars but, maybe more
importantly, have left the soldiers without the tools and
equipment and weapons they need to be successful on the
battlefield.
My view is that the era of minor fixes is over. We need to
fundamentally relook the whole acquisition process, beginning
with the requirements piece of it and all the way through the
testing part, and fielding.
To do that means you need to take a holistic approach,
which looks at processes, programs, people, policies. What you
are trying to eventually get at is a fundamentally new system
that, in the end, changes culture as well.
There have been a number of reports in the past to give us
a nice roadmap as to how to do that, the Decker-Wagner report
of 2011. There was a very good report by the Homeland Security
Governmental Affairs Committee, which I think Chairman McCain
was part of in 2014, which outlined that. It begins, first of
all, with requirements, getting all the right players to the
table at the same time, putting a warfighter in charge of that,
and making sure that your requirements process that
incorporates all those folks is stable. Then from there on, as
you move through the acquisition process, doing things such as
lining up the assignments of program managers and PEOs [program
executive officer] with the milestone process so that there is
clear accountability across-the-board.
I think with what the Army announced recently, I think
those steps are all in the right direction with regard to what
you need to do. But to me, the key is the delayering process;
getting rid of bureaucratic habits; closer engagement with
industry, both private and commercial sector; look more to the
commercial sector for off-the-shelf or things that can be
developed; prototyping, demonstrating, using other
transactional authorities that the committee provided in
legislation; and really, again, fundamentally overhauling the
system as it is now.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Wilkie, again, thank you for your service both here and
in many other places.
Mr. Wilkie. Thank you, sir.
Senator Reed. One of the issues that this Committee has
struggled with, and the Department of Defense has struggled
with, and in fact it is a societal issue, as we are seeing in
the headlines every day, is sexual harassment. The department
has not yet promulgated a comprehensive policy in that regard.
Can you give us a commitment that you will work on that and get
a policy out in a reasonable time?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, sir. There are several items in that vein.
The report or the policy that you refer to was set in place, or
the requirement was set in place by the fiscal year 2015 NDAA
[National Defense Authorization Act]. I think, given the
current climate, it is now, more than ever, and it should not
have been that long, but I will give you my commitment to make
sure we move on it.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCain. You view it as a serious issue, Mr.
Wilkie?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, very serious issue, sir.
Senator Reed. Admiral Kernan, one of the issues I alluded
to, and one of the issues that we see every day, is just the
lack of overhead ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance]. That was one of the factors, I don't know how
dispositive, in the Niger situation. In fact, General
Waldhauser has indicated he is only at 20 percent of what he
needs.
You were in U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). You probably
had zero percent of what you thought you needed.
How do we fix that quickly? Because we now have other
demands, particularly the Korean Peninsula, that are going to
put more pressure on the allocation of ISR.
Mr. Kernan. ISR, overhead ISR in general, there is an
insatiable demand for that, and, honestly, for the right
reasons, because ISR provides you the higher opportunity for
mission success, and it markedly protects your force. So those
assets are absolutely critical.
The adjudication process that we go through, again, my top
priority is providing more fighter support. Those ISR assets
that are under my charge, they are going to be in support of
the warfighter.
That is not to say there are opportunities where we can
support other organizations. I have not seen the investigation
on Niger, but I do believe that, certainly, ISR assets probably
could have benefited that. They certainly could have benefited
us in SOUTHCOM.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Roberts, thank you for your service and what
you propose to do.
Let me just stress again concern about the ability for the
NNSA, principally, to support DOD through the plutonium pit
production process. We are looking at a recapitalization of our
nuclear enterprise, which is roughly about $1.5 trillion to
$1.9 trillion over the next decade or so. Part of that
necessarily is getting the plutonium pits for the warheads.
Can you give us a sense of that?
Mr. Roberts. Senator, when I first started this process, I
was actually very surprised to find out that we do not have the
capability for pit production right now. This Committee has
looked at and raised this issue.
Certainly, if confirmed, one of the highest priorities that
I will have is to work with NNSA to find out what the delays
have been. Frankly, I find it very perplexing because the
Nuclear Weapons Council earlier, back in I think it was 2014,
had indicated that there was a solution to work forward on
this. Then subsequently, there was a series of looking at other
alternatives by NNSA.
I have seen the letter that this committee sent raising
those concerns, and I believe those concerns are legitimate,
and we need to work on them.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, I want to blow a little smoke at you guys,
because in the 30 years I have been on either the House or the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I have never seen a group of
nominees come in more qualified than you four. I think we are
going to turn this corner now, because we have the right people
at the helm.
I want to ask one question, the same question of all four
of you. Because one of our problems, when I was trying to
explain to people over the last 8 years what is happening to
our military, the threat that we are facing and different than
any kind of threat that we have faced before, I didn't have the
credibility to sell that. But when the uniforms start talking
about it, then that makes a big difference.
So we have had that happen, and I am very proud of them to
tell the unvarnished truth about the problems we have.
General Allen testified before this committee that only a
third of our brigade combat teams were working or ready, a
fourth of our air brigades, and half of our divisions were
ready. Then General Dunford said to this committee--this was
pretty shocking--he said, ``If we don't address this dynamic
with sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding over the
course of several years, we will lose our qualitative and
quantitative competitive advantage.'' That is a pretty shocking
statement.
I would like to ask two questions of each one of you, just
yes or no questions. One, do you agree with the statements by
Generals Allen and Dunford?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes.
Dr. Esper. Yes.
Mr. Kernan. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Secondly, the question I have had, would
you be as just as straightforward and honest about very
uncomfortable subjects, such as the threat that we are facing,
as these uniforms?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes.
Dr. Esper. Yes.
Mr. Kernan. Yes.
Mr. Roberts. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. I believe you will, too. It is not just--
the uniforms are important, but the secretaries are important.
I have very much of a concern about that.
Dr. Esper, General Milley wrote, talking about the goal of
the sustained readiness, he said that the goal of the Army's
sustained readiness model is to have 66 percent, and this is
not to maintain because we are not there now, but to achieve 66
percent of the force in a combat ready status at any moment by
the year 2023.
Now, would you say that, under this model, do you think
that we are on track to reach that goal?
Dr. Esper. Senator, my understanding is that the Army is on
track to reach that goal. My personal view is that is not fast
enough. If confirmed, I would like to look at ways, working
with the chief and senior Army leaders, to find if there are
ways to accelerate that, particularly given the challenges we
face right now in the international scene.
Senator Inhofe. Let me also compliment you, because the
answers you gave to Senator Reed's questions, talking about
what our acquisition problems are, and a definitive answer on
how to address that, I thought was a very good answer.
Mr. Wilkie, I remember so well, and the guy that has always
been a real hero to me was Jesse Helms. I remember going to his
funeral. You and I sat next to each other, and we talked about
that.
I would say to my friend Senator Tillis, that is one of the
main things that I look at when I look at you and your
extensive service that you have had in the past.
I am grateful to know that you understand our readiness
challenge. I chair the Readiness Subcommittee, and I have been
very concerned about where we are today.
In terms of your top priority going forward, how has our
budget cuts and the BCA [Budget Control Act] affected our
military readiness capacity and capabilities?
It is important to answer this question now because of what
we are in the midst of and the debate that is going on today.
Mr. Wilkie. Senator, if we start from the premise that we
have never faced the breadth of the strategic challenges that
we have now, that leads you to only one answer, that unless the
Department of Defense has a steady and understandable stream of
financing to plan for years ahead, as any other business would
have, then it will not be capable of playing in a field where
we continue to have an unfair advantage over our adversaries.
Senator Inhofe. It is a good answer, but it is unfortunate.
I am concerned, though, about a statement that was made, or
a fact that is out there and we don't seem to talk about, and
that is that only about a quarter of today's 17- to 24-year-
olds are eligible for military service. Of that population,
even a smaller number are interested in enlisting or
commissioning.
Now, I was a product of the draft. I would like to see what
are some of the innovative opportunities we have to expand that
pool. What are some of the options we have out there?
Mr. Wilkie. Sir, as you say, it is a society-wide problem.
What I don't believe the department has done, as we have moved
into the 21st Century, is adopt the modes of information
collection that America's young people have. We have not
mastered social media. We have not mastered something that I
consider to be fundamental, and that is online recruiting
across the country.
We have also had situations in the last 15 to 20 years
where the first experience that our youth at one time had with
the military, if they were not from a community tied to an
installation, was Junior ROTC. We are losing those units across
the country.
Now, obviously, in a time of budget crunching, that is
probably low on the list. But if you are looking at the long
term, if you are looking at trying to change the perception of
young Americans, those kinds of interactions and the ability of
the government through the department to adapt to the way young
people think is vital or we will never get caught up.
Senator Inhofe. My time has expired, but that is a great
answer. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to all of you, and thank you for being
willing to consider taking on these positions.
Dr. Esper, in your testimony, you said that your first
priority will be readiness and ensuring the total Army is
prepared to fight. Can you elaborate on, specifically, how you
would improve readiness and modernize the National Guard?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator. As I noted in my opening
statement, I had the privilege to serve on Active Duty and in
the Guard and Reserve.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Dr. Esper. I know all three components fairly well.
Clearly, in the last 16 years of fighting in Afghanistan
and Iraq, if we have learned anything, we have learned that the
Guard and Reserve are not just a strategic reserve but a really
critical operational component of that.
With that context in mind, I think it is critical as we try
to put readiness on a better footing, we look at, in my mind,
four key areas: improving our munitions stockpiles; that our
equipment is better maintained and ready to go; that training
for the high-end is conducted, particularly through the combat
training centers; and in terms of personnel, units are fully
manned.
I think that applies to all three components as well. When
it comes to pushing units through the combat training centers,
like NTC, we need to make sure that National Guard brigade
combat teams are there as well, and that they are working
closely with the Active.
I think what most people do not appreciate is that the
majority of the total Army is in the Guard and Reserve. It is
critical that, as we train, we train as a total Army in all
those regards across the spectrum of conflict.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I look
forward to having you come up to New Hampshire to see the
challenges that we face with our Guard and Reserve in New
Hampshire.
Mr. Wilkie, first of all, thank you very much for your work
for Senator Tillis on the special immigrant visa program. That
was very helpful. As you know, that is very important as we
support our men and women who are still on the battlefield.
I want to ask you about the health care system in the
military. You mentioned that in your opening remarks.
KidsVax is a universal vaccine program that purchases
vaccines at a discounted rate from the CDC [Centers for Disease
Control] to ensure that they go to children regardless of a
family's income. Now the only health insurance plan that does
not reimburse or pay the KidsVax or similar programs to States
for vaccines is TRICARE.
Will you commit to this committee that you will focus on
this issue and help get this matter resolved?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, Senator. The KidsVax program impacts 10
States, New Hampshire having the largest complaint against the
system. I will pledge that I will look at that, as well as a
number of other things with TRICARE. But getting our children
vaccinated would be a top priority for any Under Secretary.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kernan, Senator McCain talked about the importance of
cyber, and you agreed with that in your response.
Can you tell me who is in charge of a cyber strategy for
the United States, not just within the Department of Defense
but throughout the Federal Government?
Mr. Kernan. I would just say that I am familiar, certainly,
with the Department of Defense building a cyber strategy, and
that we are fundamentally committed to that.
Senator Shaheen. Can you tell me who is in charge at the
Department of Defense in doing that?
Mr. Kernan. I think right now it is a collective
responsibility. I certainly have responsibility for cyber in
the intelligence realm. I certainly believe I have a
responsibility for developing the strategy that Chairman McCain
discussed.
I think the issue, it is such a prolific and important
issue to be addressed because it involves everybody in our
country, not just civilian, not just military, our
infrastructure, our networks, all those things have to be
addressed. I believe it is going to be a whole-of-government
approach to the cyber, and we have to collaboratively work
together to leverage technology to address the problem.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly agree with that.
Chairman McCain. Could I just add, somebody has to be in
charge, Mr. Kernan.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. That was my point exactly,
Senator McCain.
Chairman McCain. Right now, no one is.
Senator Shaheen. Right now, we do not have somebody who can
be held accountable and who everyone knows is the person in
charge, if something goes wrong.
Mr. Roberts, in your testimony, you talk about working to
develop a nuclear posture that is responsive to today's threats
and challenges, and instituting declaratory policies that
credibly convey that aggression of any kind is not a rational
option.
What do you mean by that? What kind of policies do we need
to have in place?
Mr. Roberts. The concern there is not only having the
capabilities to indicate to our adversaries that aggression is
not a rational option but also the political will to make it
clear that, indeed, if you attack us, you will pay a terrible
price.
Having that posture--which right now I feel is difficult to
convey because of the fact that we have for so long
undercapitalized our nuclear deterrent. Now we are approaching
a time where we have to replace all of those things at a very
high cost, and that is going to be a challenge.
Senator Shaheen. Are you suggesting that we should be
prepared to engage in nuclear war against our enemies?
Mr. Roberts. Senator, I believe we should be prepared to
engage so we never have to engage. I have often said that
nuclear weapons--we use nuclear weapons every single day,
because it is a political tool more than a military one.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly think that deterrent made
sense against the Soviets and was very effective. I am not sure
it makes as much sense against North Korea.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Rounds?
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also add my surprise to that of Senator Shaheen and
Chairman McCain with regard, Mr. Kernan, to the concern
expressed and your response, or rather, I would say perhaps a
nonresponse with regard to who would actually be responsible
for the cyber challenges that our Nation faces.
I think it points out--and I would not suggest that you
were wrong in your response. We actually requested members of
the White House to actually participate in one of our hearings
here to discuss this specific issue, and they declined to even
attend. That type of an attitude is the wrong attitude with
regard to finding the appropriate way to respond to attacks and
the defense of our country in the cyber realm.
Mr. Kernan, what I would ask you is this, a commitment with
regard to your responsibilities to participate and to be able
to respond the next time that we ask you to come back in terms
of laying out a plan to at least identify a person to be
responsible for cyber defenses within the whole-of-government
within the United States Government system.
Would you commit to that, sir?
Mr. Kernan. I am absolutely committed to that, and I would
second, coming from the military, there needs to be somebody in
charge to make it work. I am absolutely committed to doing that
and bringing the Department of Defense, cyber concerns, cyber
perspectives into helping the whole-of-government effort.
Senator Rounds. Once again, would you agree with us or
would you concur with us that, right now, it is difficult to
determine who is actually responsible for that area or that
responsibility today?
Mr. Kernan. I would concur that it is difficult to address
who that is. I would say there are lots of activities going on,
but it is not focused under one person that I am aware of.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
I am just curious, and this is for Mr. Roberts and Dr.
Esper, North Korea's nuclear weapons have gotten a lot of
attention lately, but I think we should also be mindful of
their chemical weapons stockpile. Open source documents
estimate that North Korea has 5,000 tons of chemical weapons
and is likely to use them if a conflict breaks out.
In 2009, the Army published a report on counter-weapons of
mass destruction (WMD), which stated that the Army lacks the
full range of capabilities required to support the joint force
commander in a tactical and operational chemical weapons of
mass destruction mission expected in the future.
Additionally, in 2015, a RAND report identified a serious
gap between the magnitude of the weapons of mass destruction
threat and DOD's resource priorities for counter-WMD missions.
Can either of you speak to the Army's or DOD's readiness to
mitigate the impact of potential North Korean use of chemical
weapons?
Dr. Esper?
Dr. Esper. Senator, I will take a first stab at that.
That is an area of concern to the Army. As I understand it,
much like the rest of the Army, the forces are not fully
prepared. Of the 130 or so CBRNE [chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives] teams, a
quarter are ready to go, are deemed ready. And so work needs to
continue in that area because, much like the Army is preparing
to engage a near-peer adversary at a high-end threat, this is
one of the threats you face.
That is something I experienced when we went to the Gulf
War in 1990, the clear threat of chemical weapons use by Saddam
Hussein. We were in a different training posture at that time,
and, clearly, the Army needs to get back to a similar posture
as we look at adversaries, potentially, in Asia and Europe.
Mr. Roberts. If I can add, Senator, that is an area of
concern that I am certainly very concerned about. We looked at
the threat, and the focus has been on the nuclear side. But
clearly, the North Koreans have, as you pointed out, a large
chemical capability.
Frankly, I am very much worried about the biological
capability they have as well. We know, again, from unclassified
reporting that they have a program, from defectors who have
told us that. And frankly, this is one area we really are not
well-prepared for, to deal with.
That is one of the things that, if confirmed, I plan on
addressing very strongly.
Senator Rounds. Would both of you commit that perhaps time
is of the essence with regard to that particular issue?
Dr. Esper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join the previous comments of my colleagues, most
particularly the chairman calling attention to the importance
of our personnel. For all of the extraordinary equipment and
advanced technology that we bring to bear to the battlefield,
it is, at the end of the day, our people who are our greatest
resource.
I would second, Senator, the remarks made previously about
the excellent qualifications of these nominees.
I want to thank and congratulate each of you.
Before I ask any questions, I want to just raise for the
committee's consideration news about the ruling in a case now
pending in Guantanamo, in fact, Camp Justice, as it is perhaps
incorrectly called there, a ruling by Air Force Colonel Vance
Spath, who is presiding over the al-Nashiri case, holding in
contempt of court Brigadier General John Baker, a 28-year
Marine Corps veteran, the second highest ranking Marine Corps
lawyer, sentencing him to 21 days of confinement and a $1,000
fine, simply for raising the issue about a potential conflict
of interest or ethical problem with the three lawyers who are
assigned to that death penalty case at Guantanamo.
I am deeply troubled by this decision. I find it very, very
questionable; indeed, potentially contrary to our justice
system. I hope that our committee will bring oversight to this
matter in this case and to the conduct of military justice at
Guantanamo.
The Chairman led this committee in requiring of the last
Administration a comprehensive plan to end the use of the
Guantanamo detention facility. Unfortunately, the last
Administration failed to follow through on the Chairman's
direction. This job now belongs to the present Administration,
and this Committee has expressed very constructive interest in
making sure that the justice system works there, in accordance
with our due process requirements.
Obviously, I am not asking the witnesses to respond, but I
hope that the Department of Defense will turn its attention and
give us a briefing on what is happening there. I also recognize
its possibilities for intervention may be limited.
I know all of our thoughts and prayers go out to the
victims of the recent terrorist attack in New York City. I am
troubled by the President eliminating funding to a lab in New
York City whose sole purpose is to train and support first
responders who defend our Nation's great city, the National
Urban Security and Technologies Laboratory, known as NUSTL, has
worked for over 65 years to keep our communities safe from
nuclear, biological, and radiological attacks.
If enacted, these cuts--in my view, they are careless and
contradictory--would weaken our defenses against terrorist
attacks. I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging
$3.4 million for NUSTL in fiscal year 2018.
I would like to know whether you will support the funding
for this laboratory, which is essential to our national
defense.
Mr. Kernan. Senator, I am not familiar with the lab or the
issue, but I will certainly look into it and am more than
willing to work with you on this issue.
I believe that we need to continue making investments.
Research and development is critical to the Army's future
readiness. On this particular issue, I would like to follow up
with you on it, if confirmed.
Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate that.
Mr. Roberts, I think you will have, in particular,
jurisdiction over this issue.
Mr. Roberts. Senator, I believe that lab is under the
Department of Homeland Security. But saying that, of course,
dealing with a potential attack to our Homeland, the Department
of Defense will work closely with the Department of Homeland
Security and identify particular gaps that, frankly, if this
closure would result in a gap, it is something we need to
address. I certainly will commit to looking into this, if I am
confirmed.
Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate your saying that you will
look into it. I would like you, if you would, after you look
into it, to respond in writing and tell me what your position
will be.
Mr. Roberts. If I am confirmed.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Ernst?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your willingness to
continue your service to our great United States. I appreciate
it very much.
Dr. Esper, before I began, I would like to ask you just
some simple yes or no questions.
Question number one, do you commit to cutting wasteful
spending and making it a priority?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Do you commit to working with me to combat
and prevent military sexual assault and retaliation in the
Army?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Will you provide me with advanced notice
should changes to the gender integration policies be
considered?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Do you commit to upholding an unbiased and
transparent approach throughout the acquisition process?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate those answers very much.
Now on to a more open discussion. In your advance policy
questions (APQs), you state, ``I also believe small arms
modernization is an area very suitable for outreach to the
commercial sector for an off-the-shelf or easily adaptable
solution for a new weapon.''
I do agree with that wholeheartedly. However, I also feel
that full and open competition is paramount to making sure that
our soldiers get the very best weapons into their hands.
Can you speak to the importance of full and open
competitions? Can I get your commitment that you will make this
a priority?
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am. First of all, let me give you the
commitment up front that, if confirmed, my aim would be to
pursue full and open competition on everything we can, because,
answering your first question, my experience both on this side,
on the government side, from my time on the Hill, and more
recently, of course, my time in industry, I have witnessed
firsthand that competition does two things. It drives quality,
and it drives lower price.
In my mind, the more we can open up the aperture to include
the widest number of participants, whether it is traditional
defense industry, commercial, commercial off-the-shelf, or off-
the-shelf that is easily adaptable, we should pursue it.
In my mind, the key thing is getting the soldiers the
tools, equipment, and weapons they need as soon as you can at
the best price, best value being the key criteria.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that. At a time when our near-
peer competitors are outpacing us in small arms, we have to
figure out the best way to get those weapons into our soldiers'
hands. So thank you very much.
Dr. Esper, I am sure you know that the military has made
progress in reducing the number of sexual assaults from 26,000
down to just slightly less than 15,000 over the past 4 years,
while keeping adjudication of sexual assault cases within the
chain of command. Yet we need continued improvement. There is
no doubt about that.
Given your many years of leadership in the Army, I am
confident that you understand the responsibility and
accountability commanders assume on a daily basis.
What I would like you to do is talk a little bit to that.
Do you think further reductions in sexual assault like we have
seen over the past 4 years will be possible without the ability
to hold our military commanders accountable? And can you
outline how the commanders' role in the process has placed them
in a position to be held accountable?
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am.
First, let me say up front that there is no room whatsoever
in the Army for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or
retaliation against anybody in that regard. It is a terrible
thing. It cannot be tolerated. All it does is undermine
readiness of individuals, of units. It breaks down cohesion and
esprit, and so there must be zero tolerance for sexual
harassment whatsoever.
As I did note in my APQs, and you mentioned, I was a
commander. I understand well a commander's duty is to maintain
good order and discipline. In my view, having that full toolkit
of authorities available to him or her is critical to
maintaining good order and discipline.
It is also critical that the commander understands that it
is his or her responsibility to maintain the right culture in a
unit to make sure that the soldiers under their command
understand that sexual harassment, assault, retaliation of any
type will not be tolerated.
My concern is, if we consider pulling some of those tools
out of the toolkit, that the commander will be less able to
deal with it and may feel like it is less of their
responsibility, which my concern would be it would set us back
rather than set us forward.
I think the Army has put a number of programs in place.
Senior leadership is working this issue hard. We see, in some
cases, the numbers moving in the right direction with regard to
reductions and increasing in reporting. In other cases, we do
not.
I think it is something that I will take very seriously, if
confirmed. Certainly, my aim is to continue to drive that
number down.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. While we have seen a decrease in
those numbers, they are not yet good enough.
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Ernst. So we have to continue. I hope that you will
be willing to continue working on this issue with me. We do
need our commanders to set that level and culture of dignity
and respect in our Army units.
Thank you very much for your commitment.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman McCain. I would like to thank the Senator for all
her hard work on this very important issue. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich?
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen.
I want to start with you, Mr. Roberts. As you know, Los
Alamos National laboratory is the Nation's Center of Excellence
for Plutonium research and is currently the only facility in
the country capable of meeting the Pentagon's pit production
cost and schedule requirements.
I have a copy of a July 2014 letter from the Nuclear
Weapons Council where, in response to section 3114 of the NDAA,
they tell Congress that the National Nuclear Security
Administration will begin the process of designing and building
modular buildings for pit production at Los Alamos because it
meets those requirements.
I know my staff has shared that letter with you, and I
understand that Senator Reed may have actually raised it
earlier in the hearing as well while I was at Energy and
Natural Resources.
I want to ask you, do you support the continuation of the
plutonium pit mission at Los Alamos, as endorsed by the Nuclear
Weapons Council, for which you will be the executive director?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for the
letter. I had not seen that before. It is clear what the
Nuclear Weapons Council had decided.
Frankly, once I looked into it and saw the letter that this
committee sent in response in September, I was a little
surprised that nothing had happened. In fact, I agree with your
statement, or the committee's statement in the letter, that the
analysis of alternatives by NNSA is a rehashing of the
decisions that have already been made.
If confirmed, this is, again, a high-priority issue I think
we need to look at, because it has a major impact on our
ability to produce plutonium pits. I think we are falling
behind the mandate of being able to do that, produce up to 80
by 2027. I will look into that.
Senator Heinrich. That is exactly my concern. I would ask
you that, if there is any deviation or delay from what the
Nuclear Weapons Council endorsed back in July 2014, that I have
your commitment to simply instruct the Pentagon's independent
CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] office to look at
the independent analysis to make sure that the assumptions and
conclusions of any proposed alternative actually stack up.
Mr. Roberts. Yes, Senator. While I am not quite familiar,
to the extent that I can tell them what to do, I will do it.
Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Dr. Esper, this committee has authorized significant
funding to train and advise foreign security forces so that
they can take a greater responsibility for their own security.
I certainly welcome the Army's decision earlier this year to
set up five additional brigades that will specialize in this
growing mission area.
As you know, currently, there are $170 million worth of
new, modern facilities currently sitting vacant at White Sands
Missile Range.
Given the budget constraints that we are under, I would
just simply ask you that, as you look as to where to station
Security Force Assistance Brigades, or SFABs, that you will
take into account the ability to use existing facilities rather
than build brand-new facilities, if they meet the requirements
for those locations.
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator, I will.
Senator Heinrich. I want to thank you for that.
White Sands Missile Range also has exceptional training
areas. It has a close proximity, obviously, to existing
personnel and infrastructure at Fort Bliss, Texas, as well. I
want to thank you for your work on this.
I also just want to take a moment and thank the Army
broadly for its assistance on legislation that we have been
working on for the last several years regarding some boundary
adjustments between White Sands Missile Range and White Sands
National Monument, to support the missions of both of those
units and deconflict some issues they have had over the years.
The Army staff at the Pentagon and at White Sands has been
very, very helpful during the process of putting that
legislation together.
I want to shift gears really quickly in my last seconds to
Mr. Kernan. One area of technology that we are seeing a lot of
increase in activity in is commercial space activity. I just
want to ask you, how should the department and the intelligence
community broadly leverage commercial space as part of our
overall portfolio addressing space issues?
Mr. Kernan. I think it is critically important that we
leverage commercial technology in a multitude of forms, to
include cyber and to include space. I think space is a unique
domain now that we ought to treat just like we treat the land
domain, the sea domain, because we need to be able to operate
freely in space. Space provides incredibly important ISR
support to military operations and to a multitude of other
things that we do.
I am an advocate of the mission and what requirements that
we are trying to fill. We should pursue those requirements from
wherever. I will certainly do that, if I am confirmed.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman McCain. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Dr. Esper, I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate
your testimony and your willingness to serve both in the past
and in the future. I wish you well.
I have to ask today about two items involving my home State
of Mississippi where we manufacture helicopters and also
uniforms. I mention this because it involves the industrial
base, but also, it involves items that our troops need.
The first one is the Lakota training helicopter, which
Airbus makes in Columbus, Mississippi. Now, in 2015, there was
an award of Lakota helicopters. A contract dispute ensued, and
those helicopters are being held up pending the court case.
In 2017, the Appropriations Committee appropriated for 28
Lakotas, a separate matter entirely. They gave clear directive
language and instructed the Army to purchase the 28 Lakotas.
I brought this up in a previous hearing with Acting
Secretary of the Army Robert Speers as to why this clear
language by the Appropriations Committee and passed by the
Congress had not been followed. He said something to the
effect, it is all involved in a court case.
Well, that is not true. There are 16 Lakotas from 2015
involved in a court case. Subsequent to that, this Congress
ordered the Army to purchase 28 Lakotas, and that is not being
held up in a court case. It sounds like an excuse to me.
I want you to be aware of the detrimental impacts this
situation is having on the industrial base but also on Army
pilot training.
I want to ask you, do you believe that the Army Secretary
is required to follow career and directive language expressed
in legislation?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Are you familiar with this case?
Dr. Esper. I am a little familiar with the case, yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Have I got it wrong at all?
Dr. Esper. Senator, I trust you have your facts accurately.
Senator Wicker. Okay. Well, if confirmed, will you do all
in your power to expedite the contracting actions required and
to issue a production contract as outlined in the
congressionally enacted and signed into law fiscal year defense
appropriations act?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator. If confirmed, I will certainly
look into this issue, work it. I want to work closely with your
office to resolve it as quickly as possible.
Senator Wicker. Okay. We really do need to resolve it.
Now the other thing involves uniforms and treating the
uniforms with insecticides. We have been doing this in
Mississippi for years. They manufacture the uniform, and then
they put the insecticide on.
Now someone in their wisdom in the Department of the Army
decided that we should treat the fabric first and then cut it
and sew it into a uniform.
I can tell you, the people working at the plants do not
like this, because, obviously, you have a chemically treated
piece of fabric. You are cutting it, and it gets out into the
air that they breathe and becomes a problem.
I cannot fathom why the Army would want to change an
efficient and proven process that leaves no environmental
waste, and that is to make the uniform and then treat it.
If confirmed, will you get somebody to look into this issue
and get back to us and try to make some sense out of that?
Dr. Esper. Yes, sir. For sure.
Senator Wicker. All right. Good.
I will yield back the remaining 15 seconds of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Peters?
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to each of our nominees here today for your
willingness to serve in what are certainly very important
positions.
Dr. Esper, I would like to ask about ground vehicle
modernization, particularly the Abrams platform. I believe
modernization of the Army's ground combat vehicles is probably
one of the most pressing national security issues that we
currently face as a Nation.
Earlier this year, at an Airland Subcommittee hearing on
Army modernization, Lieutenant General Murray testified that
the Abrams tank now remains only towards the top of its class
with parity and not overmatch, compared to our allies and
competitors.
This is very concerning I think to all of us. I know it is
concerning to you as well, because we want to make sure that
our soldiers always have the advantage, never a fair fight.
This information is of great concern.
Last year, General McMaster testified before the Airland
Subcommittee that, at the current funding levels, the Bradley
Fighting Vehicle and Abrams tank, this is a quote, ``will soon
be obsolete, but they will remain in the Army inventory for the
next 50 to 70 years.''
Our allies and near-peer competitors alike are investing
significant resources into rapid modernization, but current
projections estimate it is going to take us 20 years to upgrade
the existing armor fleet unless we fast-track ground combat
vehicle modernization strategy.
As was discussed earlier, there are a number of options to
modernize the fleet at a much faster pace, which could save
billions of dollars over the lifecycle of the modernization
program. Multiyear procurement and block buy contracting are
options that offer potential savings.
My question to you, Dr. Esper, is how do you believe the
Army should increase the armored force structure and upgrade
the Abrams fleet to address known vulnerabilities and emerging
threats?
Dr. Esper. Senator, first of all, I share your concerns
about the age of our current ground combat vehicles. They have
been in service as long as I have been, going back to the early
1980s. Of course, the Army has made a number of upgrades
through the years to keep them as effective on the battlefield
as possible.
But nonetheless, with the projections that you cited from
General McMaster, I am deeply concerned about at what point we
are no longer able to upgrade them and to ensure that they have
overmatch on the battlefield.
One of the things, if confirmed, I hope to look at are
those timelines and look at ways to accelerate that, so that we
can field a new ground combat vehicle and tank sooner rather
than later. I know this committee has put important language
into the fiscal year 2018 NDAA on this matter, which I think is
helpful, which calls for prototyping and demonstrating
vehicles. I think, in this regard, we should look at what other
militaries, our partners, are developing to see if there are
designs we could adopt or build from.
In the meantime, I think it is critical that we continue
with the upgrades that are happening to both the Bradley and to
the Abrams.
With the Abrams, it is obviously the v3 upgrades that are
enhancing its power, its survivability, its optics, its
lethality. I think those are all critical to ensuring
overmatch.
All of those need to continue in the meantime. But we
cannot wait another 10, 15, 20 years to design, build a new
vehicle either.
Senator Peters. I am encouraged about that answer, as well
as your mention of prototyping. So you see prototyping as
something that we can use to accelerate this process?
Dr. Esper. Absolutely, Senator. I think we should prototype
on almost any program we can. I think it is critical. We could
prototype earlier in the process, which means, if we had those
prototypes, we can test them and evaluate them using soldiers
either in training scenarios or real-world deployments, where
we might be able to use them.
I think prototyping is the way we need to continue to go.
Senator Peters. Dr. Esper, when we had the opportunity to
meet in my office, we also had a pretty detailed discussion
about autonomy, robotics, some of the advanced capabilities
that come out of artificial intelligence and other types of
technological advances. As I spoke with you in our office and
talked about the work we are doing in Michigan with TARDAC
[U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and
Engineering Center] and the Army's research and development arm
in Michigan, which is engaged in some pretty cutting-edge
technology, we also talked about how we need to capitalize on
innovation that we are seeing in the private sector.
For example, in TARDAC, working closely with General
Motors. TARDAC has a wonderful prototype in hydrogen fuel cell
technology for special forces operations. But there is a host
of other types of areas that we need to explore as well.
How do you believe the Army can best capitalize on the
leaps in technology by working with the private sector? And how
would you do that, if confirmed?
Dr. Esper. Senator, I think we absolutely need to do that.
The Army needs to engage the private sector research
facilities, companies and entities that are actually looking at
robotics in autonomy. I think one of the things we discussed,
which a vision for me would be looking at ground convoys, you
can envision a future whereby rather than scores of trucks
moving between destinations, much as we had during the Iraq war
between Kuwait and Baghdad hauling supplies and whatnot, you
can now do that autonomously, no longer putting at-risk
soldiers to do such tasks, and yet completing them probably
more efficiently. What that does is also free up manpower to
fill out your ranks in other areas.
That is just one example of a future I can envision, which
would buy us greater effectiveness and efficiency. I think we
need to look across-the-board. The Army is doing this in a
number of areas, not just autonomy but robotics to help the
soldier. The drones, of course, are critical in terms of
providing tactical ISR capabilities.
All of these things are critical. In many ways, the
commercial, the private sector, is outpacing what the military
can do on its own. There needs to be greater outreach, greater
partnership between the private sector and DOD on these
matters, if we are really going to obtain the overmatch we need
on future battlefields.
Senator Peters. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCain. Senator King?
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Esper, I serve as ranking member with Chairman Tom
Cotton on the Airland Subcommittee, and we have had a number of
hearings about issues such as readiness and modernization.
I agree with Senator McCain and Senator Reed that, after
current readiness, modernization is your number one priority.
In fact, I would venture to say it may be your legacy.
We have had a series of failures over the past dozen or 20
years. It just cannot continue. Modernization is the future of
readiness. If we do not have that, we are not going to get
there. I just want to have your earnest commitment to this
significant challenge.
Dr. Esper. Absolutely, Senator. Modernization is critical
to future readiness. I am convinced, however, we will not be
able to modernize the force unless we completely overhaul the
current acquisition system.
Senator King. You anticipated my next question.
Dr. Esper. My commitment is to working with the Army senior
leadership to do just that. I think they have gotten off to a
good start with the ideas that have been discussed and that
they are putting into play, and I think that will help us get
the current system into a position where we could do a much
better job in terms of delivering to the soldier the tools,
equipment, systems, weapons they need when they need it, the
best value at a good cost.
Senator King. Over the past 4 or 5 years, I have probably
been to a dozen hearings or more, maybe 20, that have touched
on procurement in one way or, and I keep hearing certain
themes.
One is build off a stable design, get a design before you
build.
The second is likened to it. Do not do R&D [research and
development] while you are in the middle of building. Quite
often, that is an issue, where you are trying to do R&D in the
middle of constructing large objects like aircraft carriers.
Third, use off-the-shelf technology as often as possible.
Senator McCain has made a very strong point in the past about
the 200-page spec for a new handgun. Let's talk about off-the-
shelf. That should be the first option rather than the last
option.
Number four, design platforms with an open architecture
that are modular. When you are doing a large platform like a
new tank or a land combat vehicle, the danger is the technology
in that vehicle will be obsolete by the time it is built.
Therefore, it should be designed in such a way as to be able to
pull out technological parts and replace them.
Finally, and this is one I have heard repeatedly, you
really have to take some care as to who is in charge of this
procurement process and provide continuity. See if you can keep
people in with the program for some period of time, so it does
not stop and start.
Do you concur with those suggestions? That is just based on
what I have been hearing.
Dr. Esper. Senator, absolutely. I think you have hit many
of the key elements that I outlined in my APQs with regard to
the approach.
I think your last one is probably the most important. It is
accountability, making sure you know who is in charge. That
requires, again, changing, I think, the personnel system so
that, from the top down, particularly when you get to program
managers, there is clear alignment and responsibility and hand-
off of milestone to milestone or from phase to phase in the
process.
Senator King. Part of that is also making the procurement
process reasonably timely so people do not reach retirement age
while they are still waiting for a system to move through.
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator. The challenge in the past is that
the reach exceeds the grasp, in terms of requirements. So
rather than striving for the perfect, I think we need to get
away from--we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the
better.
Senator King. Exactly.
Dr. Esper. Pursuing the 80 percent solution now, and then
building in modularity so we can upgrade in later iterations is
critical.
I think the success of the big five systems, Apache,
Abrams, Bradley, et cetera, going back to the 1980s, was so
because Secretary Marsh protected them in terms of funding and
protected them in terms of good ideas that came up later in the
process. Without that, and there is a classic story about the
Apache and Apache Longbow, those systems would not have been
filled in time for Desert Shield, Desert Storm.
I think the many things that you outlined, we need to
pursue. I have outlined them in my APQs [advance policy
questions]. There have been more than enough studies on this.
It is time to get to work and get the system right.
Senator King. When my people talk to me about how long
things are going to take, I always find it salutary to remind
them that Eisenhower retook Europe in 11 months. That is a good
time frame.
Final question, Mr. Kernan, not really a question, but you
are taking on a very important position, and my main concern as
a member of this committee and the Intelligence Committee is
redundancy and overlap in terms of military intelligence and
civilian intelligence. We are talking about $70 billion a year
between the two functions.
I just hope that that can be a focus, and where there is an
overlap or redundancy, that we can work to reduce that.
Mr. Kernan. Yes, if I am confirmed, I will be completely
committed to that. We are in such a resource-constrained
environment that we cannot afford to do that, that we should
look across the intelligence community and leverage those
capabilities. Collectively, we ought to have what we need, but
we should not have duplicity.
Senator King. I appreciate that, and we will continue to
keep in touch with you on that very subject. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Senator Warren?
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Esper, I appreciate the chance we had to meet in my
office. Like Chairman McCain, I am concerned about the number
of defense appointees coming from the big five defense
contractors. As you know from our meeting, avoiding conflicts
of interest is very important to me.
First, I just want to clear something up. Your letter to
the DOD General Counsel Ethics Office states that you will not
participate in particular matters involving your former
employer Raytheon for a period of 1 year. But your letter also
states that you will comply with the White House ethics pledge,
which requires you to recuse yourself for 2 years.
Can you confirm for the record that you will recuse
yourself for 2 years from all particular matters involving
Raytheon?
Dr. Esper. Yes, Senator, 2 years for those matters as
outlined in my ethics agreement.
Senator Warren. So for all matters involving----
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Warren.--Raytheon? Good.
Also, I would like to ask you about the specifics of your
job at Raytheon. When you served as vice president of
government relations for the last 7 years, which particular
Army programs did you lobby on behalf of during your time
there?
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am. I engaged the Hill on a few Army
issues. But let me first say, as vice president for government
relations, I actually spent an overwhelming majority of my time
on the business-end of the company, so doing everything from
program deep dives, monthly----
Senator Warren. Fair enough, but I would like to know about
the programs that you lobbied on behalf of.
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am. There were three Army programs that
were of such importance to my CEO [chief executive officer]
that I personally engaged the Hill on over the past 2 years,
and they were, first of all, the Patriot radar system in
support of the Army's budget request for that, and also pushing
the Army to accelerate its development of its next-generation
radar because the company felt that we could provide a
capability to the soldier sooner than what was on the current
timeline.
The second was the JLENS [Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile
Defense Elevated netted Sensor System] program, which is
elevated aerostat with surveillance and fire control radar
designed to protect the National Capital Region. That program
is now ended.
The third program I worked on in the past couple years was
the DCGS-A, Distributed Common Ground System-Army, Increment 2.
The Congress was pushing for a commercial-only solution, and
Raytheon had asked that we open up that aperture, so that the
competition be open not just to commercial but to traditional
defense industry and others as well as a way to drive
competition, to drive down price, and quality.
Those were the three programs.
Senator Warren. Those were the three, and you used the word
``personally,'' so those were the three you personally lobbied
on. Did you oversee lobbying in other areas?
Dr. Esper. Ma'am, the lobbyists that reported--the team
that reported to me, I oversaw all their activities across all
services, NDA, nondefense activities.
Senator Warren. So everything that Raytheon lobbied on,
basically.
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Warren. All right.
Dr. Esper. That was one of my responsibilities out of
several.
Senator Warren. Thank you. The ethics law that you cited in
your letter allows you to seek a waiver or a regulatory
exemption from your recusal for matters involving your former
employer. I know you have had some conversations about this
with the chairman, and you have pledged not to seek a waiver,
and I appreciate that. But I hope that you might go further
than the 2-year recusal requirement.
Would you be willing to commit to recuse yourself from the
particular matters that you identified for the duration of your
time in office?
Dr. Esper. Senator, I do not see that being a problem right
now.
Senator Warren. Is that a yes?
Dr. Esper. No, it is not. What I would like to do is--what
I would like to do is, if confirmed, is come back to you, maybe
in a couple years, to see if there was an issue, and then
revisit the issue with you at that time, if at all possible.
Senator Warren. You know, I just want to say, Dr. Esper, I
think it is important to take these ethics obligations
seriously. The American people need to have confidence that the
top officials at the Pentagon are working for them, and that
starts with completely and fully stepping back from decisions
that will have a financial impact on the former employers of
those officials.
If I can, I would like to ask one other question really
quickly.
I have received several complaints from the Massachusetts
National Guard officers in recent months about the delays in
Federal recognition of their promotions. According to a letter
my office received from the National Guard Bureau, the current
processing time is about 6 to 8 months.
This is becoming a morale issue for the Massachusetts
Guard. I imagine it is a problem in other State Guard units as
well.
If confirmed, will you commit to looking into this issue
promptly and then getting back and briefing me and my staff on
why these delays are occurring?
Dr. Esper. Yes, ma'am, if confirmed, I will.
Senator Warren. All right. We have to find a way to speed
this up before this morale problem spreads.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. I would like to say to my friend from
Massachusetts, we will look into that, but it seems that--I am
not that familiar with it, but it seems to me that it is a
problem that is not directly connected to the Guard promotion
but other aspects of it. Is that your understanding?
Senator Warren. Fair enough. I have heard about this more
specifically from the Guard. They have brought it directly to
my attention, so that is how I have seen it. But if it reflects
a larger problem, then we need to deal with the larger.
Chairman McCain. I would be eager to engage with you on
this issue. We cannot have these kinds of delays and keep
people serving. Honestly, this is the first I have heard of it.
I would be glad to get to work on it with you.
Senator Warren. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain. Thank you.
I want to say to the nominees thank you for appearing. We
will convene the committee probably tomorrow, if we have all
the paperwork done, so that we can report out your nominations
to the full Senate. And then it will be a matter, obviously, of
scheduling, which there seems to be some problems with lately.
But I hope, given the aspects of these responsibilities, that
we could go ahead and move them, rather than 30 hours of non-
debate debate, so I thank you all.
Jack? Do you have----
Senator Reed. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCain. I thank the witnesses, and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Robert L. Wilkie by
Chairman McCain prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
department of defense reforms and oversight concerns
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
Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
be appropriate for this Committee to address?
Answer. Continued reform of civilian workforce management should be
on the table for both the DOD and the Committee--focusing on training
and education required to keep pace with developments in technology,
including cyber, and as important, in human resource management.
Section 214 of the FY 2017 NDAA, already authorizes both DAU and
the National Defense University to enter into cooperative agreements
with universities and non-profit research institutions to support their
missions. However as the Chairman has stated that is only a first step.
Senior civilian workforce higher education requirements do not
match those of senior military leaders. With a civilian workforce of
over 700,000 it might be profitable to establish advanced education
guidelines particularly in the field of human resource management and
in line with Secretary Mattis' vision to imbed and educate our senior
civilian leadership at cutting edge companies and leading universities.
Question. Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 required that the Secretary of Defense establish
cross-functional teams to address critical objectives of the
Department.
What are your views on the potential focus areas and uses for
future cross-functional teams?
Answer. Cross-functional teams that report directly to the
Secretary of Defense, as stipulated in Section 911, are essential to
delivering and implementing valuable recommendations on priority issues
and opportunities facing the Department. Within the purview of the
USD(P&R), and given the complexity, scope, and importance of the
Military Health System, I believe ample opportunities exist in the
system for the targeted use of Secretary of Defense-empowered cross-
functional teams. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to engage
with DoD partners to identify areas where cross-functional teams
provide the greatest potential for increased efficiencies that result
in substantially enhanced care for Service members and their families,
as well as the more effective allocation of resources.
Question. What is the role of the Under Secretary and Principal
Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness in overseeing the
personnel-related defense agencies?
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
currently has the authority and control over four defense agencies,
namely the Defense Health Agency (DHA), Defense Human Resources
Activity (DHRA), Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), and
Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). The role of the Under Secretary and
Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness is to
ensure the policies and programs of these four agencies are designed
and managed to improve the standards of performance, economy and
efficiency, and to strengthen the agencies' responsiveness to the
requirements of their organizational customers, both internal and
external to DoD.
Question. Are further authorities or resources required for
effective oversight of these agencies?
Answer. I believe the authorities for oversight are adequate.
duties
Question. Section 136 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(USD(P&R)) shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe in the areas of military readiness,
total force management, military and civilian personnel requirements,
military and civilian personnel training, military and civilian family
matters, exchange, commissary, and non-appropriated fund activities,
personnel requirements for weapons support, National Guard and reserve
components, and health affairs.
If confirmed, what duties do you expect to be assigned to you?
Answer. Secretary Mattis has been clear that his priorities are the
lethality and deployability of the force--which means that total force
management and personnel training will be at the top of the list.
I expect the other responsibilities to feed into those priorities.
Readiness is holistic--it includes the family. In the all-volunteer
force, if the family is not happy, the soldier walks.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that qualify
you for this position?
Answer. I come from a family with military service going back over
175 years. I was raised at Fort Bragg.
I have been privileged to see military life from every imaginable
angle, as a: dependent; as the dependent of a gravely wounded combat
soldier; as an officer (in both the Navy and Air Force); as an officer
on active duty with a family in the military health care system; as a
senior staff member in the United States Senate and as a senior leader
in the White House and the Pentagon. I have advanced through every
level of professional military education.
In the private sector, I was part of senior corporate teams
managing complex military and engineering projects overseas for one of
the world's preeminent engineering and program management firms.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next USD(P&R)?
Answer. The priority is continuing to improve warfighter readiness
begun in FY 2017, filling in the holes from trade-offs made during 16
years of war, and six years of continuing resolutions and Budget
Control Act caps.
The Secretary's first budget request, as directed by the National
Security Presidential Memorandum ``Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces''
issued on January 27, 2017, identifies and improves shortfalls in
readiness, specifically in training, equipment, maintenance, munitions,
modernization, and infrastructure. The 30-Day Readiness Review,
completed as part of the development of the FY 2017 Request for
Additional Appropriations, identified significant challenges to
recovering readiness, including budget uncertainty, high operational
tempo, and the time required to rebuild readiness properly. As a result
of this review, the Department submitted the FY 2018 budget request to
enable the Joint Force to counter national security threats, fulfill
steady-state demand, and implement readiness recovery plans.
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. My priorities would include increasing the readiness of our
force, including family readiness, and ensuring its effective
employment in accomplishing the missions directed by Secretary Mattis.
I intend to work closely with the Deputy Secretary of Defense to bring
business-management reforms to the Department, ensuring that we gain
the greatest possible return for our tax dollars.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the USD(P&R) and the Senate Armed Services Committee in
particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. USD P&R is the one DOD Under-Secretariat with the most
immediate and visible relationship with the entire Congress.
The defining experiences of my professional life have been in the
United States Senate, including five years as the Counsel and Advisor
on National Security Affairs to the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott.
In addition, as a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs, I take Article 1 sec. 8 of the Constitution seriously and
consider the Armed Services Committee to be the Senate's foundational
committee. It is my belief that the Department of Defense cannot
accomplish its mission unless it maintains a symbiotic relationship
with this Committee.
Upon returning to Senate with Senator Tillis in 2015, it was
apparent that the relationship between the Committee on Armed Services
and USD P&R and OSD (in general) was at best strained in addition to
OSD P&R having an indifferent relationship with the individual
services.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the USD(P&R)?
Answer. I am in the unique position of having a close professional
relationship with the Chairman of the SASC Personnel Subcommittee as
well as with the professional staff and will maintain that.
My first decision will be to ensure that OSD LA is integrated into
all operations of P&R. The current ASD LA was my deputy when I held
that position under Secretaries Rumsfeld and Gates.
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. I fully support using the Army Field Manual as the single
standard for all U.S. military interrogations. I am in full agreement
with the Chairman and Ranking member of the Committee and the Secretary
of Defense as to the prohibition on the use of torture.
national security budget reductions/sequestration
Question. The original discretionary caps imposed by the Budget
Control Act (BCA) will be in effect for Fiscal Years 2018 through 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. I agree with Secretary Mattis' assessment, made before the
House Armed Services Committee in June: ``For all the heartache caused
by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has
done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration.''
The impacts weaken the military. As the Secretary has stated, ``We
have a strategic mismatch between the political ends we espouse and the
military means we have available to confront and deter threats. While
our military remains the best fighting force in the world, these cuts
have created damage that will take time to repair''. Unless the
Department of Defense receives funds above the caps imposed by the
Budget Control Act, it will not be able to achieve the readiness,
modernization, and force structure required to meet emerging threats.
Question. Do you believe that any future budget agreements must
maintain parity between non-defense and defense discretionary funding?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be responsible for a large portion of
the DOD budget--any comment beyond my duties within the Department and
the national security arena would be beyond my competency as those are
policy determinations made by the Congress and White House.
Question. In your view, what is the impact on the Department of
Defense and on the nation's ability to meet national defense
requirements if these budget caps continue to be imposed on non-defense
security agencies, such as the Department of State, Department of
Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the non-defense elements
of the intelligence community?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Mattis that the military must be a
hand that fits in the glove of American diplomacy. Underfunding of the
agencies listed above increases pressure on our troops and increases
the likelihood that they will be forced into action and perform duties
that would otherwise be undertaken by separate federal agencies.
Question. If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the
adequacy of personnel and readiness funding?
Answer. Secretary Gates in testimony before this Committee, was
correct that annualized real defense budget increases and efficiencies
of two to three percent above inflation are needed to sustain the All-
Volunteer Force in a way that keeps personnel, modernization, and
readiness accounts in balance. In the six years since the passage of
the Budget Control Act, a period of declining, flat, or modestly
increasing budgets, the balance has not been kept.
overall readiness of the armed forces
Question. How would you assess the current state of readiness?
Answer. Inadequate. We are seeing the impact of sixteen years at
war. We are short 1500 pilots in the Air Force. On any given day 14
percent-20 percent of the Army is medically unable to deploy. General
Milley states that only three brigade combat teams are fully combat
ready and some BCTS are at 80 percent strength. Marine Corps combat
units are down to a dwell time of 1:1.4 years. The all-volunteer force
performs miracles but it is under tremendous strain often exacerbated
by sequestration.
Question. How would you plan to restore full spectrum readiness and
under what timelines?
Answer. I pledge to work with the Secretary and this committee on a
budget that restores full spectrum readiness, ensuring that our
military's size and composition are adequate to the tasks at hand. Even
sitting with this Committee for the last two years, I am unable to
provide a detailed timeline without access to readiness data held by
the services. I agree with Secretary Mattis that `` . . . the military
must look at every week as its last week of peace if it is going to be
sufficiently prepared for the unexpected''.
Question. Additionally, how would you enforce those timelines to
ensure that goals are met?
Answer. I will enforce any timelines set by the Secretary.
financial management and audit readiness
Question. The Defense Department is the only federal agency that
cannot present auditable financial statements showing where and how it
spends its annual budget. It has also been at high risk for waste,
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement by the Comptroller General.
Answer. Despite much effort and billions spent to fix these
problems, they have remained for decades.
Question. What actions would you take or direct that will achieve a
better outcome than past actions and initiatives for financial
auditability in organizations under the authority of the USD P&R?
Answer. I support the Department's audit readiness goal. If
confirmed, I commit to doing everything possible to contribute to
Department wide audit in FY 2018. Achieving a clean audit opinion is
dependent upon having a range of incentives in place to build and
sustain Departmental support. I am not aware of the incentives
currently used or how effective they are.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. What is your assessment of the Department of Defense's
sexual assault prevention and response program?
Answer. Sexual assault is a crime--and the only acceptable outcome
is zero. If confirmed, I will examine the adequacy of the training and
resources currently in place to get the Department to zero.
Question. What is your view of the provision for restricted and
unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults?
Answer. I intend to examine the provisions and assess whether
further improvements are needed.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Department has in place to prevent and respond to sexual
assaults?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the adequacy of the training
and resources currently available, and I will work with the Congress to
address this or any problem that affects the readiness of the force.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the Department's
oversight of military service implementation of the Department and
service policies for the prevention of and response to sexual assaults?
Answer. I have not been privy to the Department's inner workings on
oversight. However the incidence of sexual assault cases is still too
high and thus the problem continues to be serious and threat to
readiness.
Question. What is your assessment of the potential impact, if any,
of proposals to remove the disposition authority from military
commanders over violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
including sexual assaults?
Answer. I will take proactive steps to ensure the Services hold
leaders accountable at all levels of the military chain of command for
carrying out their responsibilities to investigate and adjudicate any
potential violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I was raised in the military world. I believe in a principle
enunciated by Admiral Nimitz when addressing a meeting of new destroyer
commanders--``if you can't point to the man in charge then no one is in
charge''. Military law invests responsibility for good order and
discipline and for leading the fight with the commander. If any of his
responsibility is re-moved and given to those outside of his command
that in long run will diminish command authority.
That said, I agree with efforts by Senators McCaskill, Ernst and
Gillibrand to create specialists within the JAG Corps to investigate
and prosecute sexual crimes and abuse. This will also give commanders
another tool to address this matter.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's protections
against retaliation for reporting sexual assault?
Answer. The military's protections against retaliation are not
completely effective or sufficient.
The Department must do more to ensure Service members can report
any crime, including a crime involving sexual assault, without fear of
retaliation. If confirmed, I intend to examine the early implementation
of the Department's efforts in this area and assess whether
improvements are needed.
Question. What is your view of the role of the chain of command in
maintaining a command climate where sexual harassment and sexual
assaults are not tolerated?
Answer. Vital. Commander's attitudes permeate the entire chain.
Question. In your view, do military and civilian leaders in the
Department have the tools and resources needed to hold commanders
accountable for these issues? If not, what additional authority do they
need?
Answer. Yes
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 service members. Members of the group included a
number of active-duty service members, former military members, and
military retirees.
Do you believe that the behaviors typified by these events, and the
attitudes and beliefs they represent, are confined to the Marine Corps?
Answer. I have not been privy to any studies or investigations on
this matter within the other services.
Question. What is the current Department of Defense policy for use
of social media by civilian employees and service members?
Answer. For civilian members, Title VII Equal Employment
protections may apply, depending on the issue. For Service members, it
is my understanding there are existing DoD policies that provide
guidance on online social media misconduct. Specifically, it is my
understanding the Department updated its Sexual Harassment and Response
policy in 2014, and updated its Hazing and Bullying Prevention and
Response policy in 2015, which discusses the prohibition of
unacceptable electronic communications.
Question. In your view, are these policies adequate to address
abuses such as what occurred in the Marines United incident?
Answer. I have not reviewed all of the Department's polices and
plans that address social medial conduct. However, I believe the
Department's policies are designed to address problematic behaviors
and, if confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to adapt
policies to emerging social trends. The actions of this committee by
placing such incidents within the purview of the USMJ is an important
step.
Question. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure that
civilian employees and service members are not subjected to abusive
online conduct?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to
adapt policies to emerging social trends. In addition, I will hold
senior leaders accountable and make sure they place emphasis on this
issue.
Question. In your view, do the Department and the services have
sufficient legal authority to hold offenders accountable for such
misconduct?
Answer. It is my understanding there are several Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles that could address social media
conduct. In addition, I believe the Department is currently in the
process of reviewing Article 134 offense involving the nonconsensual
distribution of intimate images.
Question. What legislative authorities, if any, do you believe are
necessary to address this problem?
Answer. I am unaware of any additional legislative authorities
needed at this time. Currently for civilian members, Title VII
protections may apply, depending on the issue. Likewise, for Service
members, it is my understanding there are several Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles that could address social media
conduct. The Department is currently in the process of reviewing
Article 134 offense involving the nonconsensual distribution of
intimate images.
Question. Do you believe the Department needs to make policy or
regulation changes in order to facilitate the investigation and
accountability process?
Answer. I believe it is important leaders are held accountable in
these cases. I am unaware of any changes needed at this time but if
confirmed, I will ensure action is taken if changes are needed.
sexual harassment
Question. Department of Defense annual sexual assault reports
consistently document that sexual assaults are more common in units
where sexual harassment is prevalent. Section 579 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 required the Secretary
of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to
sexual harassment in the armed forces and to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
no later than one year after January 2, 2013, setting forth a
comprehensive policy. This Committee still has not yet received this
report.
Do you agree with the premise that units with a command climate
that tolerates sexual harassment is more likely to have increased
incidents of sexual assault?
Answer. Yes, and that applies to all levels and offices within the
DOD.
Question. What is the reason the Department has not complied with
the requirement to develop a comprehensive sexual harassment policy?
Answer. I have not been privy to the deliberations within the
Department or the reasons for not complying with the provisions of the
2013 NDAA.
Question. If confirmed, will you assure this Committee that the
Department will promptly promulgate a comprehensive policy to prevent
and respond to sexual harassment in the armed forces and to submit this
policy to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives, as directed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013?
Answer. Yes.
service academies
Question. What do you consider to be the policy and procedural
elements that must be in place at each of the service academies in
order to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assaults and
sexual harassment and to ensure essential oversight?
Answer. Zero tolerance is the Departmental policy and what is
expected of the military by the American people. The same standard
applies to all ranks--cadets, recruits, enlisted, officers, and senior
leaders. That said, rates of assault at Service Academies are
disconcerting.
Question. What is your assessment of measures taken at the service
academies to ensure religious tolerance and respect, and to prevent
sexual assaults and sexual harassment?
Answer. I would have to review such policies if confirmed to make a
judgement.
Question. What is your assessment of the suicide prevention
programs at each Military Service Academy?
Answer. I have not been privy to the programs at the Service
Academies.
selective service act
Question. Some have suggested that the success of the All-Volunteer
Force has reduced the need for the United States to have a continuing
authority and capability to conduct a draft. Further, a future national
emergency may require that the military have the ability to identify
citizens with unique and specialized skills to fill critical combat
support requirements, both within the military and in the civilian
sector. Currently, the Selective Service System does not identify
individuals with such skills, and does not address the need for
critical skills among the civilian workforce.
Do you believe the Selective Service Act should be repealed?
Answer. No
Question. Do you believe Congress should amend the Selective
Service Act to require the registration of women?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you believe the Selective Service system, with its
focus on supplying large numbers of replacement combat soldiers, meets
the needs of today's military and the type of personnel that would
likely need to be drafted in a future conflict, including skilled
personnel in the medical, linguistic, cyber, and other specialist
fields?
Answer. No. The current Selective Service is in many ways an
electronic version of the system that has been in place since World War
I. It provides little information beyond age and name.
Question. If not, what changes should Congress consider to the
Selective Service system to meet the needs of today's national defense
and security agencies, military and civilian?
Answer. We should look to a process that at least gives us basic
information as to a young American's language skills, athletic ability,
computer skills, and science background. The Congress might look to
providing access for registrants to the ASVAB to provide DOD with a
more tangible database.
managing the cost of health care
Question. In the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request, the
Department of Defense requested $53.5 billion in operation and support
funding for the military health system, about 9 percent of the total
funding requested for the Department's base budget. CBO has calculated
that those costs will reach $64 billion by 2030 if their growth
reflects anticipated national trends in health care costs.
In your view, what is the greatest threat to the long-term
viability of the military health system?
Answer. It would be the inability to transform the military health
system into a much leaner and more efficient organization that still
meets the warfighters' and beneficiaries' needs.
Question. What is your assessment of the long-term impact of the
Department's health care costs on military readiness and overall
national security?
Answer. We need to remember we have health professionals in uniform
to ensure we can meet our battlefield requirements for medical care.
Also our military health care system provides medical care to those in
uniform, their families, and retirees. Once we ensure our operational
requirements are met, every opportunity for reform and efficiency must
be pursued in the delivery of the health benefit, lest we divert
essential resources from military readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to mitigate the
effect of the Department's medical costs on the Department's budget
top-line while simultaneously implementing programs to improve health
outcomes and to enhance the experience of care for all beneficiaries?
Answer. I believe we need to look at all options to managing the
cost of DoD health care. It is my understanding that we are essentially
running four separate health care systems within the Department of
Defense and have for many years. The potential for greater efficiency
and effectiveness is substantial. It also includes looking at how the
Department buys health care from the civilian sector to emphasize
outcomes and promoting healthy life styles among our beneficiaries to
reduce the demand for health services. If confirmed, I will work both
within and outside of the Department to eliminate duplication, increase
productivity, and set goals, standards and incentives that emphasize
medical readiness, excellent outcomes and exceptional return on
investment.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to create a value-based
military health system--a system that creates value for beneficiaries
and the Department by ensuring the delivery of quality health care and
improving health outcomes for beneficiaries at reasonable costs to
beneficiaries and lower costs to the Department?
Answer. We must be responsive to our beneficiary population, which
includes the warfighter and all other eligible members. If confirmed I
would work closely with military health system leadership to improve
the experience of care and re-focus our attention on the customer.
Additionally, I would capitalize on successes in the commercial health
care industry that focus on successful outcomes rather than simply
paying in a fee-for-service model.
Question. If confirmed, what reforms in medical infrastructure,
benefits, benefit management, contract acquisition, military provider
productivity, military-civilian provider mix, and medical personnel
strengths would you implement to help control the per capita costs of
health care provided by the Department?
Answer. I would re-double efforts to consolidate management,
overhead, and support services from at least four separate medical
entities into one. I would dramatically increase the standardization of
operations across the system and put into place aggressive yet
achievable production and efficiency targets. I would carefully
scrutinize what is needed for operational requirements versus what is a
pure benefit and determine the most cost effective strategy to provide
those services. Finally, I would look at the benefit structure to see
where reasonable changes could occur. In the long term, the promotion
of healthy life styles and prevention among our beneficiaries will also
help reduce the demand for health services.
medical provider productivity
Question. The military 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
this Committee show that only 39 percent of the Department's providers
exceeded the goal in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. In other
words, most of the Department's providers failed to achieve an already
very low efficiency standard.
If confirmed, what would you do to ensure that the Department's
medical providers become more productive?
Answer. I will review the data to determine if this measure is the
right measure for assuring a ready medical force and a force that is
medically ready. Moreover, I will ensure that we develop policies and
procedures to ensure that we are meeting our critical readiness mission
along with providing for our robust health care benefit in the most
effective and efficient manner possible.
I will review the data to determine the appropriate productivity
standards for our providers given our readiness mission. I will
communicate that both leaders and providers throughout our Department
are responsible to provide quality and safe care to our beneficiaries
with maximum efficiency and productivity.
Question. If confirmed, who would you hold accountable for the low
productivity of the Department's medical providers?
An independent study by the Institute for Defense Analyses showed
that it costs the Department 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?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the data related to the
relationship between provider productivity, cost of maintaining
providers' military readiness, and any higher relative costs to provide
medical care in MTFs to determine the relationship and any actions that
may need to be taken.
military health system reorganization
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 and again in June, the Committee
received the Department of Defense's interim reports 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
medical commands, and those commands would be subject to two separate
lines of authority--the DHA and the services.
Do you believe that a component model, with establishment of new
intermediary medical commands under two separate lines of authority,
would make the military health system flatter, more agile, and more
efficient?
Answer. Presently, the three Service Medical Departments and the
Defense Health Agency (DHA) have four separate headquarters functions
dedicated to the administration and management of the Military
Treatment Facilities. It is my understanding that Department's proposed
component model centralizes the Services' headquarters functions under
DHA, which will be the single organization responsible for the Military
Treatment Facilities in the specific areas identified in the FY 2017
NDAA.
Question. If confirmed, would you reevaluate the Department's
decision to proceed with a component model to implement section 702?
Answer. I will review the actions of the Department and in
conjunction with the Deputy Secretary of Defense evaluate the efficacy
of the component model.
Question. 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?
Answer. It would be premature, at this stage, to comment as to
whether the Department's decisions should be reevaluated. However, if
confirmed, I will remain open to reevaluating the Department's
approach, if it is warranted.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure that military services
reduce their medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure (including
both regional command staffs and infrastructure) to reflect the more
limited scope and size of their health care missions?
Answer. Yes--the goal with all headquarters reductions is to
streamline decision making and get more people into the field.
Question. In your view, would a component model streamline the
administration and management of military treatment facilities?
Answer. It has the potential to yield a flatter and more
streamlined system.
Question. In your view, would a component model achieve the
Committee's goal to eliminate multiple inefficient layers of management
and bureaucracy in the Department's medical operations?
Answer. Cultural and operational changes would need to be made in
order to fully implement the Committee's vision.
Question. In your view, would a component model eliminate the
current stove-piped medical command structures of the services?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the
Department's component model to determine whether it would eliminate
existing stove-pipes within the Services' medical commands.
However as noted above cultural and operational changes would need
to be made in order to fully implement the Committee's vision.
If confirmed, I will review the model and make an assessment on its
potential effectiveness.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure a rapid and efficient
transfer of the operations of military medical facilities to the DHA?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the leaders of the
Department, particularly the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to meet the
FY17 NDAA timelines and if there are any concerns with the timelines, I
will inform the Congress.
service of transgender individuals
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role in the
implementation of the Administration's policy on the service of
transgender individuals in the armed forces?
Answer. Based on the announcement made by Secretary Mattis on
August 29, I would likely be part of a panel assembled by the Secretary
to address accessions of transgender individuals and transgender
individuals currently serving in the military.
Question. In your view, what would be the impact on military
readiness of continued service by transgender service members who
receive hormone therapy?
Answer. The guiding principles for this and any other personnel
decision should be military fitness, readiness and loyalty. The
services should have a say in this and any other readiness matter.
I am not privy to any of the medical and cost reviews begun by the
services as per Secretary Mattis' direction. I agree with Senator
McCain's statement in July that no policy decisions are appropriate
until the study ordered by the Secretary is complete and reviewed by
him, the military leadership and the Congress.
Question. In your view, what would be the impact on military
readiness of requiring the separation of all transgender service
members currently serving in our armed forces?
Answer. Until I have access to the study ordered by the Secretary I
will not have sufficient data to with which to provide an answer to
this question.
mental health care
Question. In your view, are the Department of Defense's current
mental health resources adequate to serve all active duty and eligible
reserve component members and their families, as well as retirees and
their dependents?
Answer. Secretary Mattis said, we have a moral obligation to
sustain the mental health of the force as well as service members'
families. If confirmed, it will be a priority to ensure that the
Department is devoting appropriate resources to mental health, and
working effectively with the Department of Veterans Affairs to identify
issues and close any gaps in coverage. I will advise the Committee if
more resources are required.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
sufficient mental health resources are available to service members in
theater and to service members and families upon return to home station
locations with insufficient community-based mental health resources?
Answer. As an active Reservist, I always include the Guard and
Reserve in any assessment. The health of the total force is a national
priority. Understanding the uniqueness of their service, I will work to
ensure members of the Guard and Reserve and their families are included
in the equation and that the appropriate amount of resources are
available to support their mental health care.
suicide prevention
Question. If confirmed, how would you maintain a strong focus on
preventing suicides in the active and reserve components and in their
families?
Answer. Zero is the only acceptable outcome for the Department. We
must do more to remove the stigmas associated with mental health
issues. If confirmed, I will bring the broad resources of the
Department to bear on this problem and will not hesitate to recommend
relevant outside expertise as well. We need to be better wingmen for
our troops.
voluntary education programs
Question. The Department of Defense continues to seek ways to
improve oversight of its tuition assistance programs, including
standardizing eligibility criteria among the services.
What is your assessment of the tuition assistance program in light
of the needs of the services and the current budget environment?
Answer. It is important to ensure member access to quality post-
secondary education that supports mission accomplishment and the
eventual transition to civilian life.
Question. Do you believe this benefit contributes directly to
recruiting and retention, or is it more of a nice-to-have benefit when
resources allow?
Answer. DOD should provide members and families with this benefit.
It is a strategic investment.
Question. What is your view of tuition assistance as a transition
benefit for service members to obtain civilian licenses and
credentials?
Answer. Important tool
Question. If confirmed, what would be your plan for improving the
Department's Voluntary Educational Programs?
Answer. If confirmed I will review the program.
Question. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure that
the Department implements administrative procedures adequate for the
fair and expeditious adjudication of complaints about educational
institutions that have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department for a Voluntary Education Partnership?
Answer. I do not know enough about the DOD review and the MOU
process at this time. I will review the program and ensure that the TA
program truly serves the best interests of our members.
religious accommodation
Question. On July 22, 2015, the Department of Defense Inspector
General released a report on ``Rights of Conscience Protections for
Armed Forces Service Members and Their Chaplains.'' The Inspector
General found that the services are not processing special religious
accommodation requests promptly and, once accommodation requests are
approved, they do not last for the duration of soldiers' military
careers. In many cases, this has put individuals in the difficult
position of being forced to violate their faith in order to join the
military and they must resubmit accommodation requests every time they
transfer. In some cases, these policies are unfairly burdening
individuals specifically recruited by our armed forces for their unique
language, culture, and technical skills.
If confirmed, what would be your role in addressing the
recommendations in the Inspector General report?
Answer. I will review the report in conjunction with the
President's Executive Order of May 4, 2017 regarding free speech and
religious liberty.
Question. Do you support a policy to allow service members'
religious accommodations to follow their service throughout their
entire military careers--no matter where they are stationed?
Answer. DOD must consistently seek a balance between religious
freedom and operational readiness.
Question. Do you support a policy that would allow prospective
recruits to request accommodation prior to enlisting or accepting a
commission for service in the armed forces?
Answer. Yes as long as the request does not impact readiness and
the ability to deploy.
Question. In your view, do requirements for individuals being
accessed into the military to first comply with military grooming and
appearance standards that conflict with their sincerely-held religious
beliefs before being considered for a waiver of those military
standards constitute a constitutionally-valid restraint on religious
expression?
Answer. DOD must consistently seek a balance between religious
freedom and operational readiness, including entry level training.
Question. In your view, how do the military services justify strict
adherence to military grooming and uniform standards in the case of
religious observance, while authorizing tens of thousands of shaving
profiles, including allowing beards for deployed service members, and
tens of thousands waivers from tattoo policies that include religious-
themed tattoos and tattoos of Bible verses?
Answer. I would have to examine this matter with the service
personnel chiefs.
Question. Do you believe that allowing service members of certain
faiths, such as Sikh, Orthodox Judaism, or Islam, to maintain beards or
wear turbans or other religious headwear, while in uniform, would
strengthen or weaken the U.S. military's standing in areas of the world
where such religions predominate? Would such allowance help or hurt our
coordination and engagement with such foreign nations?
Answer. I think America's values are the most potent force when
servicemembers are deployed. I would rely on the judgement of the
commander on the ground to determine if military necessity would
warrant allowances for religious accoutrements while wearing the
uniform in theater. That said the accession of new communities into the
armed forces can only enhance America's strength.
U.S. military personnel routinely deploy to locations around the
world where they must engage and work effectively with allies and host-
country nationals whose faiths and beliefs may be different than their
own. For many other cultures, religious faith is not a purely personal
and private matter; it is the foundation of their culture and society.
Learning to respect the different faiths and beliefs of others, and to
understand how accommodating different views can contribute to a
diverse force is, some would argue, an essential skill to operational
effectiveness.
Question. In your view, do policies concerning religious
accommodation in the military appropriately accommodate the free
exercise of religion and other beliefs, including individual
expressions of belief, without impinging on those who have different
beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. Yes
Question. In your view, does a military climate that welcomes and
respects open and candid discussions about personal religious faith and
beliefs in a garrison environment contribute in a positive way to
preparing U.S. forces to be effective in overseas assignments?
Answer. Yes
Question. Would a policy that discourages open discussions about
personal faith and beliefs be more or less effective at preparing
service members to work and operate in a pluralistic environment?
Answer. Less effective--the more servicemembers are exposed to
cultural and religious issues the better they will be prepared to
receive cultural training prior to deployment.
personnel system reforms
Question. The Committee conducted a series of hearings last year on
reforming the Department of Defense. A number of witnesses called for
reforms to the Pentagon's personnel management system to ensure we
recruit and retain the best and the brightest to work for the nation's
defense.
If confirmed, what would be your priorities with regards to
military personnel management?
Answer. Before changing any aspect of the Department's personnel
policies, if confirmed I would need to review the specific military
problem the change is meant to solve and then ask, ``Will the change be
consistent with maintaining the highest level of readiness for the
force?''
I believe that there is a blueprint for prospective reform laid out
by former Secretary Panetta, General Jones and Major General Punaro. If
confirmed, I will also review the Force of the Future initiatives.
After a more in-depth look at this issue, I will assess whether
continued personnel reform is necessary and will work with the Congress
on specific proposals.
Question. Do you believe that the Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act (DOPMA) and the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act
(ROPMA) need to be updated to better reflect the national security
challenges that we face today and will face in the future?
Answer. Yes
Question. What do you believe is the biggest deterrent to young
people considering a career in the military today?
Answer. Military-civilian divide.
Lack of exposure to the military culture and the value of service--
people tend to stay away from something they do not understand.
I have seen in my service, young servicemembers leave due to
inadequate support for their families--non-uniform childcare, too
frequent moves that deprive a spouse from putting down roots and
keeping a job.
active/reserve permeability
Question. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves was
charted by Congress ``to assess the reserve component of the U.S.
military and to recommend changes to ensure that the National Guard and
other reserve components are organized, trained, equipped, compensated,
and supported to best meet the needs of U.S. national security.'' One
of their recommendations stated that the Department of Defense should
merge DOPMA and ROPMA into ``a single system, modified to base
advancement on achievement of competencies.''
Do you believe consolidating DOPMA and ROPMA into an integrated
officer personnel management system would be useful to the Department?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Would a single officer personnel management system
facilitate increased permeability between active and reserve
components, thereby allowing officers to repeatedly transition between
active and reserve service?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What would be the desired outcome of an integrated active
and reserve component officer military personnel system?
Answer. This creates a culture to support a continuum of service.
This provides greater opportunity to transition among the active guard
and reserve components. This also makes Reserve component service an
option during a military career. We should also consider extending the
reserve position vacancy window beyond the current strictures of date
of separation.
Question. Are there other legislative or policy changes that would
facilitate the transition of officers between active and reserve
service?
Answer. I will have to consult with DOD officials to determine if
additional authorities are needed.
Question. In your view, what are the pros and cons of a single
commission for active and reserve service?
Answer. This cements the symbiotic relationship between the active
and reserve component. I also think it can be part of a much-needed
evaluation as to who we train the total force. In the reserve component
there has more often than not been a singular focus on personal
readiness which often comes to the detriment of training. It is
important to ensure that larger Active Forces have the reserve enablers
required to meet their mission; second, to ensure that the Reserve
Components have ample combat capability to complement or reinforce the
Active Force in the event of sustained combat. Removing any legacy
barriers to full integration would be worthwhile.
A downside in such a program would be that the unique aspects of
reserve service (workplace, travel etc.) might tend to get pushed
aside.
military pay and allowances
Question. The Department of Defense has traditionally compared
Regular Military Compensation against comparable civilian salaries to
devise a percentile as a way to assess the relative attractiveness of
military pay versus civilian pay.
Do you agree that the primary purpose of a competitive military pay
and benefit package is to recruit and retain a military of sufficient
size and quality to meet national defense objectives?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of the current
military pay package in achieving this goal?
Answer. I understand the current military compensation package is
robust and compares favorably with the private sector.
Question. Does the military pay package adequately compensate
individuals for their specialized skills and provide an incentive to
recruit science, engineering, and other critical professionals into the
military?
Answer. In addition to the current pay and benefits package, I
understand the Department uses special and incentive pays and bonuses
to target specific recruiting and retention concerns and to incentivize
the development of specific occupational skills. If confirmed, I will
evaluate the adequacy of these special pays and bonuses to ensure we
are attracting the best skillset we need for the military.
Question. Do you believe the largely ``one-size-fits-all'' model
for military pay is still the best model considering the specialized
skills our military needs to defend, fight, and deter modern conflicts?
Answer. The current system has supported and sustained an All-
Volunteer Force for over 40 years and has generated the superb fighting
force we have today. However, I am, if confirmed, open to considering
changes to the current system, but any changes need to be thoroughly
analyzed and understood so that we do not jeopardize readiness or our
ability to recruit, retain, and sustain our nation's All-Volunteer
Force.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the
revision of military pay and benefits?
Answer. Although at this time I do not have any recommended
changes, I am open to considering alternatives and am willing to work
with the Congress to support and sustain the All-Volunteer Force.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to working with the
Committee on revisions to military pay and benefits with the goal of
offering the best deal supported by the budget to attract, recruit, and
retain military personnel?
Answer. Yes
Question. This Committee has taken great interest in the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) system over the last four years. The BAH
system has devolved from its original purpose of providing adequate
housing to service members and their families to a system that greatly
benefits officers in special circumstances and provides less of a
benefit to others who are primarily lower ranking enlisted personnel.
If confirmed, will you commit to submitting a comprehensive report
that addresses all elements required in section 604 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 with regard to
establishing a single-salary system for members of the armed forces?
Answer. Yes
end strength
Question. In 2017, the Department of Defense began to grow total
force end strength following seven consecutive years of end strength
reductions. The Army and Air Force in particular have identified a need
to increase the overall size of the force to better meet combatant
commander needs.
Do you believe military end strength must continue to grow?
Answer. Yes
Question. How fast can the Army and Air Force responsibly grow
without having to relax recruiting standards?
Answer. Accepting the need to grow--quality is still more important
than quantity. This sometimes argues for more deliberation to match
recruit skills with platforms and career paths.
The last time the Army tried to grow to rapidly, recruiting
standards dropped. For the Air Force, increased bonuses have done
little for recruitment and retention.
Question. If sequestration continues through 2021, what will be the
impact on the active duty and reserve end strengths of all the
services, and how would the mix between the active and reserve forces
be affected?
Answer. Unless the Department of Defense receives funds above the
caps imposed by the Budget Control Act, it will not be able to achieve
the readiness, modernization, and force structure required to meet
emerging threats and this means under-resourcing the total force. Each
component will face the prospect of across the board cuts.
Question. What is your understanding of the need for additional
force shaping tools requiring legislation beyond what Congress has
provided?
Answer. I will consult with Secretary Mattis and the Chiefs to
determine if authorities are adequate.
military accessions vital to national interest (mavni) program
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend the continuation of the
MAVNI program and the acceptance of new applicants? If so, what
reforms, if any, would you recommend to ensure that the benefits of the
program--recruiting those with critical skills and language/cultural
backgrounds--outweigh the costs associated with conducting proper
security screening of participants?
Answer. My understanding is that the DOD IG is conducting a
thorough review of the MAVNI program and that new accessions are
halted. I am not privy to the investigation.
This is first and foremost a military program designed to bring
into the military those with critical skills. My read of the program is
that many MAVNI enlistees were not subject to complete background
checks and inadequately tracked post accession
It is also my understanding that many MAVNI enlistees were brought
into the service to perform basic MOS missions--truck drivers,
logisticians etc., not the critical MOS' for which the program was
created.
This is not to confuse the issue with one championed by Senators
Shaheen and Tillis to protect and bring to America those Afghanis who
have sacrificed for us on the battlefield.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you take to
address the issue of MAVNI participants' legal status expiring while
they await entry into active duty?
Answer. I will consult with the General Counsel of the Department
to make this determination.
recruiting and retention
Question. The Department of Defense has indicated that
approximately 25 percent of today's youth population is eligible for
military service. This number is alarmingly low.
What are the main reasons for such a small pool of individuals in
the 17 to 24 years of age population being eligible for service?
Answer. Physical fitness
Question. What impact do current medical and other qualifications
for enlistment in the armed forces have on the number of individuals
eligible for military service? If confirmed, what changes to such
qualifications, if any, would you recommend to increase the number of
individuals eligible for military service without degrading the quality
of recruits?
Answer. A review of current exclusionary childhood medical
conditions should be conducted by the surgeons general.
Question. In your view, should the existing medical and other
qualifications for enlistment be changed to accommodate certain new
specialties, such as cyber or RPA pilots?
Answer. Lateral accessions for critical technical needs should be
reviewed. All options should be on the table.
Question. What is your view of increasing the number of individuals
eligible for service by recruiting individuals who are older than the
typical core recruiting demographic?
Answer. The Department has in several instances advanced the
accessions age for the military. Age should not be the sole limiting
factor if a critical specialty is needed.
Question. Some services have recently relaxed grooming and
appearance standards. In your view, how will this impact recruiting and
retention?
Answer. I have not seen the data or the reasons behind the policy.
Question. What policies or tools are needed by the Department to
increase the propensity to serve of today's youth?
Answer. We must expose as many young Americans as possible to the
prospect of service. This includes making it easier for them to access
recruiting information online and perchance have recruiting information
on people interested in serving available to all components.
Recruiters should be given the flexibility of offering service in
both the active and reserve components to increase a recruit's options.
Evaluate and if possible expand the reach of JR ROTC.
Expand the Warrant Officer program
Find more colleges for ROTC and put ROTC in touch with our junior
colleges and community colleges.
pilot retention
Question. A number of Air Force officials have testified before
Congress about the increasingly acute shortage of pilots the Air Force
is experiencing. Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein recently
testified that the Air Force projects a deficit of approximately 1,500
pilots, including approximately 1,300 fighter pilots. The Navy and Army
have their own pilot retention issues. General Goldfein has described
the problem as a national crisis that will require a national response.
What do you see as the role of the USD(P&R) in crafting a
Department-wide plan to mitigate and ultimately resolve the pilot
shortage?
Answer. USD P&R can facilitate a holistic view of the aviation
culture and provide the Secretary of Defense with a comprehensive
picture of the state of military aviation and what new ideas can be
explored to address the pilot shortage.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to coordinate a
Department-wide, and national, response to the pilot shortage?
Answer. Bring the services together and explore opportunities for
more creative career paths for pilots including options for pilots to
move more freely amongst the active, reserve and Guard components--
depending on how their particular life circumstances change.
Question. Do you believe that money is the primary reason that
pilots choose to stay in military service?
Answer. No--pilots join the service to fly. Money is a factor but
if pilots see their chances to fly continue to diminish because of
budget cuts or dearth of platforms they will leave the service
regardless of monetary incentives.
Question. What non-monetary ideas do you have for incentivizing
pilots to stay and fly for the armed forces?
Answer. Provide pilots with a choice in career paths--if pilots
want to concentrate on flying then they should be given that
opportunity and not be forced into a higher command path which in many
cases takes them away from flying. This is something that the British
and Israelis do well and it is a solution that fits well into the
reserve and Air Guard model.
Question. Do you believe a cultural change is necessary to deal
with the pilot exodus facing the Department?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you believe it is wise to apply business case analyses
when determining who should receive a retention bonus and at what
level?
Answer. The bonuses should be allotted based on the needs of the
military community and the performance of the individual.
mobilization and demobilization of national guard and reserves
Question. Over the past 15 years, the National Guard and Reserves
have experienced their largest and most sustained employment since
World War II. Reserve force management policies and systems have been
characterized in the past as ``inefficient and rigid'' and readiness
levels have been adversely affected by equipment stay-behind, cross-
leveling, and reset policies.
What is your assessment of advances made in improving reserve
component mobilization and demobilization procedures, and in what areas
do problems still exist?
Answer. From personal observations, I do believe the process on
both ends is too long. We still have not fully digitalized the process.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the administration of the reserve components aimed at
ensuring their readiness for future mobilization requirements?
Answer. The most important aspect of the Reserve world is not
mobilization but preparing in real time to enter the fight.
The Army is reviewing the amount of time Reservists and their
commanders spend on mandatory personal readiness evolutions. Commanders
are tasked with page after page of requirements that they must pass on
to their troops. In an environment where one has two weeks in the
summer to train and one weekend a month, this takes precious time away
from training to fight. I have experienced this as a Reservist.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department of Defense
programs to assist members of the National Guard and Reserves as they
transition from a mobilized status?
Answer. DOD and the Congress should periodically review the
adequacy of USERRA and the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to determine
their viability in a 21st Century environment.
military quality of life
Question. The Committee remains concerned about the sustainment of
key quality of life programs for military families, such as family
support, child care, education, employment support, health care, and
morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) services, especially as the
Department of Defense's budget declines. The services have, for several
years, failed to meet the minimum appropriated funding standard, as
required by Department policy, for certain MWR programs.
If confirmed, what military qualify of life programs would you
consider a priority, and how would you work with the services,
combatant commanders, family advocacy groups, and Congress to sustain
them while eliminating some programs that may be ineffective?
Child care.
Answer. Ask the services for a status report on the state of child
care services for their bases and the availability of those services
off the base.
Question. Dependent medical care.
Answer. Childhood behavioral care--e.g., autism, ADD, ADHD
treatment.
Question. Adequacy of Youth Sports
Cost effective PX/BX system
What would you do to ensure that the services meet the Department's
minimum appropriated funding requirements for MWR programs?
Answer. Ensure that the DOD audit considers MWR programs.
family readiness and support
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues for service members and their families?
Answer. Currently, dwell time--the pressure on families of constant
deployment and personnel rotation coupled with uneven access to
childcare and the full range of medical care is a holistic family
problem.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that family readiness
needs are addressed and adequately resourced?
Answer. I would follow the lead of this committee which has made
family and health readiness a priority as reflected in the FY 18 NDAA.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support is provided to
reserve component families related to mobilization, deployment, and
family readiness, as well as to active duty families who do not reside
near a military installation?
Answer. Full integration of the support and mobilization and de-
mobilization programs of the active force be provided to the Reserve
component.
department of defense schools in the continental united states
Question. Some have questioned the continuing need for Defense
Department-operated schools for military dependent children within the
Continental United States (CONUS).
In light of the Administration's past requests for additional Base
Realignment and Closure authorities and the Department's current fiscal
constraints, should the Department update its criteria for the
continued operation of Department schools within CONUS?
Answer. This is an issue that brings together a myriad of potential
stakeholders--Military families, Congress, DOD, the Services,
Governors, Mayors, County Commissions and City Councils.
Having been raised in the DOD School system, I understand the
importance of the DOD Schools to the military culture. That said, the
culture of the military has changed. In my youth, most families lived
on the post--that has changed particularly at bases adjacent to major
population centers. At remote installations, servicemembers have fewer
opportunities. In addition, a comprehensive review of the DOD schools
must include an assessment of the ability of states and localities to
provide our military youth with the educational opportunities that
their parents expect should the Department and Congress determine that
reforms are needed.
Question. If confirmed, how would you approach the task of
eliminating some Department-operated schools in CONUS?
Answer. Military dependents' education plays an important role in
the success, stability, readiness, and retention of our service members
and their families. If confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders, in
collaboration and consultation with the Military Departments and
Congress, to review the best options for providing education support
for military families.
community support for military families with special needs
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that service members
with special needs family members relocate only to new duty stations
where special needs services are available?
Answer. I have experienced a similar matter in my own childhood and
in those days, it was up to the discretion of the chain of command to
provide such services.
I will work with the services to create policy to ensure that
members are assigned to installations where such services are available
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure outreach to those
military families with special needs dependents so they are able to
obtain the support they need?
Answer. The community support system must be activated. This
includes online information, unit personnel offices, hospitals,
chaplains, schools etc.
commissary and military exchange systems
Question. What is your view of proposals to consolidate, eliminate,
or privatize commissaries and exchanges in certain areas where they are
duplicative of services readily available at reasonable cost in the
community?
Answer. The Commissary is part of the earned benefit for active
reserve and retired families. I grew up going to the Commissary and
still use it as a Reservist. The quality of life value of these
benefits is of great importance to our service members and their
families. If confirmed, I am open to assessing whether the value
provided by the commissary or exchange systems could be more
effectively provided by a private party, with the understanding that
regardless of outcome servicemembers will still have access to the
benefit.
Question. If confirmed, would you approve a pilot program to test
privatization of the defense commissary system?
Answer. As long, as the DOD is constrained by sequestration, all
areas for cost savings should be explored. If confirmed, I am open to
assessing whether the value provided by the commissary system could be
more effectively provided by a private party.
department of defense civilian personnel workforce
Question. As the Department of Defense draws down its management
headquarters functions, managers will have to make tough choices on the
consolidation of functions and employees.
What is your view of a civilian employee retention system that
incentivizes performance above all other factors when considering which
employees to retain in a limited headquarters environment?
Answer. Performance is the key metric in any organization. It is my
understanding that the Department revised its reduction in force policy
in accordance with Section 1101 of the FY 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your role in the
consolidation and elimination of duplicative and unnecessary positions
within the Office of the USD(P&R)?
Answer. Secretary Mattis' metric is that if a program does not
contribute to the lethality of the force or readiness it must be
considered for elimination. I believe I would have the mandate to
eliminate such programs.
Question. What additional ideas do you have to more efficiently
manage the Department's civilian employees?
Answer. Employ best practice skills from industry to batter match
talents with jobs. Provide better access to comprehensive education in
modern business practices such as human resource management and follow
the guidelines set by the Deputy Secretary in the implementation of his
new business model.
Question. Do you feel the new performance management system will
properly address the issue of employee performance reviews and ratings?
Answer. The Department must effectively manage the civilian
workforce while ensuring the appropriate mix of skill sets and related
expertise, which enhance the readiness and lethality of our military.
We must also be sure sufficient levels of civilians are available to
perform critical oversight, management, and performance of readiness
functions of the Department.
Question. What, if anything, would you improve about the
performance management system?
Answer. I do not have enough information about the new system at
this time to make an assessment. If confirmed, I will review the
Defense Performance Management and Appraisal Program to determine what,
if any, improvements should be made.
Question. Do managers have adequate tools to incentivize employee
performance?
Answer. I do not have enough information about all the incentive
tools at this time to make an assessment. If confirmed, I will review
the current tools in place and, if necessary, work with leadership and
Congress to support increased flexibilities.
Question. What is your opinion of a renewable term appointment
system for new employees rather than the current tenure system?
Answer. If confirmed, I am open to considering alternative civilian
personnel systems and am willing to work with the Congress to support
efforts that will improve the civilian workforce.
management headquarters reductions
Question. The Department of Defense is currently under a statutory
mandate to reduce headquarters staff by 25 percent.
What progress has the Office of the Secretary of Defense made thus
far on the 25 percent reductions?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD has not met the Congress'
mandate. This is not new. Chairman McCain first raised the issue in
1999 and Secretary Rumsfeld's famous ``Eliminate Bureaucracy'' speech
of September 10, 2001 argued that the Department had not met SASC goals
of reducing headquarters overhead. If confirmed I will review SASC
guidance with the Services.
I believe bureaucracy should be at the minimal level required to
accomplish assigned tasks. At the same time, the role of the Department
of Defense's civilian leadership is critical, and we must exercise a
commitment to maintaining the principle of civilian control. I also
agree with Secretary Gates and Chairman McCain that efficiencies a can
be gained by limiting contracted support to ensure that inherently
governmental functions are performed by federal employees. I believe
staff size should be based on assessments of the workforce needed to
accomplish assigned tasks
Question. Do you agree that the Department of Defense should strive
to eliminate duplicative functions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that the process for deciding which
functions are to be eliminated should be streamlined through each
service or customized to fit each service's needs?
Answer. The needs of the force must always be given deference.
acquisition workforce
Question. The Department of Defense acquisition workforce has been
the subject of a large quantity of reports and legislation.
What is your view on giving more acquisition authority to the
service chiefs?
Answer. Agree that acquisition policy and choices should be should
be made closer to the warfighter.
Question. In what ways can we better train military personnel to be
acquisition professionals?
Answer. The Committee has begun to move the Department toward
modernizing its acquisition services. The acquisition corps in
particular needs to be better trained and educated. There would be
considerable value it expanding the Secretary of Defense Corporate
Fellows program. Unlike many other DOD fellowship programs, which focus
on providing personnel with a better understanding of government
processes, the SECDef Corporate Fellowship provides up to twenty
officers with the opportunity to spend a year in industry. This program
should be increased across the board, allowing perhaps as many as sixty
officers to benefit from this valuable experience in industry. It
should also be expanded to include civilians as well.
Question. How do you envision an acquisition workforce that holds
the leadership accountable for cost overruns on procurement contracts?
Answer. Yes--in line with the Secretary's vision to implement
modern business practices within the DOD.
Question. Do you believe that the Acquisition Demonstration Project
initiatives have been successful?
Answer. I have not been privy to the data gleaned from the
Acquisition Demonstration Project.
gi bill benefits
Question. Congress passed the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act in 2008 (``Post-9/11 GI Bill'') that provides generous
educational benefits for service members who have served at least 90
days on active duty since 9/11.
What is your assessment of the impact of the Post-9/11 GI Bill on
recruiting and retention, including the provision of transferability
for continued service?
Answer. Transferability is a vital incentive for family readiness.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have taken advantage of this
program for my family.
Question. Would you recommend that the Department use
transferability more sparingly as a retention incentive?
Answer. No.
personnel policy implementation
Question. What is your understanding of your responsibility, if
confirmed, to inform and consult with this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress on the implementation of policies
directed by law?
Answer. It is my responsibility after consultation with the
Secretary to consult with and inform this committee on personnel
policies.
Question. What is your understanding of the Department's obligation
and authority to implement personnel policies to improve efficiency
within the Department?
Answer. It has a legal obligation to implement policy set by
Congress and a moral responsibility to improve efficiencies wherever
possible.
Question. What is your understanding of the timeframe in which
personnel policies directed by law must be implemented by the
Department?
Answer. Within the expectations of and timelines set by the
Congress.
readiness matters
Question. How do you see the USD(P&R) role in the Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress? Specifically, do you see it as a way to
disseminate information or as a way to proactively impact shortfalls
and gaps in our military's force structure?
Answer. I see the USD (P&R)'s role in the Quarterly Readiness
Report to Congress (QRRC) both ways. The QRRC is an important mechanism
allowing the Department to report the current state of readiness by
identifying our most pressing issues. However, it must go further by
providing the Department's plan to mitigate and address the issues we
have identified. With today's challenging fiscal environment and global
threats, the Department must provide Congress with responsible and
effective ways to recommend readiness solutions instead of simply
stating the problem.
Question. What is your assessment of the current metrics used to
measure readiness? Do you believe the Department has any true metrics
to accurately measure readiness from both a service and joint
perspective?
Answer. I have not been privy to nor reviewed the Department's
metrics used to measure readiness. However, I do know that in most
cases when dealing with analytics, a combination of metrics, data
analysis, and modeling must be used to accurately portray a given
subject. If confirmed, I will look into the Department's process for
measuring readiness to ensure an unbiased, fact-based approach is in
place and I will ensure Congress receives value-added readiness
information.
Question. What is your opinion of a commander's ability to
subjectively override a unit's readiness rating?
Answer. Commanders play the central role in developing a trained
and ready forces. Assessments of a unit's warfighting capability and
organizational resources are done with the professional judgment of
commanding officers, who ultimately ensure the quality of both
assessment and resource reporting. I believe a Commander's ability to
subjectively override a readiness rating under extenuating
circumstances is a critical part of readiness reporting and one that
should not be taken away.
However, I do realize that in rare cases this can present
situations whereby an assessment falls outside the spectrum of normal
and/or accurate reporting. I will continue to monitor and report these
outliers, and ensure Commanders make overrides only when truly
necessary and exercise sound judgment in their assessments.
Question. What is your assessment of how the 2017 federal hiring
freeze impacted readiness?
Answer. I am aware that the Department was granted the flexibility
to exempt from the hiring freeze any positions deemed necessary to meet
national security or public safety responsibilities. It is my
understanding that these flexibilities allowed the Department to
weather the effects of the hiring freeze and minimize the impact to
mission readiness and family programs.
Question. What is your assessment of how the USD(P&R) works with
the Joint Staff to improve upon readiness challenges identified by the
services?
Answer. In addition to being the advisor to the Secretary on total
force readiness, USD (P&R) largely operates to provide strategic
oversight of Military Service readiness. Its readiness products and
processes achieve an optimal balance of assessing readiness recovery
and surge capability. These products inform the Defense Committees
about the strategic and operational risks, in addition to planned
mitigations challenging the Military Services. If confirmed, I will
continue to strengthen the relationship between USD (P&R) and the Joint
Staff to achieve their common goals, which is to create the most
lethal, decisive fighting force our Nation has ever had.
Question. The Department relies on the organic industrial base to
ensure that aging and damaged weapon systems and support equipment are
available to warfighters when needed. In recent years, however,
backlogs have plagued our armed forces' ability to train and fight. In
your relationship with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness, what is your understanding of the current
industrial base's ability to not only share best practices but to
implement those practices on underperforming services?
Answer. Readiness touches all aspects of our Joint Force, including
how the industrial base supports the Department of Defense. If
confirmed, I will work directly with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to address how the industrial base
impacts readiness. I will ensure P&R does not operate in a silo and the
logistics and materiel community understands where our readiness
pressure points are so that we can create mitigation plans.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. 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 USD(P&R)?
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? YES 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. Yes.
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. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Cotton
tricare pharmacy pilot program
1. Senator Cotton. Mr. Wilkie, as you know, section 743 of the
Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provided
authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a pilot
program to study the cost-saving benefits of offering TRICARE
beneficiaries the option of purchasing brand maintenance medication at
retail pharmacies. This would expand their choices beyond mail-order
and military treatment facilities (MTF). It would be an especially
helpful option for beneficiaries who live hours away from the nearest
MTF.
Because DOD declined to exercise those authorities before the end
of the fiscal year, 21 Senators and 67 Representatives signed letters
supporting an extension of the deadline and encouraging DOD to move
forward with the pilot program. It has come to our attention that some
in DOD, including your future colleagues if you are confirmed, are
nevertheless disinclined to pursue the pilot program. This program is
important to me and many of my colleagues. If confirmed, can we count
on you to use your skills and experience of your current position to
push this pilot forward?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes. We must explore all options that make medical care
more accessible to the military community. If confirmed, I will commit
to work with you and the pharmaceutical industry to explore any option
that increases beneficiary access to needed medications while not
increasing costs to the American taxpayer.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
tricare pilot program authorized by the house passed ndaa 2018
2. Senator Rounds. Mr. Wilkie, as you know, section 743 of the
Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA provided authority for DOD to conduct a pilot
program to study the cost-saving benefits of offering TRICARE
beneficiaries the option to purchase brand name maintenance medications
at retail pharmacies. This would have expanded their choices beyond
mail-order and military treatment facilities. It would have been an
especially helpful option for beneficiaries who live hours away from
the nearest military treatment facility as is the case for most South
Dakotans. My State's only military treatment facility, at Ellsworth Air
Force Base, is located 340 miles away from the State's largest
population center in the southeast, i.e., about a 10-hour round trip.
Because DOD was disinclined to exercise those authorities in fiscal
year 2017, 21 Senators--including me--and 67 House members signed
letters last June encouraging DOD to move forward with the pilot. This
program is important to me and many of my colleagues. If reauthorized
by Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA, can we count on you to push this pilot
forward?
Mr. Wilkie. We must explore all options that make medical care more
accessible to the military community. As an Air Force officer I am well
aware of the burden on military families in states with one major
installation. If confirmed, I will commit to work with you and the
pharmaceutical industry to explore a pilot that increases beneficiary
access to needed medications while not increasing costs to the American
taxpayer.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
army rigorous training standards and challenges
3. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Wilkie, ``This Kind of War'' by T.R.
Fehrenbach details the devastating loss of American lives at the start
of the Korean War due to a lack of readiness. Would you agree that we
must continue to ensure our military training standards are hard and
rigorous to reflect the realities of combat, and that this standard
should not be lowered or influenced by politics?
Mr. Wilkie. Absolutely, there is no sterner lesson to support your
position than the example of the Korean War. Task Force Smith is the
saddest paradigm.
readiness challenges
4. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Wilkie, the loss of life and damage to
equipment in just this year alone--in a variety of accidents--is
staggering. How will you attack this problem from a personnel and
readiness perspective?
Mr. Wilkie. It is important for the Department to have stable,
predictable, adequate funding to ensure the readiness of our forces and
their equipment. In addition, with sustained global commitments and a
force structure that needs to grow, our Military Services are
challenged to have sufficient time to train on the range and repair and
upgrade vehicles and weapons. We will need to work with combatant
commanders to balance meeting their demands with ensuring our Military
Services have enough time at home to recuperate and train.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
transgender servicemembers
5. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, what is your position on
separating someone solely because of their gender identity?
Mr. Wilkie. The only conditions we should apply to any
servicemember are physical and mental fitness and as General Dunford
pointed out--worldwide deployability.
6. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, under what circumstances do you
think someone who is honorably serving and meeting the same standards
as other servicemembers should be separated solely based on their
identity?
Mr. Wilkie. The only conditions we should apply to any
servicemember are physical and mental fitness and as General Dunford
pointed out--worldwide deployability. That said as the CJCS said in his
re-confirmation hearing we should not separate members the Services
need who are serving honorably.
7. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, with regard to your answer to
the advance policy questions that ``the guiding principles for this and
any other personnel decision should be military fitness, readiness, and
loyalty,'' do you have any reason whatsoever to question the loyalty of
transgender servicemembers or veterans?
Mr. Wilkie. Not at all. This is a coin of the realm word. As a
soldier's son and an officer I have been taught to use those three
words in my career.
8. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, if confirmed, will you commit to
meeting with openly transgender servicemembers to learn about their
experiences within your first month on the job and before the panel has
completed its analysis?
Mr. Wilkie. I am told that the panel is to complete its analysis by
mid-December. If confirmed, I will commit to meeting with openly
serving transgender servicemembers as soon as possible.
combat integration
9. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, how can the Services and Special
Operations Command most effectively recruit young women to combat arms
roles?
Mr. Wilkie. It starts with basic training and the first assignment,
since no Service member can join Special Operations without passing
through basic combat arms training. Anyone meeting those first
standards, at initial training, and passing the test for Special
Operations training accession, should be given the chance. The Military
Services have begun to disseminate information on the openness of
Special Operations billets at all levels including the Military Service
Academies. I have witnessed such dissemination at the Naval Academy.
autism
10. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Wilkie, during your service to the
Senate, we worked together to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment for
military children with autism. Do I have your commitment that, if you
are confirmed, you will continue to work with my office to ensure that
families with special needs dependents have access to the care they
need?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes, autism services deserve our careful attention. It
was a matter I highlighted in my confirmation statement.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
diversity of the force
11. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, do you agree that our military
and our country are made stronger with the ability to draw on all
individuals that are able to meet the rigorous requirements that our
Armed Forces demand?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes.
administrative separation protections for sexual assault survivors
12. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, do you believe veterans who are
sexual assault survivors should be afforded the same administrative
separation protections that are already applied to combat veterans?
Mr. Wilkie. I am not familiar with all separation protections
afforded by combat veterans but all servicemembers, particularly those
who are victims of sexual assault, should be afforded all legal
protections.
dod working group on administrative review boards
13. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, practices of the Board for the
Correction of Military Records and the Discharge Review Board are
inconsistent across the Services and board members do not always review
applications or final decisions personally. If confirmed, how will you
address this issue and improve consistency among these boards?
Mr. Wilkie. It is vital that all cases be reviewed individually by
all of those who are empowered to make such decisions. If confirmed, I
will look into this matter.
14. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, do you believe a working group,
established by the Secretary of Defense, would be helpful to improve
communication with military law practitioners and veteran service
organizations (VSO), as well as provide recommendations for consistent
policies and best practices?
Mr. Wilkie. My understanding is that the Department started a
working in this area a little over a year ago. I think it is a good
idea, and if confirmed I will look into it further.
training requirements for members of boards for correction of military
records
15. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, training is necessary to ensure
that members of Boards for the Correction of Military Records and DOD
personnel who investigate claims of retaliation have the knowledge and
skills necessary to properly review claims in which sexual assault is
alleged to have contributed to the characterization of discharge.
Variability in the application of evidentiary standards applied by
members of boards and investigators has resulted in lack of a clear
standards. Do you believe these individuals should be provided with
guidelines for the consideration of evidence substantiating allegations
of sexual assault?
Mr. Wilkie. They should be given all legal and policy training
available within the Department on this issue.
burden of proof
16. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, currently, the burden of proof
applied to military whistleblowers is significantly great than for
similarly situated civilians. In military reprisal cases,
servicemembers must prove retaliation occurred; in civilian cases, the
agency must prove retaliation occurred. Do you support applying the
burden of proof standard as defined by section 1221(e) of title 5 to
provide a more consistent legal standard?
Mr. Wilkie. I am not sufficiently current on this aspect of the
law, but protecting whistleblowers should be a priority for all
leadership and I will see that those members of the Department family
are afforded all available legal protections.
indexing
17. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Wilkie, currently, Boards for the
Correction of Military Records do not index published decisions
relating to cases where sexual assault is alleged to have contributed
to the original characterization of the discharge or release of the
servicemember. While cases are published, they are not indexed or
summarized, making it difficult to track down. Do you support requiring
the Boards for the Correction of Military Records to index decisions
related to sexual assault cases in order to better ensure cases are
easily accessible for review?
Mr. Wilkie. The Department should be transparent to the Congress
and public.
I am not a legal expert but if confirmed, I will review the legal
and policy parameters you have set forth and look into this matter.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
long term travel benefits
18. Senator Hirono. Mr. Wilkie, effective November 1, 2014, the
DOD's Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee
(PDTATAC) significantly reduced the per diem allowances for long-term
temporary duty (TDY), reducing per diem and lodging rates by 25 percent
for TDY longer than 30 days, and by 45 percent for travel longer than
180 days. This can significantly impact the effectiveness of our
shipyards and depots. These reductions can impact shipyards capacity,
the ability to perform high-quality work on time, and can be harmful to
the recruiting of the highest-skilled professionals to volunteer for
temporary duty assignments where particular skills are in demand. This
policy has already negatively impacted naval ship maintenance and the
civilian workforce that supports this critical mission as documented in
a letter from Naval Sea System Command (NAVSEA) dated January 19, 2016.
Section 604 of the House-passed Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA would repeal the
DOD's unilateral implementation of these cuts. A bipartisan Senate
letter was recently sent to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC)
and Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) leadership supporting the
House provision. If confirmed, will you commit to closely looking
closely at this issue including the impacts to readiness, recruiting,
retention as well as the additional resources required to collect,
submit, review, authorize and validate individual receipts now being
required? I would like to hear about your findings.
Mr. Wilkie. Per Diem is a vital matter for all serving. If
confirmed, I will commit to investigating this matter.
readiness and training
19. Senator Hirono. Mr. Wilkie, the Navy just released the
collision report for USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain collisions
which cited failures in training and standards as the root cause of the
accidents. It also concluded that fatigue played a direct role as well.
The Navy has confirmed that some sailors were working 100 hour weeks.
The Services do not always have control over operational requirements
but it is incumbent on leadership to create an environment where
standards are maintained and servicemembers are given the opportunity
to complete training and certification requirements to ensure that they
are prepared for the battlefield. What do you plan to do to shape the
overall readiness of our forces?
Mr. Wilkie. We will need to work with combatant commanders to
balance meeting their demands with ensuring the Military Services have
enough time to train on the range and repair and upgrade vehicles and
weapons. A priority will be to balance training with the needs of
forward deployed commands, while always being mindful of the dwell time
demand on our Service members and their families.
tricare pharmaceutical options
20. Senator Hirono. Mr. Wilkie, section 743 of the Fiscal Year 2017
NDAA provided authority for DOD to conduct a pilot program to study the
cost-saving benefits of offering TRICARE beneficiaries the option of
purchasing brand maintenance medication at retail pharmacies. This
would expand their choices beyond mail-order and military treatment
facilities. It would be an especially helpful option for beneficiaries
who live hours away from the nearest MTF. To localize the issue, I have
many constituents who live on islands that do not have MTFs. Because
DOD declined to exercise those authorities before the end of the fiscal
year, 21 Senators and 67 Representatives signed letters supporting an
extension of the deadline and encouraging DOD to move forward with the
pilot. What is your intention relating to this pilot program?
Mr. Wilkie. We must explore all options that make medical care more
accessible to the military community. If confirmed, I will commit to
work with you and the pharmaceutical industry to explore any option
that increases beneficiary access to needed medications while not
increasing costs to the American taxpayer.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
transgender
21. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, do you think that otherwise
qualified applicants should be denied the opportunity to serve based on
gender identity alone?
Mr. Wilkie. The only conditions we should apply to any
servicemember are physical and mental fitness and as General Dunford
pointed out--worldwide deployability.
22. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, thousands of qualified transgender
Americans will serve in the military whether or not there is a ban. Any
potential ban will simply force those servicemembers to lie about their
identity to avoid being discharged. This would essentially reinstate a
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' type policy. Former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff testified in 2010 that he was ``troubled by the fact
that we have in place a policy which forces... men and women to lie
about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'' Do you
share Admiral Michael Mullen's view?
Mr. Wilkie. Society and the military has changed even since Admiral
Mullen's statement. I discussed those changes with Admiral Mullen as
Assistant Secretary of Defense in 2009. It is my belief the standard
articulated by Secretary Mattis at his confirmation hearing and the
CJCS are accepted by all members of the military--mental and physical
fitness and the ability to meet fighting standards and deploy. In my
career that means if you perform your unit accepts you, period.
career management
23. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, the Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act (DOPMA) is nearly 40 years old and one of the key
features of DOPMA is the up or out promotion system. Do you support any
changes to that system, particularly for occupational specialties such
as cyber?
Mr. Wilkie. We must stop limiting all members to an up or out
system. We should provide career tracks that offer members a path to
master what they enjoy doing as opposed to everyone being forced into a
chief of staff track. I support changes that would give the Services
flexibility to retain highly talented officers.
24. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, would you be in favor of creating
separate career tracks for technical military occupational specialties?
Mr. Wilkie. The solution is in our military's past experience.
During your brothers service in Vietnam they interacted with thousands
of warrant officers. These were the Army's technical experts brought in
for their singular skills in aviation, computers, etc. Re-opening the
warrant officer track for cyber and technical is overdue. We also need
to bring back lateral accessions to mine areas like Route 128 to offer
interested Americans an opportunity to serve at a level commensurate
with their skills, e.g. bring a professor or technical expert into the
service for an amount of time, at an appropriate rank up to the grade
of Colonel. This was done in World War II.
geographic diversity
25. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, more than half of our enlisted
recruits come from just six States. Much of New England and part of the
upper Midwest are underrepresented in the force and I am concerned that
this reinforces the divide between civilians and our military. What are
some of the things we could do to increase the geographic diversity of
the force?
Mr. Wilkie. New England has a proud tradition through the Yankee
Davison and its Guard and Reserve units. One of the most fertile
grounds for Marine Corps recruiting by historic trends is South and
Central Boston. This is one of if not the most important questions we
must address--getting young people excited about service. In response
to a question from Senator Inhofe along these lines I noted that we
need to open our aperture on social media and online recruiting. In my
last position at the Department I reviewed several requests from New
England schools who were looking for JROTC faculty--we did not have the
funding. We need to get people in touch with the military life. JROTC
is one way as is going into our community colleges (which are strong in
New England) and offering those young people military positions to
match their technical skills.
26. Senator Warren. Mr. Wilkie, do you think geographic diversity
is important?
Mr. Wilkie. Yes--national service needs a fifty state solution.
______
[The nomination reference of the Honorable Robert L. Wilkie
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 25, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Robert L. Wilkie, of North Carolina, to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, vice Jessica Garfola Wright,
resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of The Honorable Robert L. Wilkie,
which was transmitted to the Committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of The Honorable Robert L. Wilkie
Education:
Wake Forest University
- 1982 to 1985
- Bachelor of Arts, cum laude
Loyola College of Law (New Orleans)
- 1985 to 1988
- Juris Doctor
Georgetown University Law Center
- 1989 to 1992
- Master of Laws in International and Comparative Law
United States Army War College
- 2000 to 2002
- Master of Strategic Studies
Military Education:
College of Naval Command and Staff
- 1999 to 2000
United States Army War College
- 2000-2002
Joint Forces Staff College
- 2005
College of Air Command and Staff
- 2009
Employment Record:
Office of United States Senator Thom Tillis
- Senior Advisor
- February 2015 to Present
Office of Presidential Transition-Cabinet Affairs
- Advisor
- November 2016 to January 2017
United States Air Force (Active Duty)
- Staff Officer
- May 2014 to February 2015
CH2M HILL Ltd.
- Vice-President for Strategic Initiatives
- June 2010 to February 2015
United States Air Force (Active Duty)
- Staff Officer
- February 2009 to June 2010
Department of Defense
- Assistant Secretary of Defense
- October 2006 to January 2009
Department of Defense
- Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
- May 2005 to October 2006
Executive Office of the President-National Security
Council
- Special Assistant
- January 2003 to May 2005
Office of the Senate Majority Leader, The Honorable
Trent Lott
- Counsel
- February 1997 to January 2003
North Carolina Republican Party
- Executive Director
- June 1996 to February 1997
Candidate for US House of Representatives
- 1996
Office of Representative David Funderburk (R-NC)
- Legislative Director
- January 1995 to December 1995
Office of Senator Jesse Helms
- Counsel
- August 1988 to January 1995
Office of Senator Jesse Helms
- Intern
- May 1987 to August 1987
Loyola University College of Law
- Research Assistant
- August 1987 to May 1988
Honors and Awards:
Military Awards
- Meritorious Service Medal
- Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal
- Joint Meritorious Unit Medal
- National Defense Service Medal
- Armed Forces Reserve Medal
- Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
- Air Force Longevity Ribbon
- Air Staff Identification Badge
Federal Civilian Awards
- Department of Defense-Distinguished Public Service Medal
Academic Awards
- Bustamante Award of the Society of Jesus for Excellence in
International Law
- Lisko Lewis Scholarship for Appellate Advocacy
- American Jurisprudence Awards in: International Law, Latin
American Law, Legislation, Comparative Law, Western Legal Tradition.
- Moot Court Board
______
[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 The Honorable
Robert L. Wilkie 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, 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.)
Robert L. Wilkie, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
3. Date of nomination:
July 25, 2017
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.]
5. Year and place of birth:
August 6, 1962, Frankfurt, West Germany (father was a First
Lieutenant in the 3rd Armored Division)
6. Marital status: (Include full name of current spouse including
any other names used, including maiden name.)
Julia Bullard Wilkie, Married
7. Names of children (if over age 18):
Adam S. Wilkie
8. Education: List names of secondary and higher education
institutions attended, type of school (vocational, technical, trade
school, college, university, military college, correspondence,
distance, extension, and on-line) dates attended, degree received .and
date degree granted.
United States Army War College-Master of Strategic
Studies, 2002
Georgetown University Law Center-Master of Laws in
International and Comparative Law, 1989-1992
Loyola University College of Law (New Orleans)-Juris
Doctor, 1985-1988
Wake Forest University-Bachelor of Arts, cum laude,
1982-1985
Tulane University 1980-1982
Reid Ross Senior High School (Fayetteville, North
Carolina) 1977-1980
Military Education:
Air Command and Staff College, 2009
Joint Force Staff College, 2005
United States Army War College, 2002
College of Naval Command and Staff, 2000
Navy-Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare Intelligence
Course 1999
Naval Special Warfare Intelligence Course 2000
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. If
the employment activity was military duty, list separate employment
activity periods to show each change of military duty station.
Office of United States Senator Thom Tillis
- Senior Advisor and Counsel
- 2015 to Present
CH2M HILL, Limited
- Vice President for Defense Integration and Strategic
Initiatives
- 2010 to 2015
Department of Defense
- Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs)
- 2005 to 2009
The National Security Council
- Special Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs,
- Senior Director of the National Security Council
- 2003 to 2005
Office of the Senate Majority Leader, The Honorable
Trent Lott
- Counsel and Advisor on International Security Affairs
- 2000 to 2003
Office of the Senate Majority Leader, The Honorable
Trent Lott
- Counsel and Advisor on Appropriations and Senate Rules and
Procedure
- 1997 to 2000
Military Service
Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Force (Reserve)
Operational and Staff Responsibilities: Highlights
- 2008 to Present
- Special Assistant to the A-9 of the United States Air Force
- Special Advisor to the Chief of the Air Force Quadrennial
Review Office an editor of the Air Force chapters.
- (Active Duty 2009 to 2010, 2014 to 2015).
Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy
(Reserve)Operational and Staff Responsibilities:
- 1997 to 2008
- Directed and Managed Maritime Intelligence Team tasked with
supporting forward deployed forces engaged in interdicting terrorist
forces using the seas to smuggle weapons and drugs.
- Developed planning and template for execution of non-
combatant evacuation operations across the SOUTHCOM and EUCOM theaters.
- Member of three man team tasked with creating the first
Naval Special Warfare Intelligence Reserve Unit (Reserve) within Naval
Special Warfare Group Two. Upon formation became the unit Psychological
and Information Warfare Officer. Supported operations in Liberia,
Albania, and the Middle East.
- Served as Intelligence officer and operational planner for
the Atlantic Intelligence Command; Joint Forces Intelligence Command;
and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.
- Named as Intelligence Officer of the Year for the Office of
Naval Intelligence Reserve unit, 2003 to 2004.
- Nominated for the Vice Admiral Rufus Taylor Award as the
Outstanding Intelligence Officer in the United States Navy, 2003.
- First junior officer requested by name to serve on the
Commander Naval Reserve Force Policy Board for three years, 2003 to
2005.
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.
Presidential Transition Office 2016-2017--Cabinet
Affairs-Responsible for the nomination and confirmation of the
Secretary of Defense
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.
None
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Member of the Board--Jesse Helms Center and Foundation,
Monroe, North Carolina (Congressional Archive-not compensated for
service)
Member of the Board--North Carolina Chapter of the
United States Global Leadership Coalition
Member--Council on Foreign Relations
Member--Royal United Services Institute
Member--The Henry Jackson Society
Member--The Air Force Association
Member--Association of the United States Army (Braxton
Bragg Chapter)
Life Member--United States Army War College Alumni
Association
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).
Candidate for Congress-7th District of North Carolina 1996
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Author and Editor of the National Security Chapter of
the 2012 Republican Presidential Platform.
Author and Editor of the National Security Chapter of
the 2016 Republican Presidential Platform.
Presidential Transition Office 2016-2017--Cabinet
Affairs
Responsible for the nomination and confirmation of the
Secretary of Defense
(c) Itemize all individual political contributions of $100 or more
to any Individual, campaign organization, political party, political
action committee, or similar entity for the past 5 years. List each
individual contribution and not the total amount contributed to the
person or entity during the year.
None
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Bustamente Award of the Society of Jesus for Excellence
In International Law
American Jurisprudence Awards in: International Law,
Latin American Law, American Jurisprudence Awards in: International
Law, Latin American Law, Legislation, Comparative Law, Western Legal
Tradition
Lewis Scholarship for Appellate Advocacy.
Loyola College of Law Moot Court Board
Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal-the highest
civilian award of the Department of Defense.
Intelligence Officer of the Year for the Office of
Naval Intelligence Reserve unit, 2003-2004
Military Awards
Meritorious Service Medal
Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal
National Defense Service Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Reserve Forces Service Medal
Air Force Longevity Ribbon
Air Staff Identification Badge
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written including articles published on the internet.
What Would Curtis Do? Reform and the Survival of the
United States Air Force, Royal United Services Institute. London: July
2014.
``Where is Dick Nixon When You Need Him'', Richard
Nixon Presidential Library Forum, April 2014.
Hybrid Warfare: Something Old, Not Something New, Air
and Space Power Journal, Winter 2010.
The Air Force at a Crossroads, Armed Forces Journal
International, April 2009.
``Fortress Europa'', Strategy for Empire: U.S. Regional
Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era, Brian Loveman, ed. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Fortress Europa: European Defense and the Future of the
North Atlantic Alliance, PARAMETERS, Winter 2002.
Balancing Star Wars and Muddy Boots, PROCEEDINGS, vol.
126, issue 10, October 2000.
Navy 2001: Back to the Future, The Naval War College
Review, Spring 2000.
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.
Helms Lecture with Senator Ted Cruz--Heritage
Foundation September 13, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6l2ridcJxl
Helms Lecture with Ambassador Ron Dermer-Heritage
Foundation May 14, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPkMLulsKoQ
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 brlefers 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.
Robert L. Wilkie
This 1st day of August, 2017
______
[The nomination of The Honorable Robert L. Wilkie, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman McCain on November 7, 2017,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on November 16, 2017.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Mark Esper 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, I support the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act reforms. If I am confirmed, I will work with senior
Army and DOD leaders to ensure these reforms are fully implemented, and
will keep the Committee apprised on our progress.
Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
be appropriate for this Committee to address?
Answer. While I have no specific reforms to propose at this time, I
anticipate some will be necessary given the ever-changing global
security environment and the premium I intend to place, if confirmed,
on maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army in all that
it does. My intent is to closely monitor the implementation of ongoing
reforms, and work closely with Congress on any other reforms that could
improve the readiness and effectiveness of the Army.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you possess that
qualify you for this position?
Answer. I have spent nearly three decades working to advance our
Nation's security in the military, in government, and in the private
sector. The foundation of this service is my twenty-one years as an
Infantry officer in the U.S. Army, with over ten years on active duty,
and another eleven years in the National Guard and Army Reserve. During
my military career, I had the privilege of leading soldiers in both
wartime and peace, in a broad range of command and staff assignments,
and in locations extending from the United States, to the Middle East,
and to Europe. All of this experience gives me an invaluable
understanding of the Total Army--its culture, organization, and
functions--and the critical role that our soldiers, their families, and
the civilian workforce play in defending our country.
My experience on Capitol Hill as a Professional Staffer, working a
broad range of national security issues in the Senate and House--to
include on the House Armed Services Committee and in Senate
Leadership--provides me a solid understanding of the challenges facing
the Army from a Hill perspective, and a deep appreciation of Congress'
vital Article I responsibilities with regard to the Armed Forces. To
that end, I understand the importance of the Army's leaders partnering
with the defense committees to address the challenges facing the
Department.
I also believe that my prior experience working in the Pentagon as
a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in OSD Policy, leading senior
military and civilian professionals to advance important national
security policy objectives, and my earlier assignment as a war planner
on the Army Staff, gives me a good understanding of how the Pentagon
works, the roles of the OSD, Joint, and Service Staffs, and how to
maximize success in a large organization.
Finally, I believe my broad private sector experiences, especially
as a senior executive at a major defense company, have provided me a
good sense of the Army's acquisition challenges, ideas on how Industry
can do better, practical knowledge of modern-day business practices
that maximize effectiveness, and how best to lead others in a way that
can drive positive, long-term results that best support our soldiers.
All of these experiences--coupled with the extensive leadership
training and the broadening experiences I have had over the years at
West Point, in the Army, in government, and in the private sector--have
provided me with the background, skills, knowledge, and values that I
believe have prepared me well to be Secretary of the Army.
duties
Question. Section 3013 of title 10, United States Code, states the
Secretary of the Army shall perform such duties and exercise such
powers as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Secretary of the Army?
Answer. The Secretary of the Army is the head of the Department of
the Army. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of the Defense, the Secretary of the Army is responsible for
all the affairs of the Department including, but not limited to,
recruiting, training, organizing, and equipping the Army to meet its
global requirements; most importantly, this means fulfilling the
current and future operational requirements of the unified and
specified combatant commands.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Secretary of the Army, as set forth in
section 3013 of title 10, United States Code, or in Department of
Defense regulations pertaining to functions of the Secretary of the
Army?
Answer. I do not currently have any recommendations to change title
10. If confirmed, I will continually assess the Secretary's duties and
functions. If I believe changes are required, I will consult with the
Secretary of Defense and, as appropriate, work closely with the
Committee on any proposed legislative changes.
Question. What additional duties, if any, do you expect will be
prescribed for you?
Answer. I am not aware of any additional duties that the Secretary
of Defense may be considering for me if I am confirmed.
major challenges and priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. A foundational priority of every Army leader must be to
ensure the Army's soldiers, families, and civilian employees are well
led, well supported, and well cared for. People are the essence of the
Army, so it is absolutely imperative that we recruit and retain a high-
quality force, and that we provide them with the professional
opportunities and quality of life they deserve.
The next priority I would address if confirmed is Readiness--making
sure the Total Army can deploy, fight and win across the full spectrum
of conflict today. This means that units are fully manned, weapons and
equipment are well maintained, munitions stocks are sufficient, and
training--particularly for high end combat--is ample, rigorous and
realistic.
Another priority I would address if confirmed is Modernization--
building the capacity and capabilities of the Total Army over the
longer term. This involves growing the size of the force, strengthening
its combat formations, and providing it with the best weapons and
equipment available to ensure clear overmatch in future conflicts
against near-peer competitors. To do this, my personal challenge will
be to articulate a clear vision of where the Army needs to be in the
future based on the defense strategy, and to greatly improve the
Acquisition system.
The final priority I would address if confirmed is Efficiency--
reforming the way the Total Army works to free up time, money, and
manpower to reinvest or utilize elsewhere. This includes conducting an
audit; reforming the acquisition system; eliminating unnecessary
bureaucratic processes; delayering, reshaping, and/or right-sizing
organizations; empowering leaders at all levels; increasing engagement
with the commercial sector and the defense industry; and borrowing the
best business practices from the private sector, to name a few.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges facing the
Army today?
Answer. The Army faces many challenges. Some of the most important
ones are recruiting and retaining a high-quality force, and ensuring it
is well led, as we grow the force. A second challenge is readiness,
meaning the capability to deploy, fight, and win today along the full
spectrum of conflict. A third challenge is advancing the future
readiness of the force through modernization, which includes increasing
the capacity and capabilities of the Total Army in the long term to
ensure clear overmatch in future conflicts against near-peer
competitors. Critical to modernization is a clear vision of the future
Army, a comprehensive modernization strategy, and the need to greatly
improve the Acquisition system. A fourth challenge is changing the way
the Army operates on a daily basis to increase its efficiency, and thus
free up time, money and manpower to invest or utilize in other
priorities. And finally, a major challenge is the lack of sustained,
predictable, and higher/sufficient levels of annual funding that would
ensure the Army could well execute the full range of its title 10
responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize your work to solve
these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, the readiness of the Total Army to deploy,
fight, and win today against a near-peer threat would be my top
priority. This means prioritizing the Army's budget, leadership focus,
and all associated efforts to ensure units are fully manned, weapons
and equipment are well maintained, munitions stocks are sufficient, and
training is ample, rigorous and realistic.
At the same time, long term readiness--also known as
modernization--must be tackled. This will require a clear vision of the
future Army and hard choices on which programs and initiatives to fully
fund, partially fund, or forego. In addition, the Army Acquisition
process needs to be reformed, from organizations, policies, procedures,
and participants, to organizational and individual behaviors,
expectations, and authorities. There also needs to be greater
engagement with industry, and a closer partnership with the commercial
sector, to ensure that the weapons and equipment our soldiers need are
delivered on cost and schedule.
Finally, the Total Army needs to become more efficient in all that
it does, so as to free up time, money, and manpower that can be
reinvested or utilized in priorities such as readiness, modernization,
and taking better care of our soldiers and their families.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Secretary of the Army?
Answer. The most serious problem confronting the Secretary of the
Army in performing the office's title 10 duties and responsibilities is
the lack of sustained, predictable, and higher/sufficient levels of
annual funding.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. The near term readiness of the Total Army is the immediate
priority. With the rise of near-peer threats around the world that
could draw the Nation into a high-end confrontation, funding and
leadership focus must be on accelerating the readiness of deploying
units when it comes to manning, maintenance, munitions stockpiles, and
training for such contingencies. The Army leadership must communicate
this prioritization throughout the force, understand the metrics by
which readiness is measured and monitor its progress, leverage all
necessary resources to facilitate success, and convey a clear sense of
urgency in meeting this goal. I understand the Army is currently
pursuing many of these actions. If confirmed, I intend to take an
active, constant, and personal role in advancing the Army's readiness.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Army and the Senate Armed Services Committee in particular,
and with Congress in general?
Answer. I believe the current relationship between the Army and
Congress is good, and that the relationship between the Army and the
Committee is even better. My aim, though, if confirmed, would be to
take the relationship to the next level.
Having served in various capacities in the legislative branch, to
include on the House Armed Services Committee, I know well the
fundamental Article I responsibilities of the defense committees when
it comes to the Armed Forces. Further, I understand the committees'
critical oversight role and the premium they place on the full and
timely provision of information. If confirmed, I would like to build a
partnership with the defense committees that treats its Members as
partners in helping solve many of the challenges facing the Army. Doing
this requires a continuous, candid, and collaborative dialogue between
the Army's senior leaders and the defense committees.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Army?
Answer. A strong and collaborative relationship between Congress
and the Army is vital to advancing the Nation's security. If confirmed,
I intend to maintain a continuous and candid dialogue with the defense
committees on a broad range of Army issues before Congress. I am
personally committed to meeting with Members on a routine basis to
update them on Army issues, to answer their questions, and to seek
their ideas and thoughts on some of the complex matters facing the
Department. Finally, I hope to broaden and deepen the engagement
between the Army's leadership and Congress across the board.
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 fully support the detainee treatment standards
specified in the Army Field Manual on Interrogations, the DOD
Directive, and the fiscal year 2016 NDAA. These standards ensure
adherence to our domestic and international obligations with regard to
the humane and proper treatment of detainees.
headquarters streamlining
Question. The National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years
2016 and 2017 direct reforms to consolidate the headquarters functions
of the Department of Defense and the military departments.
If confirmed, what would be your role in streamlining functions in
the Department of the Army headquarters?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for ensuring the
Department of the Army accomplishes its title 10 responsibilities as
effectively and efficiently as possible. Streamlining the Department's
functions, an ongoing task, could free up time, money, and manpower to
reinvest or utilize in higher priority areas such as readiness,
modernization, and soldier welfare.
I will work with senior Army leaders to effect a number of
initiatives designed to further streamline the headquarters, and the
broader Department. These include an ongoing Army effort to reduce all
two-star and above headquarters by 25 percent over the 2015 to 2019
timeframe; delayering headquarters and increasing supervisors' span of
control; bringing best business practices to the Department's
operations, especially the Acquisition system; and getting rid of
bureaucratic processes and policies that drive inefficiency. Finally, I
will push to identify additional opportunities to streamline the Army's
headquarters and commands while maintaining overall effectiveness.
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 Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to look closely and continuously for
any opportunity to reduce or consolidate Army functions and
organizations that do not improve the readiness or lethality of the
force. My focus will be on headquarters, non-warfighting activities,
and functions that are redundant and/or not making a material
contribution to readiness.
Question. To the extent that the Department of the Army has
functions that overlap with the Department of Defense, Joint Staff, or
other military departments, what would be your approach to
consolidating and reducing redundancy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with DOD and Joint Staff leaders,
the other Services' leadership, the Army Secretariat and Staff, and
others to identify redundancies among headquarters and staffs, and then
work with these same leaders to consolidate, reduce or eliminate these
overlaps in a manner that does not impact either DOD's or the
Department of the Army's title 10 responsibilities, or the ability of
the military to fight and win the Nation's wars.
end strength
Question. In this year's budget request, the Department of Defense
proposes sustaining the increased active-duty Army end strength of
476,000. Meanwhile, included among the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded
requirements are an additional 10,000 active-duty soldiers and 7,000
reserve component soldiers.
In your view, can the Army meet national defense objectives at its
current end strength levels proposed under the current budget? If not,
what should be the Army's end strength and why?
Answer. I believe that current national defense objectives
necessitate a higher Total Army end strength. General Milley has
expressed his concerns to Congress about the Army's ability to
accomplish its assigned tasks at its current size. I share these
concerns.
The Total Army's end strength should be based on the National
Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The Secretary of
Defense is currently conducting a strategic review. I believe the
results of this review will inform the Army of its updated Defense
Planning Guidance tasks, the capabilities required to accomplish these
tasks, and the size and organization of the force necessary to ensure
success across the full spectrum of conflict.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2017 authorized an active-duty Army end strength of 476,000 soldiers.
Will the Army reach that authorization by the end of fiscal year 2017?
How will these additional soldiers be employed? Will this additional
force structure be ready to fight, or will it be hollow?
Answer. It is my understanding the Army believes it met its active-
duty end strength goal of 476,000 in fiscal year 2017. The Army intends
to employ these soldiers in a variety of ways, but with a clear focus
on near-term readiness. This end strength increase will allow the Army
to improve the manning of select combat units that are high on the
deployment list; grow the capabilities of the BCTs by, for example,
increasing the number of air defense and long-range artillery assets;
and, build Security Force Assistance Brigades. If confirmed, I will
continue to focus the Army on increasing the readiness of Total Army
units to deploy, fight, and win across the entire spectrum of conflict.
Question. Will increased end strength be used to solve current
readiness problems or build force structure for future requirements?
Answer. My understanding is that Army end strength increases will
do both. The increase in end strength will first fill personnel manning
levels in deploying units. This end strength increase will also be used
to build Security Force Assistance Brigades, and add capacity in long-
range field artillery, short-range air defense, and cyber capabilities,
for example. These investments will increase readiness, address known
capability gaps that the Army may have when facing a near-peer
adversary, and satisfy combatant commanders' operational demands.
Question. Would the Army be able to adequately meet recruitment
standards and train and equip the additional 10,000 active-duty and
7,000 reserve component soldiers requested in the Army Unfunded
Requirements?
Answer. I understand the Army believes it was very close to meeting
the Total Army accession and retention requirements to achieve the
increased force levels in fiscal year 2017, falling a little short in
its reserve accession goals. To ensure a successful increase at the
requested level next year, I understand the Army needed full funding
early in the fiscal year in order to meet the training, manning, and
equipping needs for this increased accession mission and to sustain a
highly capable and ready force.
Question. Recently, the Army reported 12 percent of soldiers
assigned to combat and combat support units cannot deploy with their
units. What are the contributing factors leading to this situation?
What does this mean to unit readiness and the Army's ability to both
support combatant commanders and achieve Army readiness objectives?
Answer. As a former Infantry commander myself, I fully appreciate
the challenges of meeting both training and combatant commander
requirements with a unit that is not 100 percent deployable. Although I
am unaware of all of the contributing factors, I understand that the
leading cause of non-deployable soldiers in the Army stems from medical
conditions, primarily musculoskeletal injuries.
This is a major readiness issue. Every soldier must be deployable,
and leaders must play an active role in ensuring this is the case. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Army's senior leaders to
understand all of the contributing factors, to reduce their prevalence
and impact, and to close the readiness gap when it comes to soldier
deployability. The ability of individual soldiers to deploy, and of
combat units to train and fight at full strength, has a direct impact
on mission success.
Question. What are your plans to improve personnel readiness?
Answer. If confirmed, I first want to better understand how the
Army defines and measures individual readiness, and what factors would
cause a soldier to be non-deployable. Next, I would work with
Commanders, personnel experts, medical professionals, and other key
leaders on how best to reduce the current non-deployable rate as
quickly as possible, and how to prevent its resurgence going forward.
Individual readiness, to include the ability to deploy, is absolutely
critical to unit readiness, and thus success on the battlefield.
Question. What is your understanding of needed authorities to
improve personnel readiness requiring legislation beyond what Congress
has provided the past few years?
Answer. I am unaware at this time of any additional legislative
authorities that are needed to improve personnel readiness.
Question. In your view, should the number of general and senior
field grade officers in the Army be reduced? Does the ratio of leaders-
to-led strike a proper balance?
Answer. I believe the number of general and senior field grade
officers should be based on the leadership and management requirements
of an Army that is operating globally in a number of domains,
functions, and environments. As such, I do not believe that a leader-
to-led ratio is the best way to determine how many senior officers the
Total Army needs. If confirmed, I will work to right-size the
operational and institutional Army, and the various functions required
of the Department, as a first step to ensuring the total number of
general and senior field grade officers is appropriate to mission
requirements.
Question. What are your views on the appropriate size and mix of
the active-duty Army, and the reserve components?
Answer. I believe the size, capabilities, and mix of the active
duty and reserve components should be based on the requirements driven
by the National Defense Strategy, the National Military Strategy, and
the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). While I believe the Total Army
needs to grow, it needs to be done in a manner that ensures quality
individuals are recruited and retained, that unit readiness is
enhanced, and that an appropriate balance is maintained between all
Army components.
Having served in the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the
Army, I understand the role each plays in meeting the Total Army's DPG
tasks. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense and the
Army's leaders to assess the optimal size, capabilities, and mix of
active duty and reserve units required to support the defense strategy.
army recruiting and retention
Question. The retention of quality soldiers, officer and enlisted,
active-duty and reserve, is vital to the Department of the Army.
How would you evaluate the ability of the Army over the past
several years in a budget-constrained environment to successfully
recruit and retain high-caliber personnel?
Answer. It is my understanding the Army has been successful in
recruiting and retaining high caliber individuals over the last few
years. The Army has done this by offering recruits an attractive career
path and the opportunity to serve the Nation, and it has retained
quality soldiers in critical specialties through selective bonuses.
Recruiting and retaining high quality soldiers in the future will
likely be more challenging as the Army endeavors to grow the force.
This is because the Army is competing with the private sector, in a
growing economy, for talent from a finite pool of qualified 17 to 24
year olds (only some of whom are also interested in military service).
In order to meet the recruiting mission in this environment, while also
maintaining the quality of the force, additional resources will likely
be required to continue attracting and retaining high quality
individuals.
If confirmed, I look forward to the challenge of growing the
capacity and capabilities of the Total Army, and doing so in a way that
continues to attract and retain the high quality individuals that make
the U.S. Army the most effective fighting force in the world.
Question. What impact do current medical and other qualifications
for enlistment in the Army have on the number of individuals eligible
for military service? If confirmed, what changes to such
qualifications, if any, would you recommend to increase the number of
individuals eligible for Army service without degrading the quality of
recruits?
Answer. Maintaining the quality of Army recruits must be a
priority; doing so is essential to the Army's readiness. It is my
understanding that current medical and other qualifications standards
for enlistment in the Army have not prevented the Service from
achieving its accession mission since 2006.
I am currently unaware of the need to change any enlistment
qualifications, and would not support lowering standards. If confirmed,
I will work with senior Army leaders, the accession command, and the
medical community to ensure that if adjustments are required to
increase our potential pool of eligible personnel, it is done so
without degrading the quality of recruits.
Question. What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further
improve Army recruiting and retention, in both the active and reserve
components?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with senior Army leaders on a
variety of strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of
quality individuals as the Service builds capacity. Based on the needs
of the Total Army, I would look at initiatives that could offer a
greater return on investment, such as variable enlistment terms,
lateral entry from the private sector, and more robust sign-up bonuses
for certain critical skills.
To increase the retention rates of high caliber soldiers and
improve the quality of life for them and their families, I want to look
at options that will provide soldiers with greater choice in their
follow-on assignment (to include home stationing for an extended period
of time) and offer them refined retention inducements that might be
more attractive to them and their families.
Finally, my private sector experiences have taught me the power of
an effective marketing strategy. I believe the Army needs an updated
marketing strategy that not only reaches a much broader cross section
of eligible youth and their influencers, but also one that appeals more
to their aspirations and sense of patriotism.
readiness
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Army to meet national security requirements across the full spectrum of
military operations?
Answer. As I understand it, the Army is currently able to meet its
global commitments at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict, but is
increasingly challenged to respond with sufficiently trained and ready
forces for conflict with a near-peer adversary at the higher end. While
the Army is taking actions to improve its ability to deploy and fight
across the full spectrum of conflict, this will take time, funding, and
leadership.
Question. How do you assess the readiness of units in the Army
National Guard and Army Reserves?
Answer. I understand that the readiness of all Army units--Regular
Army, National Guard, and Army Reserve--is assessed using criteria that
measure personnel, equipment on hand, training, and equipment
readiness. These standards apply to all components based on
requirements from the United States Code, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, and the Joint Staff. Having personally served in all three
components of the Total Army, I appreciate the important role that each
plays in the Army's plans. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that
current readiness criteria are sufficient, that readiness is being
properly measured, and that the readiness of all units in the Total
Army is paramount.
Question. What are the Army's readiness objectives? When will the
Army achieve its objectives?
Answer. The Army designs its force structure and readiness
objectives to meet Combatant Commanders' force requirements for ongoing
and planned contingency operations. The National Defense Strategy,
National Military Strategy, and Defense Planning Guidance informs the
Army's readiness objectives which, as I understand it, currently
equates to having nearly two-thirds of Regular Army units and select
Army National Guard and Army Reserve units ready for a high-end
conflict with a near-peer adversary. Army leaders have stated that the
Service will achieve this objective between fiscal years 2021 to 2023
with sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding, and provided there
is no significant increase in the demand for forces.
Question. What is the Army getting ready for?
Answer. The Army must be ready to deploy, fight, and win across the
full spectrum of conflict today. It is currently challenged to respond
with sufficiently trained and ready forces for conflict with a near-
peer adversary at the higher end. While the Army is taking actions to
improve its ability to deploy, fight, and win across the full spectrum
of conflict, this will take time, money and focused leadership
attention at all levels of the Army.
Question. Does the Army have all the capacity and capabilities it
needs to be ready to deter war? Does the Army have what it needs to
decisively win a war against a peer adversary?
Answer. I do not believe the Army has all the capacity or the
capabilities it needs to win decisively against a near-peer adversary
today without considerable risk. To win decisively, the Total Army
needs to be larger, more ready, better trained, and more capable when
it comes to the robustness of its combat formations and the
effectiveness of its weapons systems. If confirmed, I intend to work
closely with the Army's senior leaders and Congress to ensure we can
meet this standard as quickly as possible.
Question. What capabilities does the Army need to ensure future
readiness?
Answer. To ensure future readiness, the Total Army must be
sufficiently sized, trained, organized, and better equipped to fight
and win on the modern battlefield. It must also be well led.
A key to future readiness is modernization--ensuring our soldiers
have the best weapons and equipment available to ensure clear overmatch
against a near-peer adversary in a high-end fight. Doing so means
significantly upgrading or replacing many of our current combat
platforms to maximize mobility, protection and lethality. Future
readiness also means that our combat formations are as robust as
possible, with capability gaps closed and force multipliers enhanced.
My initial assessment is that the Army needs more heavy forces and
greater capabilities when it comes to, among a number of things, short
range air and missile defenses; long-range fires; electronic warfare;
offensive and defensive cyber operations; and, assured communications.
If confirmed, I intend to begin closing many of these capability
gaps by giving them my personal attention; by placing a clear priority
on them in the budget; by reforming the Acquisition system to ensure
better systems are delivered on cost and schedule; by working more
closely with industry and commercial partners; and by adopting or
adapting systems currently used by our sister services or allies.
Question. Can the Army simultaneously maintain readiness and
modernization?
Answer. If adequately resourced with increased, sustained, and
predictable funding, and with the focused attention of leaders at all
levels, I believe the Army can simultaneously improve readiness and
modernize the force.
Question. How will you improve the readiness of the Army? How will
you hold the Army's leaders accountable?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department's senior
leaders to improve readiness across the Total Army by ensuring units
are fully manned, weapons and equipment are well maintained, munitions
stocks are sufficient, and training--particularly for high end combat--
is ample, rigorous and realistic.
Based on my 21 years of service in the Army, to include a combat
tour during the Gulf War, I understand well the importance of
readiness. Central to that is empowering and holding leaders
accountable at all levels for the readiness of their soldiers and
units. As such, if confirmed, I intend to take a thorough look at how
readiness is defined, measured, and assessed to ensure we are getting a
full and accurate picture of every unit's readiness to deploy, fight
and win, and the readiness of their leaders to drive success.
acquisition
Question. The National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years
2016 and 2017 emplaced myriad changes to defense acquisition processes,
including reinserting service chief influence and accountability into
acquisition processes.
Do you support the acquisition reform provisions in the recent
National Defense Authorization Acts?
Answer. Yes, I support the acquisition reforms outlined in the
recent National Defense Authorization Acts, and I applaud the
Committee's efforts to improve the acquisition process. If confirmed, I
will work diligently to implement these provisions and look forward to
partnering with Congress on other improvements.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's recent performance
in acquiring needed capabilities? Has the Army's acquisition effort
achieved results on time and on budget? What has it put into the hands
of soldiers?
Answer. The U.S. Army is the best ground combat force in the world,
but has had a mixed record when it comes to delivering the weapons and
equipment its soldiers need to be successful. The Army has had several
high profile acquisition failures over the last 2+ decades that have
squandered billions of dollars and many years. But the Army has had its
share of successes as well.
Personal Protective Equipment, such as better body armor, is one
area where I am informed the Army has made substantial improvements in
recent years. Another is aviation, where I understand the Army has
worked hard to upgrade its AH-64E Apache, CH-47F Chinook, and UH-60M
Black Hawk helicopters to make them more capable. And finally, I
understand the Army is improving the lethality of its Stryker Family of
Vehicles against near-peer threats by arming them with a 30mm cannon or
the Javelin anti-tank missile system.
If confirmed, I intend to make reform of the Acquisition process a
top priority. Without reform of the current system, it will be
extremely challenging for the Army to modernize the force. I believe
the Army can do much better when it comes providing our soldiers with
the weapons and equipment they need to be successful, and I intend to
lead that effort if confirmed.
Question. What additional acquisition-related reforms do you
believe this Committee should consider?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Acts included a significant number of reforms. I
understand the Army is committed to these reforms.
At this point, I believe that many of the additional Acquisition
reforms that need to be made are internal to the Army, and do not
necessarily require policy changes or increased funding. A number of
studies performed on this topic over the years have made this point,
and have identified specific actions that promise to make the process
more effective.
If confirmed, I intend to pursue many of these actions, but will
remain on the lookout for other changes that would require action by
the Congress.
Question. How can the Army better access and integrate non-
developmental commercial or governmental technology to modernize the
force with greater efficiency?
Answer. There are a number of ways the Army can modernize the force
with greater efficiency. One path is to work more closely with industry
on technologies that are available now/quickly to upgrade existing
systems. A second approach must include greater outreach to the
commercial sector for items they may be able to provide either ``off
the shelf'' or with minimal modification; critical to this is ensuring
military specs are not unreasonably rigorous. A third approach is to
look at what weapons and equipment our allies are successfully using,
and either incorporating them in whole or adapting them to the Army's
specific needs. Each of these approaches is viable, and has been used
successfully in the past; all should be considered when seeking to
procure a new or improved capability.
A second step is to prototype and demonstrate these systems as
quickly as possible, and create opportunities for soldiers to use them
in the lab, in realistic training exercises, and/or in real-world
deployments. Leveraging soldier feedback from these experiences
provides great insight into the effectiveness of the systems, how they
integrate with other systems, and soldier satisfaction with them, among
many things. All of this information and more is critical to assessing
the viability of integrating the technology into the force.
If confirmed, I intend to pursue these approaches to modernize the
force so that the Army is prepared to deploy, fight and win on future
battlefields.
Question. If confirmed, how will you hold Army acquisition
authorities accountable? What will be your measures of effectiveness?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to reform the Army's current
Acquisition process, beginning with clarifying the lines of
responsibility for each phase and function of the process--especially
with regard to developing requirements--outlining the duties,
expectations, and limitations of stakeholders at each of these key
points, and integrating these functions on a continuous basis.
Next, I would aim to ensure the alignment of the duty assignments
of PMs with the Milestones established for their programs to ensure
there is a clean handover of the program at critical points, and so
that clear measures of effectiveness--cost, schedule, and performance--
can be assessed. I would aim to do the same with PEOs and their
responsibility for the highest priority programs in their portfolio.
Additional measures of effectiveness should also be incorporated.
Army leaders and acquisition authorities must be accountable for
setting and adhering to system requirements that enhance capability,
but are affordable and realistic; for working with industry and the
commercial sector on ready-now/soon solutions; for testing systems
against their established requirements; and for providing key
deliverables at established timelines that are more aggressive because
they place a premium on delivering weapons and equipment to the soldier
as quickly as possible, for example.
Question. What is your assessment of the size and capability of the
Army acquisition workforce?
Answer. I understand that the workforce is trained and capable, but
may not be right-sized to the tasks at hand, or, sufficiently empowered
to make smart decisions about equipping the force. I intend to work
closely with the Army's senior leaders on addressing these questions
and any other issues I may find, such as additional professional
development opportunities, to ensure the Army's acquisition workforce
is positioned to deliver what the force needs at cost and on schedule.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the Department of the Army has an acquisition workforce with the size
and capability needed to improve acquisition?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to take a close look at the size,
capabilities, and performance of the acquisition workforce, working
closely with the Army Acquisition Executive to understand the needs and
challenges of the workforce. I will also make sure the Army can compete
with the private sector for talent to attract and retain the highest
quality of professionals for the acquisition workforce. Additionally, I
will ensure the Army leverages all authorities granted by Congress to
improve the acquisition workforce and how it procures weapons and
equipment. Finally, if confirmed, I intend to get personally involved
in many of the Army's top programs to not only ensure they are
completed on cost and schedule, but to signal to the acquisition
workforce and the Army the importance I place on them and the critical
work that they do.
Question. If confirmed, how will you synchronize your acquisition
responsibilities with the Army Chief of Staff (CSA)? Should the CSA
have greater authorities, including decision authorities, for limited
and full rate production?
Answer. I support the Chief of Staff's new authorities to concur
with cost, schedule and performance trades for Milestone A and B
decisions for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. So if confirmed, I
intend to work closely with the CSA to ensure there is a proper balance
among resources and priorities, and that trade-offs among cost,
schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on major defense
acquisition programs are fully informed and subjected to rigorous
analysis. I will also review and assess program objectives on a
recurring basis--and especially before program milestone and production
decisions--with the CSA and the Army Acquisition Executive.
If confirmed, I will work with the Chief of Staff, DOD and this
Committee to assess current authorities and recommend any other
legislative changes that might be required.
Question. If confirmed, do you anticipate any restrictions that may
impact your ability to oversee the Army acquisition system?
Answer. No. I do not anticipate any restrictions that will impact
my ability to oversee the Army acquisition system if I am confirmed.
audit
Question. The Department of Defense remains unable to achieve a
clean financial statement audit. The Department also remains on the
Government Accountability Office's list of high risk agencies and
management systems for financial management and weapon system
acquisition. Although audit readiness has been a goal of the Department
for decades, it has repeatedly failed to meet numerous congressionally
directed audit-readiness deadlines.
What is your understanding and assessment of the Army's efforts to
achieve a clean financial statement audit?
Answer. It is my understanding the Army achieved its goal to be
ready for a full financial statement audit by 30 September 2017. I
believe the Army officials responsible for the audit fully understand
the importance and value of conducting audits, and are committed to
full disclosure and discovery as a key step in identifying problem
areas and issues that warrant being addressed as quickly as possible.
If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the Army works hard
towards its goal of achieving a clean financial audit. My experience in
the private sector has given me important insights into the value that
detailed and comprehensive audits can provide in helping leaders
achieve their goals, lead their organizations, manage budgets, identify
problem areas, and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of
their teams.
Question. In your opinion, is the Department of the Army on track
to achieve these objectives, particularly with regard to data quality,
internal controls, and business process re-engineering?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army is making progress
towards improving its data quality, internal controls, and business
process re-engineering because the Army has learned it must improve in
these areas if it wants to achieve a clean audit opinion.
If confirmed, I intend to look more closely into the Army's audit
preparations and implementation, and at the specific items above in
particular, as I am fully committed to ensuring the Army works hard at
achieving a clean financial audit as soon as possible.
Question. If not, what impediments may hinder the Army's ability to
achieve this goal and how would you address them?
Answer. It is my understanding that the largest impediment to audit
compliance is a combination of the number of legacy systems feeding
into new enterprise systems, and the lack of compliance these legacy
systems have with current accounting standards. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure the Army receives the resources necessary to address
audit needs, that Army leaders have a good plan to address all
identified impediments, and that they are held accountable for
remedying them so that the Army can achieve a clean audit opinion.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
the Army moves to achieve these objectives without an unaffordable or
unsustainable level of one-time fixes and manual work-arounds?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Army's leaders and all
persons involved in conducting an audit understand the importance I
place in audits, and the value I see in conducting and completing them.
In doing so, the standards must be based on transparency, accuracy,
thoroughness, and sustainability. I am committed to providing the
leadership, authorities, and resources required to create a sustainable
audit environment and a culture of financial transparency and
accountability. The Army's success in this endeavor will require
continued diligence in our execution of business processes,
strengthening of our internal controls, and a relentless focus on
improving our IT systems and environment.
army modernization
Question. In general, major Army modernization efforts have not
been successful over the past decade or more. Since the mid-1990s, Army
modernization strategies, plans, and investment priorities have evolved
under a variety of names from Digitization, to Force XXI, to Army after
Next, to Interim Force, to Objective Force, to Future Combat System and
Modularity. Instability in funding, either as provided by the
Department of Defense or Congress, has been cited by the Army and
others as a principal cause of program instability. For the most part,
however, the Army has benefited from broad Department of Defense and
Congressional support for its modernization and readiness programs even
when problems with the technical progress and quality of management of
those programs have been apparent--the Future Combat System is a recent
example.
What is your assessment of the Army's modernization record?
Answer. The U.S. Army is the best ground combat force in the world,
but has had a mixed record when it comes to delivering the weapons and
equipment its soldiers need to be successful. The Army has had several
high profile acquisition failures over the last 2+ decades that have
squandered billions of dollars, but has been successful at
incrementally modernizing existing systems to meet the needs of our
soldiers.
I believe the Army is moving in the right direction by
fundamentally reforming the requirements process and involving senior
Army leaders more in the prioritization of required capabilities.
Additionally, the acquisition workforce needs to be sufficiently
empowered, intelligent risk taking should be encouraged, and a closer
partnership with the private sector must occur. More can be done in
this last area in particular, and throughout the Acquisition process.
If confirmed, I intend to get personally involved in improving the
Acquisition process so that the Army has the weapons and equipment it
needs to deploy, fight, and win against across the entire spectrum of
conflict.
Question. Does the Army have a clearly stated modernization
strategy? If so, what is its vision? What are its key objectives? What
are the requirements? What is the timeline?
Answer. It is my understanding the Army provided Congress a final
draft of a comprehensive modernization strategy entitled, `Future Force
Development Strategy.' The vision guiding this strategy is for the Army
to possess decisive overmatch to defeat enemy formations, control
terrain, secure populations, and consolidate gains.
I further understand that in the near term, the Army plans to
continue upgrading existing weapons, fleets and systems. In the longer
term, the Army is planning to build a force capable of countering
future challenges and maintaining overmatch against potential higher-
end adversaries. This will require the Army to invest more in research
and development, and align all of these efforts against known
capability needs.
If confirmed, I intend to take a thorough look at this strategy and
adjust it as/if necessary. This strategy will need to fulfill a clearly
defined vision of the future Army. I will work with the Chief of Staff,
Congress, and a wide array of civilian and military leaders and experts
to this end. I will then apply the leadership focus and all required
resources to effect this strategy, which will likely involve
publishing, explaining, and promoting this strategy broadly; investing
more in R&D; expanding the Army's engagement with the private sector;
greatly improving the entire Acquisition process; making hard choices
on some current programs and the budget; and holding leaders
accountable for the success of this strategy.
Question. If modernization is fundamental to future readiness, what
must the Army be ready for? What key capabilities must the Army have?
What will the Army need in future reconnaissance, weapons,
communications, logistics, and other key capabilities? What will the
Army need in future force structure and all-arms combat formations?
Answer. I believe the Army must be ready to deploy, fight, and win
along the entire spectrum of conflict. Most urgent is the need to
prevail against a near-peer threat in a high-end fight. This will
require growing the capacity and capabilities of the Total Army.
To be successful in the future, I understand the Army is developing
proposals for the capabilities that will ensure overmatch in
environments where communications, air superiority, and maneuver, for
example, are not guaranteed. I further understand that the Army has
already identified the top capabilities it needs to close near-term
gaps and be successful in future fights. These range from longer range
fires and improved air/missile defenses, to robust networks and much
better vertical lift assets, for example.
At the same time, I understand the Army is working on a future
force structure concept called the ``multi-domain task force.'' This
concept is envisioned as not only an ``all-arms'' approach to
warfighting, but also an ``all-domain'' combat formation that will be
essential to winning decisively in the future. The combat formations
will also likely need to be more robust when it comes to traditional
combat and combat support functions. To do all of this, the Army must
have dependable funding and the appropriate level of sustained
investment to turn these concepts into capabilities.
If confirmed, I intend to take a close look at all of these
critical issues to ensure that the Army is meeting its important title
10 responsibilities when it comes to future readiness.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the Army's
modernization investment strategy?
Answer. My understanding is that, due largely to budget
constraints, the Army sacrificed modernization investments to pay for
near term readiness. The Army has been working hard, nonetheless, to
build, train, and sustain a ready force by incrementally modernizing
existing systems.
It is important that the Army start investing more in modernization
to ensure its future ability to deploy, fight, and win against a near-
peer threat in a high-end fight. To do this, I believe the acquisition
system must be greatly improved, more engagement with the commercial
sector and defense industry must take place, and more funding should be
allocated to research and development efforts, among many things, to
address critical capability gaps. If confirmed, I will work hard to
ensure the Army has the right investment strategy, and hold leaders
accountable to ensure the Service delivers world class equipment to its
soldiers in an effective and efficient manner.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
take to achieve a genuinely stable modernization strategy and program
for the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with senior Army leaders to
set a clear vision for what the Army should look like in the future,
and then work closely with senior Army leaders and Congress to develop
a modernization strategy that will deliver on that vision.
This vision will be consistent with the results of the strategy
review currently being conducted by the Secretary of Defense. It will
inform the Army of the capacity and capabilities it will need to
deploy, fight, and win in the future as part of a joint force across
the entire spectrum of conflict.
As the future capabilities are set, programs need to be aligned
against them. To achieve a stable modernization strategy, the
requirements process for each of these programs must include all key
stakeholders upfront and throughout the process, have clear lines of
authority, must be quicker, and must be less bureaucratic. I understand
the recently-announced Army ``modernization command'' aims to achieve
these same ends. The requirements that are developed must be
aggressive, constituting an improved capability, but reasonable and
affordable as well. And once approved by the Army's senior leadership,
they must also be stable.
Next, acquisition officials must be empowered to manage these
programs in a way that allows them to deliver programs on cost and
schedule. They must engage with the defense industry and the commercial
sector more, looking for technology solutions that can be taken either
``off the shelf'' or used with some modification. As part of this
process, they must pursue more creative ways to rapidly test,
demonstrate, and field these technologies to the soldier.
Critical to all this is holding leaders accountable, from meeting
more aggressive deadlines for action and empowering subordinates, to
aligning the assignments of PEOs/PMs to program milestones, and from
reshaping organizations and processes, to making the hard choices about
the Army's funding priorities. These and other best practices can help
deliver a more stable modernization strategy and program for the Army,
and I intend to work hard on these initiatives if I confirmed.
Question. In your view, does the Army's modernization investment
strategy appropriately or adequately address current and future
capabilities that meet requirements across the spectrum of conflict?
Answer. My sense is that the Army has made insufficient investments
in current and future capabilities given the limited resources
available the last several years. However, I believe the Army made the
right decision by prioritizing readiness--the ability to deploy, fight,
and win today against a near peer adversary--and incrementally
modernizing existing equipment so that it is more capable across the
entire spectrum of conflict.
Future capabilities have been deferred as a result. As readiness
improves, the Army must address critical capability shortfalls to
ensure its ability to deter and defeat near-peer adversaries in a
future high end conflict. If confirmed, I will work with the Army's
senior leaders to develop a vision and implement a modernization
strategy that will meet the Army's future needs.
Question. What is the Army Rapid Capabilities Office? What are its
objectives, priorities, and authorities?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army Rapid Capabilities
Office is designed to execute high-priority, threat-based projects
where the materiel solution does not exist today. My understanding is
that its primary objective is to expedite critical technologies to the
field to meet Combatant Commanders' immediate needs. Its other
objectives include identifying disruptive emerging technologies and
integrating them for military use. The RCO's initial focus areas for
rapid prototyping are electronic warfare, survivability, cyber, and
positioning, navigation and timing. The RCO also performs as a change
agent for innovation and process improvements that can be applied to
other Army efforts.
I understand the Army Rapid Capabilities Office receives its
priorities and authorities from a Board of Directors led by the
Secretary of the Army, and includes the Chief of Staff of the Army and
the Army Acquisition Executive. As such, it is uniquely authorized to
combine multiple research and development efforts, programs of record,
and emerging technologies from industry and government to meet
warfighters' urgent needs in a quicker and more comprehensive manner.
Question. In your view, should the Army trade off requirements
within the execution of a program in order to make that program
affordable and timely?
Answer. That depends on the program, what the requirements are, and
how the tradeoff might impact cost, schedule or performance. I think it
is important to maintain the authority to be able to trade off
requirements within the execution of the program, which speaks to the
importance of the Chief of Staff's involvement in the process.
Ultimately, I believe the Army must provide soldiers the best equipment
available at an affordable cost and in time to meet their warfighting
requirements, but sometimes you need to work to find the right balance
between capability, affordability and speed of development.
If confirmed, I will assess the effectiveness of recent Army
initiatives to improve decision making when it comes to setting
requirements, making tradeoffs, and improving the overall efficiency
and discipline of the Acquisition system.
Question. Does the Army need a fully resourced all-arms force to
experiment with new weapons and technologies to help develop future
fighting concepts? Could this experimental unit give direction to
technology development? Like the Marine Corps experimental unit, should
this all-arms force be ready to deploy as well?
Answer. The concept definitely warrants a good look. I understand
the Army had a dedicated unit at Fort Bliss that did similar work, but
was forced at some point to put the unit in the deployment rotation due
to worldwide demand from our Combatant Commanders
New capabilities should be developed in concert with the soldiers
and formations that will use them. This provides for immediate feedback
and concept refinement. A force like that could study, test, and refine
requirements in an operational setting to help leaders make decisions
in building the Army of the future could be a game changer. If
confirmed, I will explore this concept with senior Army leaders.
Question. Is there a choice between current readiness and future
readiness? Can the Army simultaneously meet short-term readiness
standards and modernize for future readiness? If so, what are the
risks? How would you recommend managing these risks?
Answer. The Army must find a way to meet short-term readiness needs
while also modernizing for the future. This does not mean that both
will be done at the same levels of effort or funding, but it does mean
that risk in each may need to be balanced more carefully, and that hard
choices will need to be made.
Based on operational demands and fiscal constraints, the Army chose
in prior years to invest in current readiness and incrementally
modernize its existing equipment while delaying future readiness and
modernization. It is my understanding that the Army is now on a
trajectory to improving current readiness by increasing unit manning,
improving maintenance, and putting more emphasis on training for high-
end conflicts.
I believe the Army can also modernize, but it must have a detailed
modernization strategy and increased funding that is also more
predictable. At the same time, the Army must become more efficient by
getting rid of practices and policies that create bureaucracy;
delayering, reshaping, and/or right-sizing organizations; engaging more
closely with the commercial sector and the defense industry; and
incorporating sound business practices. Doing all of this and more
could free up time, money, and manpower to reinvest or utilize in other
priorities, such as research and development, prototyping weapons
systems, or adapting technologies that are currently available to close
capability gaps. Failure to do this could mean the Army losing its
qualitative overmatch in the long run.
Question. Unity of command ensures unity of effort in war and
combat. If the Army is challenged by the lack of effective acquisition
and modernization, would strong leadership empowered with command
authority improve the situation? Does the Army need a modernization
command?
Answer. I think strong leadership empowered with command authority
can improve most situations. The Army recently announced plans to
establish a Task Force that would fundamentally reform Army
modernization efforts by bringing key functions and all the various
stakeholders under a single roof. Additionally, I understand the Army
recently launched a pilot program to establish cross-functional teams,
each led by a brigadier general with recent command experience, focused
on six core capability areas critical to future readiness. I support
the fundamental outline of this plan because it promotes
accountability, brings stakeholders together up front, ensures unity of
effort, and eliminates a good deal of bureaucracy. If developed and
implemented well, I believe this ``modernization command'' with its
cross-functional teams will constitute a major step forward in
reforming the requirements and Acquisition process, and in thus
providing soldiers the weapons and equipment they need, when they need
it. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Chief and senior
Army leaders to study, further develop, and implement this plan.
army weapon system and equipment programs
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
following research, development, and acquisition programs? Are all
programs delivering or sustaining capabilities that are suitable,
reliable, and survivable? Are all programs within cost, timeline, and
performance?
Answer. I acknowledge that my current employer, Raytheon, has
various levels of involvement with some of the Army weapon systems and
equipment programs listed below. If confirmed, I will not personally
and substantially participate in any particular matter that will have a
direct and predictable effect on Raytheon or the company's financial
interests pursuant to 18 USC 208, SASC policy, and my Ethics Agreement.
Question. Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army ended the GCV program
at the conclusion of the Technology Development phase in June 2014. In
my view, the Army needs to be able to better manage and balance its
investments and continue its modernization across the complete combat
vehicle portfolio. This means ensuring that the vehicles that are
already in the warfighters' hands are as capable as possible, and
includes the Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker Engineering Change Proposal
programs, as well as, development of the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle
(AMPV) and other efforts to address emerging requirements for the
Infantry Brigade Combat Team and Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
It is my understanding that the Army is conducting an analysis of
the 2035 operational environment of future threats to identify any gaps
for inclusion in the design for a Next Generation Combat Vehicle. This
analysis will inform the Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy and will
drive the organization of combat Brigade formations in the 2035 and
beyond timeframe. The Army currently plans to make a decision in the
2022 to 2023 timeframe whether to proceed with a Next Gen Combat
Vehicle or to continue with the Engineering Change Proposals for the
Abrams and Bradley fleets.
If confirmed, I intend to take a close look at the Army's combat
vehicle modernization strategy and timeline and make any necessary
adjustments.
Question. Stryker combat vehicle, including the Stryker Lethality
Upgrades
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has retrofitted
Stryker vehicles with a more survivable Double V-Hull in response to an
urgent operational need and an aggressive Improvised Explosive Device
(IED) threat, and that this upgrade has saved lives in Afghanistan.
The Army is also in the process of integrating a 30mm cannon and is
testing an Active Protection System for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment
Stryker vehicles stationed in Germany. I understand these upgrades will
increase the fleet's lethality and survivability. It is my
understanding that the Stryker Combat Vehicle program is meeting its
objectives.
Question. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)
Answer. A Joint Army and Marine Corps program, the Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is currently undergoing product quality testing
prior to its operational testing scheduled to begin next year. I
understand the JLTV provides operational improvements in force
protection, payload, mobility, fuel efficiency and reliability, along
with the growth potential to meet future mission requirements.
It is my understanding that this vehicle fleet will provide more
off-road mobility, better fuel efficiency, and more reliability than
the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicles (MRAPs). It
also addresses the force protection, performance and payload
limitations currently in High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.
It is my understanding that the JLTV program is meeting its
objectives.
Question. M1 Abrams tank modernization
Answer. The Abrams Tank has been an essential part of the Army's
force since it entered service in 1980. Its combat capability is
necessary to close with and destroy enemy forces on the modern
battlefield.
It is my understanding that there are several upgrades to the
Abrams fleet that will enhance its capabilities into the future. The
first of those modifications will include an improved armor suite and
greater on-board electrical power, the latter of which will accommodate
modernizing the tactical communications network and employing an Active
Protection System. A second modification, which will begin its
development cycle this year, will upgrade the Abrams aiming and fire
control systems to enable faster and more accurate engagements.
It is my understanding that the Abrams tank modernization program
is meeting its objectives.
Question. M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle modernization
Answer. It is my understanding that the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle
has been an essential part of the Army's force structure since 1981,
and that the Bradley fleet continues to be upgraded to enhance its
capabilities. Key modifications include upgrading the suspension and
improving the service life of the track to regain mobility lost due to
adding armor and other survivability kits during Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Another modification will increase the engine's ability to
generate power and cool both the crew and electronics, while
simultaneously modernizing the tactical communications network.
It is my understanding that the M2 Bradley infantry fighting
vehicle modernization program is meeting its objectives.
Question. Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)
Answer. It is my understanding that, at present, Infantry Brigades
do not have sufficient options for engaging defending enemy forces at
long range with direct fire weapons. As such, one of the priorities for
the Army is to provide Infantry Brigade Combat Teams with a mobile,
protected, direct-fire combat vehicle to engage at long-range, on the
move, against enemy vehicles, hardened fortifications, and dismounted
personnel.
I have been informed the Army is refining some of the performance
requirements and anticipates releasing a Request for Proposal in the
near future to ensure it can deliver improved capability to the
warfighter.
It is my understanding that the final Analysis of Alternatives
report is nearing completion and the funding profile is being refined.
Question. Paladin Integrated Management self-propelled howitzer
modernization
Answer. It is my understanding that beginning in fiscal year 2018,
the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, also known as the
M109A7 Family of Vehicles, is expected to begin replacing the current
M109A6 Self-Propelled Howitzer and its accompanying ammunition supply
vehicle.
I understand that in October 2016, the program suspended its
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation due to a combination of breech
malfunctions, improper crew procedures, and improper maintenance that
generated noxious levels of toxic fumes. I have been informed that
these issues have all been addressed, and that the Program Office is
now incorporating vehicle upgrades, updating training, and improving
maintenance and operating procedures. I understand these improvements
will be retrofitted to the existing fleet after demonstration in
testing.
The Army will conduct a second operational test in early 2018 to
determine the suitability, reliability, and survivability of the
system. The program is funded to conduct the second operational test,
and I understand that the Army is planning to equip its first unit
later in 2018.
Question. Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV)
Answer. The AMPV is a critical component of the Army's Combat
Vehicle Modernization strategy for replacement of the M113 Family of
Vehicles within the Armored Brigade Combat Team. The AMPV is designed
to improve the mobility, lethality, and force protection across five
mission variants: General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Mission Command,
Medical Evacuation, and Medical Treatment.
It is my understanding that the Army delivered its first prototype
General Purpose Vehicle in December 2016. I further understand the AMPV
program is meeting its objectives, and will begin developmental testing
this year to assess the vehicle's suitability, reliability, and
survivability.
Question. Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV)
Answer. I understand that to fill a significant mobility gap facing
Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, the Army initiated the Ground Mobility
Vehicle (GMV) program to provide enhanced tactical mobility that allows
soldiers to minimize the time, exposure, and energy required to close
on a mission objective.
It is my understanding that the Army intends to pursue the GMV by
initially focusing on filling the most urgent operational needs to five
Airborne IBCTs, to include the Global Response Force of the 82d
Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces. The Army will
subsequently assess fielding this capability to the remaining IBCTs.
Question. Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
Answer. I understand that ATACMS provides the Army with all-
weather, rapidly deployable, surface-to-surface, precision strike
capability against point and area targets at extended ranges. The Army
has used ATACMS for decades, and they are still being used effectively
today. An ATACMS Service Life Extension Program effort is ongoing to
qualify obsolescence updates and reset the missile shelf life.
I understand the ATACMS program is currently meeting its
performance objectives.
Question. Stinger surface to air missile
Answer. The Stinger is a man-portable, shoulder fired missile that
provides the Army's short range air defense capability against manned
and unmanned aircraft systems. The Stinger can also be fired by the
Avenger weapon system.
I understand that a Stinger Service Life Extension Program effort
is ongoing to qualify obsolescence updates and reset the missile shelf
life. As part of this effort, the Stinger Proximity Fuze is an
additional effort to improve lethality against UAS targets. By
integrating a Proximity Fuze modification, the fuse will detonate the
warhead as the missile passes within lethal distance of a target to
ensure destruction. The Army plans to begin fielding the Stinger
Proximity Fuze capability in 2018.
Question. MIM-104 Patriot surface to air missile
Answer. I understand the PATRIOT modernization effort is intended
to ensure the defeat of evolving aircraft, cruise missile, large
caliber rockets, and ballistic missile threats. The currently fielded
interceptor, the Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), provides improved
range and maneuverability to mitigate and defeat evolving and advanced
threats.
I am aware the PATRIOT modernization efforts include developing the
Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS), which is intended
to provide the required sensing capabilities within the lower tier
portion of the ballistic missile defense battlespace. LTAMDS aims to
provide increased capability over the existing radar through improved
battlespace management and enhanced sensor performance to mitigate and
defeat evolving threats.
Question. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
Answer. It is my understanding that Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) is a globally-transportable, rapidly-deployable
capability designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside
or outside the atmosphere during their final, or terminal, phase of
flight. The Missile Defense Agency continues to develop the THAAD
weapon system in response to the United States Strategic Command
Prioritized Capabilities List to maintain and improve performance
against new and emerging threats. THAAD currently has six operational
U.S. Army batteries and two United Arab Emirates batteries. It is my
understanding that a seventh U.S. Army battery will complete New
Equipment Training in the first half of 2018.
Question. AH-64E Apache modernization and Manned-Unmanned
Reconnaissance (MUR)
Answer. The Apache is the Army's only heavy attack helicopter and
is a critical asset on the modern battlefield, providing close air
support to our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Apache dates
back to the 1980s, and the latest version, the AH-64E, is the second
remanufacture of that proven system.
I understand that Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) is a force-
multiplying capability for the Apache. During MUM-T, the AH-64E Apache
receives video feeds and target coordinates from an Army Gray Eagle or
Shadow unmanned aircraft. By providing the pilot increased situational
awareness prior to engaging the threat, I understand the MUM-T greatly
increases the Apache's combat lethality and survivability.
I understand the Army entered into a 5-year multi-year procurement
contract this year for substantial savings on 284 Apaches, of which 251
will be remanufactured and 33 will be new builds.
I understand the AH-64E Apache modernization and Manned-Unmanned
Reconnaissance programs are meeting their objectives.
Question. Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
Answer. The Army's Tactical Network is one of the first areas I
intend to closely review if confirmed. I am aware the Army's intent is
to halt the procurement of WIN-T Increment 2 at the end of fiscal year
2018. While WIN-T components have provided important communications
capabilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, I understand that not all
elements are performing as needed to meet the operational requirements
against a near peer adversary. However, I further understand the Army
has identified purposed-capabilities of WIN-T Increment 2 to ``fight
tonight'' as they work on an acquisition strategy to achieve the
objective state tactical network. Any system the Army fields needs to
be reliable, resilient, protected, and mobile.
I understand that the tactical network is only a portion of the
Chief of Staff of the Army's review of all Army networking programs to
confirm existing and future requirements and ensure the Army is able to
field the best capability to our soldiers. I understand that this
review will include an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance of
the program. If confirmed, I aim to work closely with the Chief of
Staff and other senior Army leaders to review the status and future of
this program.
Question. Distributed Common Ground System-Army
Answer. I understand DCGS-A is intended to synergize intelligence
operations by synchronizing, integrating, and disseminating
intelligence information at multiple levels throughout the full range
of military operations. I am aware, however, that there have been a
range of complaints about DCGS-A's ease of use by soldiers at the
tactical level.
I understand the Army is working hard to ensure compliance with
fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The fiscal
year 2017 NDAA seeks to improve Increment 1's usability to tactical
echelons through a competitive commercial off-the-shelf procurement,
using Firm Fixed Price contracts, and fielding the capability quickly.
It is my understanding that the Army is currently assessing how to
restructure the program in accordance with the fiscal year 2017 NDAA.
Further, I understand that the Chief of Staff is currently
reviewing all Army networking programs, including DCGS-A. I understand
that this review will include an assessment of cost, timeline, and
performance of the program. If confirmed, I aim to work closely with
the Chief and other senior Army leaders to review the status and future
of this program.
Question. Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)
Answer. I understand that tactical radios for the Army are now
comprised primarily of the Handheld, Manpack, & Small Form Fit (HMS),
Airborne Maritime Fixed-Station (AMF), and SINCGARS radios. Tactical
Radios are part of the overall network modernization effort for the
Army's tactical network. The radios provide man-portable, vehicle-
mounted, aerial communication and data transport services for the
Tactical Network.
I understand the Army is committed to developing and fielding the
Army Tactical Network as part of a modernized Army network that
improves effectiveness, security, and efficiency, while providing the
connectivity from home station to the deployed tactical unit.
I further understand the Chief of Staff is conducting a review of
all Army Networking programs, and that this review will include an
assessment of cost, schedule, and performance of the tactical network
programs. If confirmed, I aim to work closely with the Chief and other
senior Army leaders to review the status and future of this program.
Question. Joint Multi-Role rotorcraft program (JMR)
Answer. I understand the objective of the Joint Multi-Role (JMR)
Technology Demonstrator research is to inform the Army's Future
Vertical Lift (FVL) program of transformational vertical lift
capabilities. The aim of the FVL program is to develop the next
generation of more capable vertical lift aircraft for all military
services.
I also understand the JMR Demonstrator science and technology
effort intends to reduce risk for the planned FVL Program of Record by
showing that enabling technologies are achievable, and by informing
capabilities and requirements. Having these results available to the
Department of Defense as it makes decisions regarding the modernization
of the current vertical lift fleet should be extremely valuable to all
the Services.
Question. Small arms modernization (SAM)
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army plans to modernize its
small arms weapons to enhance their lethality, range, reliability, and
weight reduction. The Army continuously assesses weapon system
capabilities with the goal of overmatching any adversary, while
ensuring solutions are effective, suitable, reliable, and survivable.
I am informed that ongoing modernization programs include the newly
awarded XM17 Modular Handgun System, and upgrades to/replacements for
the M4A1 Carbine, M2A1 Machine Gun, and the M240 Machine Gun.
I believe the Army's efforts to upgrade its combat service rifle
and machine guns must be far more effective and efficient than the
process by which it selected its new handgun. I also believe small arms
modernization is an area very suitable for outreach to the commercial
sector for an ``off the shelf'' or easily adaptable solution for a new
weapon. The Army should also look at what its allies are using to see
if their systems can be used/adapted for the soldiers' needs. If
confirmed, I intend to pay close attention to the Army's small arms
modernization plans to ensure these programs are within cost, schedule,
and performance objectives.
Question. Personal protective equipment modernization (PPE)
Answer. My assessment is that the Army continues to provide
exceptional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Protecting our
soldiers against a wide range of bullets, grenades, improvised
explosive devices, and blunt impact is a top priority. I understand
that the Army is constantly working to reduce weight and improve
performance of PPE. The Army's next generation PPE system is the
modular and mission-tailorable Soldier Protection System (SPS), and
that the SPS offers better performance, reduced weight, better fit, and
increased mobility for all soldiers, male and female.
It is my understanding that the Army's PPE modernization through
the SPS program is meeting its objectives.
Question. AN/TPQ-53 Counter Fire RADAR
Answer. I understand the AN/TPQ-53 Counter Fire Radar detects,
classifies, tracks, and locates the points of origin of projectiles
fired from mortar, artillery, and rocket systems, and provides counter-
battery target acquisition capabilities for all types of military
operations. The system has both 90- and 360-degree capability and is
the replacement for the Army's legacy fleet of AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37
Firefinder Radars.
The AN/TPQ-53 has proven itself in combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I am aware the Army is assessing the AN/TPQ-53's ability
to identify and track unmanned aerial systems, with the goal of
tracking rocket, artillery, mortar targets and unmanned aerial systems
simultaneously.
I understand the AN/TPQ-53 Counter Fire Radar program is meeting
its objectives.
army-related defense industrial base
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the systems
and processes for identifying, evaluating, and managing risk in the
Army's organic and commercial defense industrial base?
Answer. It is vitally important that the Nation have a diverse,
vibrant, innovative, resilient, and competitive defense industrial
base. Our warfighters across the Defense Department rely on this base
to provide the weapons, equipment, and systems they need to deploy,
fight, and win across the full spectrum of conflict.
It is my understanding that the Department currently has
appropriate systems and processes for identifying, evaluating, and
managing risk in the Army's organic and commercial defense industrial
base. However, these systems must continue to evolve to ensure we keep
pace with the ever-changing global environment, technologies, and the
private sector, among other things.
It is also my understanding that the Army continually identifies,
evaluates, and manages risk in the organic (Army-owned) and commercial
components of the Army Industrial Base. In the organic component, the
Army assesses critical capabilities, minimum sustaining workloads, and
other attributes of its facilities to ensure these facilities can meet
requirements during mobilizations, national defense contingencies, and
other emergencies. As part of managing organic risk, I understand the
Army continues to work with the commercial sector to establish
partnerships to reduce costs and preserve critical manufacturing and
technological capabilities at Army facilities.
I also understand the Army works closely with the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy office and other federal
agencies to identify fragile and critical suppliers; assess financial,
operational, geopolitical, and socio-economic risks; and take actions
to mitigate risk. Each year, the Army synchronizes its commercial
assessments based on expertise from both within and external to the
Army to ensure assessments support optimal operational readiness of all
Army weapons systems.
If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the Army's processes to
identify, assess, and mitigate risk in the defense industrial base
while ensuring compliance with the law.
Question. What is the health of the supply chain needed for the
Army's industrial base? What key supply chains are in jeopardy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army's supply chain that
supports the defense industrial base is generally healthy and
responsive. From my personal experience in the private sector, however,
I am aware of how the lack of sustained, predictable, year-over-year
funding can put severe strain on the supply chain. If confirmed, I will
work with senior Army and Department of Defense leaders on the health
and vibrancy of the supply chain.
Question. Should Army acquisition leaders consider impacts on the
industrial base when addressing requirements for recapitalization or
modernization of major end items such as tanks, tactical wheeled
vehicles, or key repair parts?
Answer. Yes. The industrial base is vital to the Nation's security.
As such, I believe the Army should continue to carefully consider
impacts on the industrial base when addressing all requirements for
both recapitalization and modernization.
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 Army-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 work with senior Army leaders to
review the systems and processes the Service uses to identify, monitor,
assess, and mitigate supply chain risk in the Army Industrial Base, and
to identify more effective ways to ensure a capable and ready supply
chain. It is my understanding that the Army already works with the
relevant DOD offices, other military services, federal agencies, and
industry partners to identify, evaluate, and mitigate supply chain risk
in the Army Industrial Base. If confirmed, I will support the Army's
efforts, in concert with its partners, to procure superior, reliable,
and affordable weapons systems and equipment to meet the needs of our
soldiers.
army science and technology
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the role
that Army science and technology programs have played and will play in
developing capabilities for current and future Army systems?
Answer. I believe Army Science and Technology (S&T) programs are
critical to maintain current Army readiness and modernize for the
future. Technology, and those capabilities enabled by technology, are
critical to our soldiers. It is my view that the Army S&T Enterprise
should be focused on enabling soldiers to dominate the battlefield,
across the full spectrum of conflict, today and in the future.
Army S&T is a critical future investment, developing new
capabilities with game-changing potential, evaluating technology and
system vulnerabilities, and addressing affordability, sustainability,
reliability, and manufacturability issues throughout the system design
process. The Army S&T Enterprise should continue to align with and
enable the needs of the soldier today and for the Army of the future.
If confirmed, I will work closely with senior Army leaders to ensure
this alignment through a disciplined process that is focused on
improving soldier capabilities.
Question. Given the budget, how will you ensure that Army science
and technology programs will successfully transition to operational
warfighting capabilities?
Answer. I believe the key to ensuring that Army science and
technology programs successfully transition to operational warfighting
capabilities is stable and predictable funding, solid alignment with
the modernization strategy, and accountable leadership. The Army must
also improve its business practices; reduce unnecessary costs;
eliminate bureaucratic policies and procedures; delayer, reshape, and/
or right-size organizations; and take other actions that free up
resources that can be invested in other priorities, such as Army
science and technology.
If confirmed, I will review and work with the Army's senior leaders
on the Service's modernization investment strategy. Such strategies
include planning, programming, and budgeting for acquisition Programs
of Record (PoRs) across the full spectrum of Doctrine, Organization,
Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy. I
understand Army S&T researchers assess these PoRs throughout their life
cycles, and inform the research and development community of
opportunities for technology insertions into ongoing PoRs.
Further, I understand Transition Agreements are critical mechanisms
utilized to transition knowledge and technology products effectively
and efficiently, ensuring collaboration and synergy between the S&T
Enterprise and Materiel Developers. If confirmed, I will work with the
Army's senior leaders to ensure S&T programs are aligned to priority
capability gaps and soldier needs.
Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to judge the
value and the investment level in Army science and technology programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will verify that the Army's science and
technology efforts align to soldier needs and priority capability gaps.
I will ensure the development of metrics that measure the effectiveness
of the Army's investments--paying close attention to schedule, cost,
suitability, adaptability, and performance--and will further ensure
those investments are driving a desired, measureable, and useable
technological edge over potential adversaries.
army laboratories and research, development, and engineering centers
(rdec)
Question. What role should Army laboratories play in supporting
current operations and in developing new capabilities to support Army
missions?
Answer. I believe that Army laboratories should work diligently and
collaboratively to deliver technology-enabled solutions for current
conflicts and develop technologies to prepare the Army for multiple
futures by enhancing the Army's ability to prevent, shape, and win
decisively on the battlefield. If confirmed, I will look closely at the
role the laboratories play in this regard, and look for opportunities
to further enhance their alignment, deliverables, and cost
effectiveness.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Army
laboratories and research and development centers have a high quality
workforce, laboratory infrastructure, resources, and management, so
that they can continue to support deployed forces and develop next
generation capabilities?
Answer. It is my view that innovation is critical to the Army's
future, so it must be adequately resourced and focused. If confirmed, I
will work to better understand the specific issues and challenges
facing the Army labs and the entire Science and Technology workforce. I
want to ensure they have the necessary tools, personnel, and facilities
available to provide world-class support to the soldier. This would
include, for example, reviewing civilian personnel policies to address
professional development and advancement opportunities.
Question. Do you support the full utilization of authorities
established by Congress under the Laboratory Personnel Demonstration
program that is currently being run in many Army RDECs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the full utilization of
authorities established by Congress under the Laboratory Personnel
Demonstration Program. I understand these authorities enable the Army
to compete with the private sector to attract, recruit, train, and
retain a top tier STEM workforce.
Question. Do you believe that all RDECs in the Army's Research,
Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM) need enhanced personnel
authorities in order to attract and retain the finest technical
workforce? Would you support expansion of the Laboratory Personnel
Demonstration authorities to all of RDECOM's laboratories and
engineering centers?
Answer. It is my understanding that all Army laboratories and RDECs
are already designated as Science and Technology Reinvention Labs
(STRLs), providing them with all the authorities included as part of
the Laboratory Personnel Demonstration project. I further understand
that the Army STRLs include the RDECOM laboratories and engineering
centers, the Corps of Engineers laboratories, the Medical Command
laboratories, the Army Research Institute, and the Space and Missile
Defense Technical Center. It is my understanding that the Laboratory
Personnel Demonstration authorities provide laboratory directors
important tools to shape their workforce and remain competitive with
the private sector. If confirmed I will work with the S&T Enterprise
and Congress to ensure these authorities are properly utilized and to
seek new authorities where necessary to further enable the Army's
ability to attract and retain a top tier workforce.
Question. Do you believe that the Army's laboratories and
engineering centers should have a separate, dynamic personnel system,
uniquely tailored to support laboratory directors' requirements to
attract and retain the highest quality scientific and engineering
talent?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take a close look at this issue to
better understand the current system, and the potential impacts of
moving to a different system. I understand the Army labs and RDECs have
the necessary authorities, under the Laboratory Personnel Demonstration
project, to grant laboratory directors the ability to attract, recruit,
and retain the highest quality scientific and engineering personnel by
providing hiring flexibilities, rapid on-boarding, and flexible
compensation options. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the
S&T Enterprise to ensure we are able to attract and retain the highest
quality workforce.
Question. How will you assess the quality of Army laboratory
infrastructure and the adequacy of investments being made in new
military construction and sustainment of that infrastructure?
Answer. My understanding is that Army laboratory facilities have an
average age of more than 50 years. Given my experiences in the private
sector, I appreciate that to continue developing cutting-edge
technology that supports the soldier--and continue to recruit and
retain the most talented personnel--the Army needs to have modern
buildings, equipment, and other resources. If confirmed, I will study
the challenges facing our Science and Technology infrastructure and
look at various options to ensure the Army makes the investments
necessary to modernize its laboratory infrastructure in support of Army
research and development.
Question. Are you concerned about the current or future supply of
experts in defense critical disciplines, particularly personnel with
appropriate security clearances, to hold positions in defense
laboratories?
Answer. I am concerned generally about the number of students
pursuing Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) degrees
nationally, and the competition that occurs within and between the
private and public sectors for that limited pool of talent once they
graduate. This is a very competitive and dynamic personnel issue that
Army leaders need to pay close attention to if the Service is going to
attract top tier talent. Making this issue even more difficult is the
challenge of getting security clearances for these personnel in a
timely manner. These are challenges I have seen in my private sector
experience that directly impact the defense industry.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Army can compete with
the private sector to attract and retain the highest quality personnel
for a variety of STEM fields, including critical areas such as
materials science, biotechnology, and cyber. Further, I will be
committed to working with Congress to ensure the Army has all necessary
authorities to access a high quality and cleared workforce.
army test and evaluation (t&e) efforts
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Army's 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 ensure funding for the Army's T&E
infrastructure is adequate to support Army and other Service
acquisition program testing requirements--both today and in the future.
This will require both sustainment funding for the capabilities we
currently have and investment in new capabilities in order to be
prepared to test new weapon systems as they are developed. I believe
that soldiers deserve the best weapon systems available, and that T&E
is the method the Army uses to determine if a weapon system is
effective, suitable, and survivable. If confirmed, I will ensure T&E is
adequately funded and capable to accomplish this critical mission.
Question. What metrics will you use to assess the quality of the
Army's T&E infrastructure?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ask the Army's T&E leaders to show me
the quantitative and qualitative metrics they use to measure the state
of the T&E infrastructure, which includes both test installations and
test equipment. I would expect to see that the Army's T&E managers are
listening to their customers and to their employees in areas such as
customer satisfaction, adequacy of tests, appropriateness of tests,
causes of test delays, and cost of testing, for example. I will also
review how test managers address known capability gaps in advance of
program testing needs, and what role they play in the requirement
setting process. If confirmed, I will also assess how the Army is
investing in test capability modernization to keep pace with the
requirements of new weapon systems, and the overall role that T&E plays
in the Army acquisition system.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that weapon systems
and other technologies that are fielded by the Army are adequately
operationally tested?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with senior Army leaders and the
Army's operational test communities to ensure all Army weapons,
systems, platforms, and other technologies are operationally tested in
ways that replicate realistic combat conditions against current and
future threats; operational testing also requires that systems be
tested using commodity specific soldiers. Additionally, these
technologies must be assessed against the performance parameters they
were designed to meet. Doing so means that the testing community
participates in the Acquisition process up front and throughout, and
that the Army addresses all operational test concerns early in the test
planning process. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Army
invests in the operational testing mission, and is ready to conduct
effective operational tests along these lines.
army information technology programs
Question. What major improvements would you like to see made in the
Army's development and deployment of major information technology
systems?
Answer. I believe the Army must improve its ability to modernize
its IT systems, with the private sector serving as its benchmark with
regard to speed, features, and quality, so that it is able to deploy,
fight, and win along the full spectrum of conflict in a contested
environment. The Army must be better postured to first anticipate, then
rapidly leverage, industry-driven technological advances. For the Army
to be successful, it requires a joint end-to-end network that is
expeditionary, mobile, user-friendly, protected, and interoperable with
Joint Forces down to the tactical level. If confirmed, I will work with
DOD, the private sector, and senior Army leaders to study and address
this issue.
Question. How will you encourage process and cultural change in
organizations so that they maximize the benefits that new enterprise
information technology systems can offer in terms of cost savings and
efficiency?
Answer. I believe that in order for the Army to remain ahead of its
current and future adversaries, process and culture change must occur.
Based on my experience in the private sector, I believe the Army must
partner with industry and agile adopters like the special operations
community to leverage proven and available solutions that avoid long
delays and excessive cost. If confirmed, I will look to the private
sector for innovative ways to improve existing IT Architecture, and
work with senior Army leaders to utilize flexible contracting
strategies to rapidly obtain, test and upgrade new capabilities.
Question. What is the relationship between Army efforts at
implementing enterprise information technology programs and supporting
computing services and infrastructure to support Army missions and
efforts being undertaken by the Defense Information Systems Agency?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA) plays an integral role in the Army's network, and assists
the Army in driving and implementing many of the Defense Department's
Cyber and Information Technology initiatives to improve operational
effectiveness, security, and efficiency. This includes those
initiatives that cut across other component services. As a result, the
Army and DISA have a strong partnership. If confirmed, I will work with
senior Army leaders to provide the most effective, secure and efficient
enterprise network available for our Warfighters, and to continue the
strong partnership with DISA.
Question. Given the nature of information technology change and
development, are traditional acquisition procedures effective?
Answer. No, I do not believe so. The traditional acquisition
process has its place and value in the development of complex systems
in direct support of the warfighter. However, it is probably not the
best acquisition model for the technology sector given the rapid rate
of change in private sector IT systems. As such, I understand the Army
is working to improve policies and procedures to provide greater
flexibility in meeting urgent IT needs. Additionally, the Army
recognizes the greater flexibility that recent National Defense
Authorization Acts have provided through the use of Other Transaction
Authorities, for example, as another tool to help it keep pace with the
rate of technological change. If confirmed, I will work with senior
Army leaders to leverage these tools and pursue even greater
flexibility when it comes to acquiring IT systems.
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 Army infrastructure investment?
Answer. I believe the Army has under invested in infrastructure
over the past 15 years. The Army has taken risk in infrastructure
investment in order to balance resources between force structure,
readiness, and modernization. Currently, the Army's infrastructure
investment is not able to keep pace with normal facility degradation.
As the Army restructures and fields new equipment to meet new demands,
it must also invest in the infrastructure needed to preserve it.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
increase resources to reduce the backlog and improve Army facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review and assess the facility
backlog with the Army's senior leaders and determine its impact on
readiness and soldiers. I would direct Army leaders to develop a
focused program to address infrastructure deficiencies for the most
mission critical facilities; prioritize those that most directly impact
readiness; and allocate available funds accordingly.
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. Yes. I support efforts to reduce and realign excess Army
infrastructure. This is important to the Service's fiscal health in the
long run. The savings seen in the out years could be reinvested in
other priorities, such as modernization. Any efforts to reduce
infrastructure, however, should be informed by the National Defense
Strategy, National Military Strategy, likely future budgets, as well as
the ongoing challenges facing the Army when it comes to readiness and
modernization.
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
Army?
Answer. I understand that if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, the authorization would also likely establish the process
and criteria for the Department to follow. If confirmed, I would work
with Army and DOD leaders, subject matter experts, and others as
appropriate to ensure the Army's BRAC priorities are consistent with
the National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy, comply
with the law enacted by Congress, and enhance the Army's ability to
execute its title 10 responsibilities.
Question. If confirmed and if Congress were to authorize another
BRAC round, what is your understanding of the responsibilities of the
Army in working with local communities with respect to property
disposal?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that the Army works closely
with local communities impacted by BRAC decisions. The Army would need
to work especially close with potential property transferees who have
the resources and knowledge to swiftly put surplus BRAC property back
into productive use.
It has been noted repeatedly that the 2005 BRAC round resulted in
major and unanticipated implementation costs and saved far less money
than originally estimated.
Question. What is your understanding of why such cost growth and
lower realized savings have occurred?
Answer. It is my understanding that during the last BRAC round, a
couple key factors that contributed to cost growth and lower realized
savings were that the Army was undergoing a transformation to Brigade
Combat Teams, and the Army was re-stationing overseas forces back to
the U.S. These actions drove the need to construct new facilities,
which in turn presented new costs. Further, I understand that savings
from closing sites overseas were not counted as BRAC 2005 savings, even
though they were quite substantial.
Question. How do you believe such issues could be addressed in a
future BRAC round?
Answer. BRAC rounds should support the National Defense Strategy,
National Military Strategy, the Army's strategic/force posture, and the
Service's ability to fulfill its title 10 requirements. Any future BRAC
round should be all-encompassing with regard to costs and savings, and
produce a solid return on investment. Ideas such as placing a time
limit for assessing and realizing any net savings should be considered.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee on how the
Army can accomplish its mission and realize cost savings by reducing
excess infrastructure.
religious guidelines
Question. In your view, do Department of the Army 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. Based on my current understanding, I believe Army policies
support the religious rights of soldiers, including their right to
abstain from religious practice. This was my experience as well during
my 21 years in uniform. The Army's policy for religious accommodation
incorporates the tenets of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in
order to apply the appropriate legal standard in granting religious
accommodations. The Army is a standards-based organization and any
person who meets these standards is eligible to serve regardless of
their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Question. Under current law and policy, are individual expressions
of belief accommodated so long as they do not impact good order and
discipline?
Answer. Yes. I understand that individual expressions are being
appropriately accommodated. The Army has taken several steps in the
last year to streamline and routinize the process for soldiers to
request religious accommodation, and for commanders with the
appropriate authority to grant those accommodations. Commanders are
obligated to consider every religious accommodation request
individually and holistically. This consideration includes impacts on
health and safety, unit cohesion, individual and unit readiness, and
good order and discipline.
Question. In your view, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by Army chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other service members with different beliefs,
including no religious belief?
Answer. I understand the Army does not tell chaplains or soldiers
how, when, or whether to pray. The Chaplain Corps ensures the free
exercise of religion by developing leaders and educating chaplains to
perform or provide religious support to soldiers in a diverse and
pluralistic environment. I further understand that Army chaplains are
trained to conduct all religious support, to include prayers, with
integrity and sensitivity--each chaplain being faithful to his or her
own religious tradition--and, within that tradition, being as broad and
inclusive as possible based on the audience. The Army believes this is
an effective approach, where freedom and respect go hand in hand.
Soldiers are free to exercise their individual religious faith (or not)
and to bow in prayer (or not), with each respecting the others' freedom
of religion and public expression. This was my experience during my
time in uniform.
Question. What is your assessment of measures taken at the U.S.
Military Academy to ensure religious tolerance and respect?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army's leadership at West
Point is fully committed to protecting the constitutional rights of
everyone at the Academy to freely practice their religious beliefs, and
in promoting a climate of tolerance and respect for every persons'
exercise of their religious beliefs.
delivery of legal services
Question. What is your understanding of the respective roles of the
General Counsel and Judge Advocate General of the Army in providing the
Secretary of the Army with legal advice?
Answer. It is my understanding that the General Counsel is the
legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army and the chief legal officer
of the Department of the Army. As such, the General Counsel is
responsible for coordinating legal and policy advice to all members of
Department. In addition, the General Counsel is responsible for
determining the Department's position on any legal question or
procedure.
Further, it is my understanding that The Judge Advocate General of
the Army is the principal legal adviser to the Chief of Staff of the
Army and the Army Staff and directs the members of The Judge Advocate
General's Corps in the performance of their duties. It is also my
understanding that The Judge Advocate General provides independent
legal advice to the Secretary of the Army and members of the Army
Secretariat in coordination with the General Counsel, and that The
Judge Advocate General has primary responsibility for providing legal
advice and services regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice and
the administration of military discipline.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of The Judge
Advocate General of the Army to provide independent legal advice to the
Chief of Staff of the Army?
Answer. In my view, The Judge Advocate General's expertise and
counsel should be available to both the Secretary of the Army and the
Chief of Staff of the Army. Further, no officer or employee of the
Department of Defense should ever interfere with the ability of The
Judge Advocate General to give independent legal advice to the Chief of
Staff of the Army. If confirmed, I will fully support The Judge
Advocate General providing independent legal advice to senior Army
leaders. I know from my own military service that uniformed attorneys
bring a unique perspective to the practice of law, and that they can be
counted upon to provide the type of candid, insightful advice to senior
leaders that is absolutely essential in today's complex strategic
environment.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of staff judge
advocates within the Army to provide independent legal advice to
military commanders throughout the Army establishment?
Answer. It is critical that staff judge advocates in the Army be
able to provide independent legal advice to military commanders
throughout the Service. As such, I fully support the statute that
prohibits any officer or Department of Defense employee from
interfering with the ability of judge advocates to give candid legal
advice to commanders. This advice is critical to commanders and Army
leaders who need to maintain accountability and ensure the good order
and discipline of the force, all of which is vital to the Army
accomplishing its mission.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's sexual assault
prevention and response program?
Answer. Sexual harassment and assault are detractors to readiness
and erode the trust, unity, and esprit required for the Army and its
soldiers to succeed. There can be no tolerance for this behavior; one
incident is too many. As such, I believe senior Army leaders take this
issue seriously and that the Service is working hard to prevent sexual
harassment and assault.
However, more can and must be done. If confirmed, I will continue
to resource efforts like the Special Victim Counsel program and the
Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Resource
Centers that provide consolidated or collocated services. I support the
Army placing additional focus on prevention and assisting Commanders in
creating healthy climates based on the dignity and respect of each
member of the Army Team. I believe it is my duty, like that of all
leaders, to exemplify the Army Ethic and set the right tone across the
Total Army.
If confirmed, I will continue to make sexual harassment and assault
prevention, and investigation and response, a top priority for soldiers
and leaders at all levels.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Army has in place to prevent sexual assaults and to
investigate and respond to allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. I understand the Army has placed a priority on ensuring
that sufficient training and resources are available to leaders and
units to prevent sexual assault and harassment, and to investigate and
respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment. The Army
enhanced its training program by including facilitated group
discussions and incorporating sophisticated, interactive, avatar-based
gaming technology.
I also understand the Army has a well-regarded sexual assault
investigators course that has been used to train other Services'
personnel, resulting in exceptional investigative capabilities within
the Army and throughout the Department of Defense. The Army's Special
Victim Prosecutors focus on sexual assault and family violence crimes.
As I understand it, this allows the Army prosecution team to provide
the best possible guidance to investigators and commanders.
If confirmed, I will ensure the Army's efforts to prevent sexual
harassment and assault, and investigate and respond, are performing as
required, and that these programs are sufficiently resourced and
receiving ample support from the chain of command.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's Special Victim
Counsel Program?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Special Victim Counsel
(SVC) Program provides a capability that the Army views as unique and
very successful. SVCs provide legal representation to victims of sexual
assault at forty-three Army installations and forward deployed
locations worldwide. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more
about this program, ensuring it is performing as required, and
providing it the necessary resources and leadership focus.
Question. What is your understanding of the adequacy of Army
resources and programs to provide victims of sexual assault the
medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
Answer. I understand the Army has a response system in place for
soldiers, Department of the Army Civilians, and Family Members who are
victims of sexual assault that includes Sexual Harassment/Assault
Response and Prevention (SHARP) Resource Centers. These Centers provide
consolidated or collocated medical, legal and outreach services.
Further, I understand that through the Army's professional corps of
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Victim Advocates, victims are
advised of the availability of medical, psychological and legal
assistance, including the assignment of a Special Victim Counsel. If
confirmed, I look forward to learning more about these efforts,
ensuring they are performing as required, and providing them the
resources and command attention they demand.
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. Based on my time in the Army, and as a Commander, I am
convinced that the Commander's role in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice is critical to the success of the military justice system, and
to Army units accomplishing their mission. In my view, the authority to
discipline and to hold soldiers accountable is an essential and
fundamental responsibility of Commanders, particularly given the unique
nature of military service. Further, I am concerned that removing this
authority would send the wrong message to Commanders that they are
somehow less responsible for good order and discipline, and for setting
the right example as leaders. Given all this, I would be reluctant to
remove a Commander's disposition authority and potentially undermine
the progress that has been made. Rather, we need to hold leaders
accountable for their own actions, and for those of their soldiers.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's protections against
retaliation or reprisal for reporting sexual assault?
Answer. I understand the Army leadership has made it very clear
that sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation have no place
in the Army. I couldn't agree more. This type of misconduct directly
impacts readiness. Through Sergeant Major of the Army Dailey's
initiative, ``Not In My Squad,'' the focus on empowering first-line
soldiers and Civilians to lead the charge against sexual assault,
sexual harassment, and retaliation by fostering positive unit climates
and encouraging bystander intervention is spot on.
With this emphasis on leadership at all levels to prevent and
respond to sexual assault and harassment, the Army is also tackling
acts of retaliation and reprisal against those who report, intervene,
or witness incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault.
Additionally, the Army has taken formal steps to criminalize
retaliation through policy and regulations, and has implemented
stringent investigation and reporting requirements. If confirmed, I
will ensure the Army continues to address retaliation and assess its
prevention and response processes in order to remove all barriers to
reporting.
Question. What is your view on the role of the chain of command in
changing the military culture in which these sexual assaults occur?
Answer. I believe the chain of command's role is at the center of
changing the culture. The Army leadership understands the chain of
command is the key to ensuring a professional climate of dignity and
respect for all Army soldiers, civilians, and family members.
Every member of the Army team must be able to come forward with any
concerns about their work, home, or social environments. The Sexual
Harassment/Assault Response Program (SHARP) is a command program, and
all members of the chain of command have a duty to enforce the program
through the appropriate use of Army resources. Leaders at all levels
have a fundamental duty to set the right tone and example when it comes
to sexual assault and harassment, and to address violations of the
SHARP program quickly and fairly.
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 Army,
and if confirmed, what actions will you take to address it?
Answer. I feel strongly that a single incident of child abuse is
one too many. As a father, I find such incidents particularly
troubling. As a former soldier, I know that child abuse is contrary to
the Army's values, and the expectations we have of all service members.
I understand that the Army recently took steps to improve reporting of
child abuse and ensure adequate support is provided for all victims. If
confirmed, I will work hard to ensure prevention programs are
appropriately resourced, leaders are empowered to help prevent child
abuse, victims are provided treatment and kept safe, and that offenders
are held accountable.
abusive online conduct
Question. This Committee has 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 service members. Members of the group included a
number of active-duty service members, former military members, and
military retirees.
What is the current Department of the Army policy for use of social
media by soldiers?
Answer. Army Regulation 600-20, Command Policy, prohibits the use
of electronic devices and online media for bullying, hazing,
retaliation, and any other form of misconduct. In 2015, the Army
updated its existing online conduct policy, which was supplemented and
reissued this year. Current policy allows Commanders to take punitive
measures for abusive online conduct.
This updated guidance advises Army personnel that online
misconduct, to include harassment, bullying, stalking, discrimination,
and retaliation, or any activity that undermines dignity and respect,
is inconsistent with Army Values and negatively impacts the command
climate and readiness. Furthermore, the policy strongly encourages
immediate reporting by victims of online misconduct, or from those who
witness such conduct.
Question. In your view, is this policy adequate to address abuses
such as what occurred in the Marines United incident?
Answer. While I believe that current law, regulations and policies
are adequate to address online abuse, these need to be continually
reviewed. Equally important, however, is that Army leaders understand
the critical role they play in helping to prevent this abuse and
enforcing professional standards. Without continued messaging and
enforcement, online abuse can affect individual and unit readiness in
harmful ways.
Question. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure that
members of the Army are not subjected to abusive online conduct?
Answer. I believe that leader engagement is key to eradicating this
toxic behavior. Commanders and leaders at all levels must take
responsibility for talking about this problem and enforcing this
prohibition. If confirmed, I will work with Army leaders to continue to
enforce standards and advance initiatives that promote adherence to
Army values and professional conduct across the force.
Question. In your view, does the Army have sufficient legal
authority to hold offenders accountable for such misconduct?
Answer. Yes. In my view, Commanders have sufficiently broad
authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to address a range
of online misconduct committed by service members.
Question. What legislative authorities, if any, do you believe are
necessary to address this problem?
Answer. I believe Commanders have sufficient authority now to hold
offenders accountable. However, if confirmed, I will assess the need
for any additional authorities and consult with the Committee as
appropriate.
balance between civilian employees and contractor employees
Question. The Army employs many contractors and civilian employees.
In many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on
the same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same
functions as federal employees. Both contractors and civilians make up
an integral part of the Defense Department's total workforce.
Do you believe that the current balance between civilian employees
and contractor employees best serves the Army?
Answer. Civilian and contractor employees play important and
distinct roles within the Army. I understand that the Army must strike
an appropriate balance between the civilian and contractor workforce
based on the constraints of law and policy, and with regard to the most
cost effective and available source of labor to perform a particular
function. However, contractors should not perform inherently
governmental functions. If confirmed, I commit to conducting an
assessment with Army senior leaders regarding the Army's compliance
with law and policy to ensure the most appropriate and cost effective
mix of civilian and contract employees in the Army.
Question. In your view, has the Department of the Army utilized
contractors to perform basic functions in an appropriate manner?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army works hard to ensure
that its use of contractors complies with statutes and regulatory
authorities prohibiting contractor performance of inherently
governmental functions through the Inventory of Contracts for Services
and Review procedures. If confirmed, I will work with senior Army
leaders to ensure compliance with existing law and policy.
Question. To what extent is the Army relying on military personnel
to perform duties that in your view would be best performed by civilian
personnel or contractors?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army may be relying on
military personnel to perform some duties that could be performed by
civilian personnel or contractors. If confirmed, I would work to ensure
that we preserve military personnel for combat roles and roles that
directly contribute to the readiness of the force.
It is my understanding that current law and DOD policy provides
that military personnel can perform non-military tasks only if military
performance is more cost effective than civilian or contractor
personnel. If confirmed, I will take a close look at the assessment and
monitoring of the mix of military and civilian personnel performing
``like'' jobs or functions to ensure compliance with the law and DOD
policies.
Question. Do you believe that the Army should undertake a
comprehensive reappraisal of ``inherently governmental functions'' and
other critical government functions, and how they are performed?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army already has a process
that continuously evaluates contractor roles and functions in terms of
inherently governmental functions, critical functions, and commercial
activities to ensure compliance with law policy and regulation
governing this issue. If confirmed, I will work with senior Army
leaders to ensure that the most appropriate and cost effective sources
of labor are used to satisfy Army mission requirements.
Question. Are there non-monetary reasons why the Army would need or
desire one type of manpower over the other? If so, provide relevant
examples where of those reasons. Under what circumstances should cost
be used as the primary factor?
Answer. I understand that there are non-monetary reasons that
informed some prior manpower decisions. For example, the law prohibits
contractors from performing inherently governmental functions;
therefore, either military or civilian employees fill these roles.
Additionally, force management levels in both Afghanistan and Iraq
previously led to some contract solutions for functions such as
aircraft maintenance, dining facilities, and other installation
support. Having worked in the business sector, I understand the
relevance of cost as a factor. And having served on active duty in a
theater of conflict, I have had experience with contract employees. If
confirmed, I will follow the law and policy while making decisions that
contribute first and foremost to readiness, while also ensuring the
most cost effective use of our resources.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to remove any artificial
constraints placed on the size of the Army's civilian and contractor
workforce, so that the Army can hire the number and type of employees
most appropriate to accomplish its mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess and work to remove any
artificial constraints placed on the size of the Army's civilian and
contractor workforce. I will also work with Congress and senior Army
leaders to ensure the Army has not only the ability, but also continues
to hire the right types of employees with the right talent and skills
to effectively and efficiently accomplish its mission.
women in combat integration
Question. In December 2015, Secretary Carter changed assignment
policy for women in military service, opening all occupations and units
to them, including ground combat units in the Army and Marine Corps.
Since that time, female soldiers have graduated from Ranger School and
both enlisted and officer female soldiers are being assigned to units
for the first time that have previously been closed to them.
Are you satisfied that the decision to open Army combat arms units
and positions to women was based on an adequate review of the analysis
conducted by the military services?
Answer. I understand that the Army developed a scientific,
evidence-based, legally sufficient, and well-structured process for
gender integration into career fields that had previously been closed
to female soldiers. The Army drew upon several studies to use the best
practices for gender integration and validated standards for every
career field to set conditions for integration. I look forward to
learning more about this process and the various studies behind it.
From a readiness standpoint, having served as an Infantry Officer in
Airborne and Air Assault units, I know that being able to draw upon the
entire pool of eligible recruits, across all career fields, makes the
Army stronger and more agile for meeting mission requirements.
Question. Do you believe there is any reason to revisit this
decision?
Answer. No, I understand the process of integrating women into
combat arms MOSs is proceeding well. I believe that any soldier who can
meet the physical, mental, and skill standards for their contracted
career field, and who can help make the units in their career field
more effective, deserves the opportunity to serve in that career field,
regardless of gender.
Question. Do you believe that the occupational standards developed
by the Army, especially those developed for the ground combat
occupations, reflect ``actual, regular, and recurring duties'' of the
occupation in question, as required by law?
Answer. I understand the Army used gender-neutral standards to
validate occupational standards and tasks for every career field and
specialty. To initially identify whether a recruit can meet the
physical standards for their contracted occupational specialty, the
Army developed an occupational physical assessment test (OPAT).
Recruiters administer this test at all recruiting stations to ensure
that recruits meet the minimum physical standards for their contracted
specialty and are ready for basic training. I look forward to learning
more about these standards and the associated OPAT to understand better
how it is being applied to promote the success of recruits and the
readiness of units.
Question. Tank crews, howitzer sections, infantry squads, engineer
squads, mortar squads, and scout sections readiness require small unit
stability after weapons qualification. These are the building blocks
that affect battalion and brigade overall readiness. Given available
data, women may have higher rates of injury. What is your view on the
impact this decision would have on unit readiness?
Answer. It is my understanding that the higher rates of injury for
women have had a negligible impact on unit readiness thus far. The Army
is engaged, however, in integrated longitudinal studies that assess
injury rates for all soldiers in career fields previously closed to
female soldiers. The Army anticipates that the results from these
studies will help improve readiness and refine physical standards and
assessments.
Currently, soldiers must be able to perform all tasks in their
occupational specialty in order to graduate from training and
subsequently work in that career field. The occupational physical
assessment test (OPAT) given to recruits before they report to training
is a means to mitigate attrition and injuries by ensuring that recruits
are physically qualified for their contracted occupational specialty.
If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the Army's ongoing study
to more fully understand the variables that could impact injury rates
in all soldiers, and the best options the Army can pursue for reducing
injury rates for all soldiers.
morale, welfare, and recreation (mwr)
Question. If confirmed, what challenges do you foresee in
sustaining Army MWR programs in the future fiscal environment?
Answer. I believe that a significant challenge is identifying and
prioritizing those programs that are most important to soldiers and
their families, and then ensuring they are properly resourced in a
fiscally constrained environment. My family and I enjoyed the Army's
MWR programs when we were on active duty. If confirmed, I intend to
ensure the Army continues to make MWR a priority by providing quality,
sustainable, soldier and family-focused MWR programs and services.
military health system reorganization
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 and again in June, this Committee
received the Department of Defense's interim reports 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
medical commands, and those commands would be subject to two separate
lines of authority--the DHA and the Services.
Do you believe that a component model, with establishment of new
intermediary medical commands under two separate lines of authority,
would make the military health system flatter, more agile, and more
efficient?
Answer. It is my understanding that the details of the future
organizational structures of the DHA and Component Command are still
being developed. The Army, though, believes the component model will
afford opportunities to make the military health system more
responsive, more agile, and more efficient.
Under the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, the
Services retain the responsibility for readiness while the DHA will
assume responsibility for the administration of the military medical
treatment facilities. The component construct establishes Service-led
component commands as the integrating element for Service directed
readiness requirements and DHA directed MTF administration
requirements.
If confirmed, I will take a close look at this issue to ensure the
military health system structure is as agile and efficient as possible
to meet soldiers' needs.
Question. If confirmed, would you reevaluate the Department's
decision to proceed with a component model to implement section 702?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully evaluate the Department's
decision to proceed with a component construct to ensure it will meet
Army readiness requirements and the DHA requirements for the
administration of military medical treatment facilities, to include
budget; information technology; health care administration and
management; administrative policy and procedure; military medical
construction; and other matters the Secretary of Defense determines
appropriate.
Question. 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?
Answer. If confirmed, I will first fully evaluate the Department's
decision to proceed with a component construct to ensure it will meet
Army readiness requirements and the DHA requirements for the
administration of military medical treatment facilities. Based on that
evaluation, I would make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense as
appropriate to ensure the health and readiness of the force is
maintained as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure that the Army reduces its
medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure (including both regional
command staffs and infrastructure) to reflect the more limited scope
and size of its health care missions?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure the Army fully evaluates and
supports efforts to eliminate unnecessary staff, infrastructure, and
activities carried out by the DHA and the Services--to include both
regional command staffs and infrastructure--while ensuring the Army is
able to fulfill its command support and readiness requirements and
functions.
Question. In your view, would a component model streamline the
administration and management of military treatment facilities?
Answer. The Army believes the component model construct does
streamline the administration and management of military medical
treatment facilities because it aligns Service-led component commands
and Service-led MTFs directly under the authority, direction, and
control of the DHA responsible for the administration of the MTFs as it
relates to budget; information technology; health care administration
and management; administrative policy and procedure; military medical
construction; and other matters the Secretary of Defense determines
appropriate.
If confirmed, I will take a close look at this issue to ensure the
military health system structure streamlines the administration and
management of military treatment facilities to meet soldiers' needs
effectively and efficiently.
Question. In your view, would a component model achieve the
Committee's goal to eliminate multiple inefficient layers of management
and bureaucracy in the Department of Defense's medical operations?
Answer. It is the Army's view that the component model construct
would achieve the Committee's goal to eliminate unwarranted duplicative
activities carried out by elements of the DHA and the Military
Departments, while ensuring the Army is able to fulfill its command
support and readiness requirements and functions. If confirmed, I will
study this issue more closely to ensure this model is appropriate, and
that it eliminates inefficient layers of management and bureaucracy in
DOD's medical operations.
Question. In your view, would a component model eliminate the
current stove-piped medical command structures of the Services?
Answer. It is my understanding the component construct will
establish the DHA with the authority, direction and control to function
as the one single point of accountability responsible for the
administration of all military medical treatment facilities as it
relates to budget; information technology; health care administration
and management; administrative policy and procedure; military medical
construction; and other matters the Secretary of Defense determines
appropriate. Further, I understand that each of the Services' medical
departments are established to meet Service-specific requirements using
Total Army Analysis (or similar) methodology. If confirmed, I will take
a close look at this issue to ensure stove pipes are eliminated in this
construct.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure a rapid and efficient
transfer of the operations of the Army's military medical facilities to
the DHA?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure an effective and efficient
transfer of responsibilities for the administration of the military
medical treatment facilities as it relates to budget; information
technology; health care administration and management; administrative
policy and procedure; military medical construction; and other matters
the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate from the Army to the
DHA in accordance with the timelines and milestones set by the
Department of Defense.
family readiness and support
Question. Soldiers and their families in both the active and
reserve components have made, and continue to make, tremendous
sacrifices in support of operational deployments. Senior military
leaders have warned of concerns among military families as a result of
the stress of deployments and the separations that go with them.
What do you consider to be the most important family readiness
issues for soldiers, 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. The stress of deployment(s)--before, during, and after--has
a major impact on family readiness. I know this based on my personal
deployment to the Gulf War in 1990 to 1991. I believe one important way
to lessen this impact is by providing high quality family programs that
reduce stress, assist families, and enhance readiness. Key programs
include services for child care, financial readiness, and substance
abuse and domestic violence prevention. Other important programs
include Child and Youth Services, and Army Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation programs.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure these and other family
readiness programs are properly resourced and effective in supporting
soldiers and their families.
suicide prevention
Question. The numbers of suicides in each of the Services continue
to be of great concern to this Committee.
If confirmed, what role would you play in shaping suicide
prevention programs and policies for the Department of the Army to
prevent suicides and increase the resiliency of soldiers and their
families?
Answer. The number of suicides in the Service greatly concerns me.
One is too many. It is tragic that these great Americans who serve
their Country so well would reach a point where they view suicide as
their only option. I understand the Army is conducting an extensive
analysis of all soldier suicide cases, while developing new data on
dependent suicides, to build a more comprehensive understanding of
suicides in the Total Army family. If confirmed, I am fully committed
to continuing these reviews and supporting implementation of any
recommendations that will reduce the suicide rate.
Suicides directly impact readiness across all our formations, in
addition to the impact they have on the Army family. If confirmed, I
will make this issue one of my top priorities and work closely with
Army leaders at all levels to prevent suicides.
support for wounded, ill, and injured soldiers
Question. Service members who are wounded or injured in combat
operations deserve the highest priority from the Army and the U.S.
Government for support services, healing and recuperation,
rehabilitation, evaluation for return to duty, successful transition
from active duty if required, and continuing support beyond retirement
or discharge.
What is your assessment of the progress made by the Army to improve
the care, management, and transition of seriously ill and injured
soldiers?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has made good progress
in the care of seriously ill and injured soldiers over the last ten
years or so thanks to the support of Congress and an intense focus by
Army leadership. The Army improved facilities like the renowned burn
unit in San Antonio, Texas, and reduced processing times in the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System. There is always room for
improvement, however, especially when it comes to the care of the
Army's wounded, ill, and injured soldiers.
If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the Army continues to
improve the care, management and transition of seriously ill and
injured soldiers because they deserve no less than the very best the
Army has to offer.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase the Army's support for
wounded soldiers, and to monitor their progress in returning to duty or
to civilian life?
Answer. Support for wounded soldiers and monitoring their return to
duty or civilian life is a top priority. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure the Army maintains--and continues to improve--the quality of the
Warrior Care and Transition Program, and, has the ability to expand
this program, as necessary.
A key to maintaining the quality of care is to ensure that soldiers
can seamlessly transition through the Integrated Disability Evaluation
System, as required. To do this, the Army must have sustained and
collaborative relationships across the federal government with agencies
such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, and with the private
sector.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
the Defense Department, 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 Army?
Answer. All Department of the Army personnel, military and
civilian, must be held to the same standard. Everyone should live by
and demonstrate the Army values and professionalism that the Nation
expects of its Army. With regard to the Army's senior leaders, I expect
them to lead by example and set the highest personal standards for
themselves in all that they say and do.
Any alleged failure to maintain established standards should and
will be investigated without sacrificing the appropriate due process
for the individuals involved. If confirmed, I will insist that all
military and civilian leaders face appropriate consequences if it is
determined they failed to adhere to established legal, moral, and
ethical standards, regardless of the grade or position of the
individual.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Army are held accountable for their actions and
performance?
Answer. The Department of the Army, subject to the oversight of
DOD, has established policies that govern the investigation of any
allegation made against senior Army and Civilian leaders. If confirmed,
I will fully support these policies and current investigative processes
to ensure all allegations receive a thorough, impartial investigation
without violating the due process rights of any of individual. For all
substantiated allegations, within my authority, I will ensure the
leader faces appropriate consequences for his or her conduct. If I
determine the system, policy, or processes need adjustment to ensure we
maintain the high standards expected and required of our senior
leaders, I will work to bring about those changes.
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 Army
senior executive workforce, especially in the critically important
areas of acquisition, financial management, and the scientific and
technical fields?
Answer. Having worked with and/or led senior executives during
previous assignments at the Pentagon on the Army Staff and OSD Staff, I
recognize the important role they play in the Nation's security, and
the critical skills, knowledge, and experiences they bring to those
roles. As such, the Army must work to ensure its senior executives are
properly managed and professionally developed if the Service is to
achieve its goals.
I understand the Army has instituted an enterprise approach to
Senior Executive Service (SES) management through establishment of an
annual Talent and Succession Management process. This process is
designed to optimally align executive positions with the most critical
Army imperatives and priorities, to include acquisition, financial
management, and the scientific and technical fields. As I understand
it, the process directly links executive positions to overall Army
needs; develops a broader, more agile executive bench; and addresses
succession planning for the Army's SES positions.
The Army has also placed an increased emphasis on Executive
Development by implementing the Army Senior Executive Education
Program. This program is centrally funded and focused on reinforcing
the general principles of strategic leadership; business transformation
and enterprise; change leadership; ethics, culture and management; and
Army transformation.
If confirmed, I will review these developmental tools, processes,
and programs and work with Army senior executives to refine them as
necessary to ensure the Army continues to develop SES personnel who can
help manage and lead the Department, particularly in the areas of
acquisition, financial management and science and technology.
Question. Do you believe that the Army has the number of senior
executives it needs, with the proper skills to manage the Department
into the future?
Based on my prior service in OSD and the Army Staff, it is my
understanding that the Army distributes civilian senior leaders in a
variety of positions to work in conjunction with senior officers to
help lead and manage the Army. I further understand the Army
implemented a process of continual review to align senior leader
allocations to leadership needs and identify changes in requirements.
If confirmed, I will review the number and distribution of senior
executives in the Army, and make changes as necessary to ensure the
Service is well-led and managed for the challenges it faces today and
in the future.
operational energy
Question. In his responses to the advance policy questions from
this Committee, General 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. Yes. The dependency or ``tether of fuel'' remains a
constraint and vulnerability as indicated by Secretary Mattis during
his confirmation hearing. I saw this same challenge during my combat
experience in the 1990 to 1991 Gulf War.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to unleash the Army from
the tether of fuel?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has been pursuing
multiple efforts to dramatically change the current dynamic of fuel
dependence. These initiatives include pursuing improvements to the
energy efficiency of equipment, and the way that electric power is
generated and distributed on the battlefield. The goal is to improve
the operational capability of Army systems by/while reducing overall
fuel requirements. While progress has been made in reducing the fuel
tether, a great deal of work remains. If confirmed, I plan on
continuing these efforts.
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. I understand that developing combat capabilities in this
regard requires a complex set of trade-offs that involve maximizing the
lethality, mobility, and protection of soldiers. Operational energy
considerations need to be assessed and integrated into combat
capabilities development to reduce constraints, vulnerabilities, and
fuel dependencies. If confirmed, I will work with senior Army leaders
to identify the right requirements and set priorities so the Army
invests in the capabilities required to deploy, fight, and win on
future battlefields that optimize energy usage without compromising
combat effectiveness.
energy and acquisition
Question. How can our acquisition systems better incorporate the
use of energy in military platforms?
Answer. It is my understanding the Army S&T enterprise has various
research efforts devoted to this topic, including construction
methodologies to improve energy efficiency, and advanced and hybrid
power trains and fuel cell technologies for military vehicles. I have
been informed that these efforts are designed to improve efficiency and
make better use of energy both on the battlefield and for base
operations to enhance capabilities and lessen the logistics tail. It is
my understanding that the Army is fundamentally changing the culture
and better managing the use of energy throughout its acquisition
systems with these efforts. If confirmed, I will assess how the Army
can better address the use of energy in military platforms.
energy resiliency in the fight against the islamic state of iraq and
syria (isis)
Question. Back in July after a coup attempt, the Turkish government
cut off power to Incirlik Air Base, which is the primary platform for
launching coalition airstrikes in the fight against ISIS. For roughly a
week, deployed units had to operate off backup generators, which is
expensive and not the preferred method of operation given the demanding
tempo of sorties against ISIS.
If confirmed, specifically how will you address and make energy
resiliency and mission assurance a priority for the Department of the
Army, to include acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable
energy assets to improve combat capability for deployed units on our
military installations?
Answer. My understanding is the Army's Energy Security and
Sustainability Strategy acknowledges that energy, water, and land
resources are critical to Army mission accomplishment. If confirmed, I
will work with the Army's senior leaders to ensure the proper focus on
energy resiliency in both installation and deployed unit operations.
Question. To what extent, if any, are title 10 training exercises
and wargames dealing with energy outages? If not, why?
Answer. The Army must be prepared to operate in austere
environments of all types, with units at all echelons prepared to meet
their own energy needs with efficient and resilient organic assets. I
understand that the Army trains in scenarios across the full spectrum
of conflict and in challenging environments with only the power sources
units bring with them. If confirmed, I would continue to ensure the
Army conducts exercises under realistic combat conditions, especially
against near peer threats, where external power sources are likely
unavailable.
Question. Do you support the J-4's enforcement of the energy
supportability key performance parameter in the requirements process?
Answer. I understand that the Department's acquisition process
should explore alternate and renewable energy sources that are
reliable, cost effective, and can relieve the dependence of deployed
forces on vulnerable fuel supply chains to better enable our primary
mission to win in conflict. The purpose of such efforts should be to
increase the readiness and reach of our forces; these considerations
must be made up front, as part of the requirements process. If
confirmed, I will support efforts to make energy supportability a
performance parameter.
Section 2805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2017 gave the Department of Defense 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.
Question. 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. If confirmed, I will look into how the Army can use the new
authorities provided to it under Section 2805 to support mission
critical functions by planning and funding new construction projects
related to energy resiliency and mission assurance. My aim would be to
use Section 2805 authorities to the greatest degree possible to address
known energy vulnerabilities and guarantee the Army's energy security.
environment
Question. If confirmed, will you comply with environmental
regulations, laws, and guidance from the Environmental Protection
Agency?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Army complies with
applicable environmental regulations, laws, and guidance from the
Environmental Protection Agency and state regulatory authorities.
Question. If confirmed, will you make the same level of investment
for the Defense Department's Environmental Research Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure the Army's investment
in environmental research is maintained at appropriate levels to meet
the Army's requirements.
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. If confirmed, I will ensure the Army continues to work
closely with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to uphold our responsibilities as stewards of some of our
Nation's most valuable natural resources, while maintaining sufficient
land for training in order to meet readiness needs.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. 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 Army?
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. Yes.
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. Yes, I agree to provide appropriate responses to all
Congressional oversight requests.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
army rigorous training standards and challenges
1. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, ``This Kind of War'' by T.R.
Fehrenbach details the devastating loss of American lives at the start
of the Korean War due to a lack of readiness. Would you agree that we
must continue to ensure our military training standards are hard and
rigorous to reflect the realities of combat, and that this standard
should not be lowered or influenced by politics?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I believe that readiness must be the Army's top
priority, and that all of its training must be to standard, incorporate
the current operational environment, not be influenced by politics, and
must be hard and rigorous to best prepare soldiers and the Army for
combat.
2. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, as the situation with North Korea
escalates, what are your specific plans to ensure that our Army forces
are ready and able to swiftly and decisively defeat North Korea
threats?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will work with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and Congress to secure the requisite funding and
resources needed for such a major contingency. If confirmed as the
Secretary of the Army, it would be my responsibility to ensure the Army
provides trained and ready forces capable of conducting a broad range
of missions so that the President has an array of options available to
him. In this regard, I would work closely with General Milley to ensure
the Army continues planning and training for contingency operations,
and conducting rigorous training at home stations and Combat Training
Centers (CTCs) focused on the high end threat. I will also work with
General Milley and other senior Army leaders to ensure our deploying
forces are fully manned, that munitions stocks are sufficient, and that
the Army's equipment is well maintained and ready to deploy
General Milley has made readiness his number one priority. The Army
has made substantial progress in improving the readiness of its forces
to respond to contingencies in trouble spots around the world,
including Korea. However, for contingencies on a scale such as Korea,
an effective response by the Army would involve Regular Army, Army
National Guard, and Army Reserve units, requiring mobilization of the
Total Force. Proper preparation for operations on this scale would also
require additional resources.
army end strength
3. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, the size of the Army has been
decreasing while the People's Republic of China (PRC) is surging
through 2 decades of military modernization, a resurgent Russia is
expanding fighter and bomber aviation and exporting advanced surface to
air missile technology, and a belligerent North Korea is on the verge
of a producing a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile ICBM that
strike the continental United States. We are also still heavily engaged
in a war against violent extremism in the Middle East, Syria, and
across the globe. What do you think is the correct end strength for
Army, and what is the timeline you would undertake this growth in?
Dr. Esper. Given today's strategic environment and our current
national defense objectives, I believe the Total Army end strength must
be increased. The Secretary of Defense's ongoing strategic review will
inform the Army's assessment of the Total Army end strength required to
accomplish its roles and missions in support of the new National
Defense Strategy. This assessment will also help determine the
capabilities, force structure, training, and other factors critical to
winning across the full spectrum of conflict. Growing the force should
be done quickly but responsibly, ensuring quality is maintained and
soldiers are properly trained and integrated into skill sets and units
across the Total Force.
small unit support vehicle advocacy
4. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, Alaska's Army National Guard, as
well as several other National Guard units, rely on the Small Unit
Support Vehicle (SUS-V) to maneuver in cold weather, austere
environments. While the SUS-V is no longer a program of record, it is a
necessity in order to maneuver and safe lives during rescue operations
in extreme Arctic environments. Can I get your commitment, if
confirmed, to take a hard look creating a SUS-V support plan that will
sustain the SUS-V until a replacement can be identified and procured?
Dr. Esper. Yes, if confirmed, I will ensure the Army thoroughly
evaluates development of a SUS-V support plan. I am fully committed to
providing the Total Force with the equipment required for their
missions.
5. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, in this year's Senate NDAA report
language, I sponsored a provision that calls for a rapid acquisition
strategy to replace the Small Unit Support Vehicle (SUS-V) with a Joint
All-Terrain/All-Weather Support Vehicle (JAASV). Can I get your
commitment to take a detailed look at rapidly procuring the JAASV,
which is urgently needed to replace the increasingly difficult and
costly to maintain SUS-V?
Dr. Esper. Yes, if confirmed, you have my commitment to take a
thorough look at procuring the Joint All-Terrain/All-Weather Support
Vehicle (JAASV) and report back to Congress consistent with the NDAA.
small business contracting
6. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, in March 2015, DOD issued a report
to Congress, the ``Assessment of Justification and Approval
Requirements Implemented under Section 811 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Section 811).'' The report
found that in fiscal year 2014 no 8(a) sole-source contracts were
awarded that required an 8(a) justification and approval (J&A). DOD
stated it could not determine the cause for this decline. There have
been numerous reports from 8(a) firms that the decline in awards is due
to tougher J&A standards for and scrutiny on the firms themselves, not
the sole-source contracts that could be awarded to these firms. If
confirmed, how would you encourage the Army to work more effectively
with Native community-owned contractors, particularly regarding 8(a)
sole-source contracts?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the Army
provides fair opportunities to all socio-economic programs, including
Native community owned contractors, and will message the same as
appropriate to the responsible Army offices. I believe that the intent
of the written justification of 8(a) sole source awards over $22
million was to ensure competition. The Army worked diligently to
support all small business programs. Over the last two fiscal years, I
understand that the Army exceeded its Small Business Administration
small business goals, while in fiscal year 2016 exceeding its
competition goals. If confirmed, I would continue to support these
practices.
7. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, section 811 does not prohibit
direct awards greater than $22 million (adjusted from $20 million due
to inflation), it has encouraged greater--if not excessive--levels of
approval for comparatively small contracts. This unnecessarily high
level of approval then led to zero contract awards above $22 million to
8(a) corporations, according to a 2014 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report. How would you encourage such awards above $22 million,
when appropriate, to Native community-owned contractors given the
additional scrutiny experienced by these firms?
Dr. Esper. I realize the importance of the Small Business
Administration's 8(a) Business Development Program to small businesses
owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including
firms owned by Alaska Native Corporations and Indian tribes. If
confirmed, I will ensure the Army works collaboratively with the U.S.
Small Business Administration in support of the program. As an initial
step, I will work with my Small Business Director and Army Acquisition
Executive to ensure that our acquisition workforce understands that the
$22 million is not a cap, but simply a threshold that triggers a
process to further ensure value.
8. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, do you agree that section 811,
similar to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), allows for the
approval of a justification for an 8(a) sole-source to be approved by
someone other than the Head of Agency and can the Head of Agency have
the legal ability to delegate the approval authority for an 8(a)
justification?
Dr. Esper. I will ensure that the Army acquisition professionals
are knowledgeable of appropriate dollar thresholds for approving 8(a)
sole sources. If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, I would be the
Head of the Agency empowered to delegate Senior Procurement Executive
(SPE) Authority. The SPE in turn can delegate and oversee Head of
Contracting Activities who appoints Senior Contracting Officials that
ensure compliance with all acquisition laws, regulations, and policies.
This is the same procedure used to ensure compliance with the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).
9. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, shouldn't the level of agency
approval by the appropriate agency official be tied to the dollar value
of the contracts, as is done under CICA?
Dr. Esper. Based on my understanding, I do believe that appropriate
oversight needs to take place in approving 8(a) sole source
justifications. Senior Contracting Officials are approving 8(a) sole
source justifications above $22 million to $93 million, similar to
CICA. If the amount is over $93 million, I understand that the
Secretary of the Army is the approval authority for the sole source
justifications.
10. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Esper, while section 811 does not require
a ``Head of Agency'' approval for sole source contracts over $22
million, DOD--to include the Air Force--has interpreted it to require
that level of approval. In addition, current law establishes higher
levels of approval commensurate with higher contract values. If
confirmed and given the authority of the Secretary, do you commit to
streamline the approval of contracts above the $22 million threshold to
below the ``Head of Agency'' level and to the approval levels that are
already matched to the contract risk incurred by the Army? If so, will
you also issue a memo to contracting officers within the Army informing
them of your decision to establish that authority at levels that are
appropriate to the size and risk of the contracts in question,
consistent with what is already in law?
Dr. Esper. Yes, if confirmed, I am committed to streamlining
acquisition approvals, while remaining compliant with laws and
regulations that are established higher than my authority.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
army and air assets
11. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, when the Key West Agreement was
signed in 1948, and the Air Force was defined as a new Service, the Air
Force was tasked with furnishing close combat and logistical air
support to the Army. Right now, the Air Force is feeling the crunch
fiscally as much as any of the other Services as they work to modernize
a number of large platforms at once. They also have to think about new
domains for which they have been tapped as the lead, like space. Other
Air Force platforms are being put forth as bill-payers, like the Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) platform, for which
the Air Force is not the end user, but your Army troops on the ground
are. If confirmed, what will you do to work with the other service
secretaries to ensure that your troops are getting what they need in
terms of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), air
cover, and airborne battle management?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will work closely with senior Army
leaders, my peers in the other Services, and OSD to ensure soldiers
have the ISR, air support, and airborne battle management (BMC2)
capabilities the Army needs to fight and win the Nation's wars. While
the Army requires these capabilities to support Commanders on the
ground in support of national objectives, the Army is capability-
centric and platform agnostic. I will also work closely with Congress
to ensure the Army has or is provided all of the air-based capabilities
it needs.
army and cyber
12. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, my home state of Georgia has been a
leader in cyber, especially in the Army. At Fort Gordon in Augusta, we
have NSA [National Security Agency] Georgia, the Army Cyber Center of
Excellence, and Army Cyber Command Headquarter is moving down in 2020.
How do you plan to make Army Cyber a part of everything that the Army
does?
Dr. Esper. Cyber is a present and growing threat that must be
continually assessed and countered. Cyber defense and offense needs to
be thoroughly integrated in nearly all that the Army does. As such, if
confirmed, I look to build on the momentum of moving Army Cyber Command
to Fort Gordon and ensuring this command is part of everything the Army
does through several means. This includes continuing to provide senior
leader vision, direction, and guidance to the Army's entire cyber
enterprise across its operational and institutional forces; ensuring
the readiness of the Army's Cyber Mission Force across the Total Army--
Active, National Guard, and Army Reserve; ensuring the completion of
the Army Cyber Command's Headquarters and Cyber Center of Excellence
facilities at Fort Gordon, Georgia; building effective partnerships
with industry, the inter-agency, intelligence community, allies, and
academia; and most importantly, ensuring the Army continues to assess,
recruit, train, retain, and take care of a world-class cyber workforce.
13. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, cyber truly needs to be integrated
into everything we do. What ideas do you have regarding cyber workforce
recruitment and retention?
Dr. Esper. The Army must continue to actively pursue a number of
initiatives to recruit and retain a world-class cyber workforce:
For recruiting, I understand the Army's decision to both build a
cyber school at Fort Gordon and establish a dedicated Cyber Career
Field remains among the most effective means to attract young men and
women to the Army. The Army must also leverage Congressionally-
authorized programs, such as direct commissioning, that enhances its
ability to directly appoint qualified individuals as cyber branch
officers; civilian direct hiring authority; and the implementation of a
Civilian Cyber Excepted Service program to continue to improve the most
important element of the Cyber workforce, its people.
Being well-trained and feeling well-employed is critical to the
retention of any workforce, including the best military and civilian
personnel. I support the professionalization and commitment to
continual training of the Army's cyber force. While it will always be
challenging for the Army to compete with the private sector when it
comes to compensation, the continuance of select military incentive
pays, enlistment bonuses, and bonus agreements for senior NCOs will
assist in retention efforts. Continuing programs such as student loan
repayments, recruiting, retention, and relocation bonuses and
scholarship opportunities should also enhance the retention of
important civilian personnel working within the cyber force.
audit
14. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, DOD is the only Federal agency that
cannot present auditable financial statements showing where and how it
spends its annual budget. It has also been deemed at high risk for
waste, fraud, abuse, and management by the Comptroller General. Despite
much effort and billions of dollars spent to fix these problems, they
have remained for decades. If confirmed, what actions will you take or
direct that will achieve a better outcome than past actions and
initiatives for financial auditability of the Army?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will hold military and civilian leaders
at all levels accountable for achieving audit success. I am dedicated
to supporting the Army's efforts to create a sustainable, auditable
environment and further instilling a culture of financial transparency
and accountability. Doing so is critical to better resource management
and increased efficiency. Success in the Army's endeavor to achieve an
unmodified audit opinion will require continued commitment to
progressive improvements. The considerable progress towards an audit
ready posture has enabled the Army to initiate the first full financial
statement audits of their General and Working Capital Funds in Fiscal
Year 2018.
If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, I will establish an
environment in which military and civilian leaders at every level
embrace audit and accountability initiatives in their daily routines. I
intend to review the Army's audit progress on a regular basis, and
provide the needed resources and leadership attention to promote a
successful audit. I will expect leaders at all levels will regularly
review the progress of their Commands as they implement corrective
action plans to remediate findings from the independent public
accountant. At the Department level, I will expect leaders to continue
taking active roles in establishing policies, improving processes, and
implementing system changes necessary to support the Army's efforts to
achieve a clean opinion. Finally, I will enable the most senior leaders
of the Army to ensure that human capital, information technology, and
business processes facilitate the highest levels of reliability and
integrity in the Army's financial reports.
m4 carbine rails
15. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, the Senate Report to the fiscal year
2018 NDAA voiced concerns about the Committee's concern that the Army
has not adopted a free-float rail system for the M4 Carbine and
requests the Secretary of the Army to report back by December 1, 2017.
If confirmed, will you review this program and reply back accordingly?
Dr. Esper. I understand that the Army will provide Congress with a
report on the M4 Carbine free-floated rail Soldier Enhancement Program
initiative by December 1, 2017. If confirmed, and with sufficient time
available, I look forward to reviewing this program and that report and
replying back accordingly.
army-national guard/total force
16. Senator Perdue. Dr. Esper, Texas is the proud home of the
largest National Guard and is currently overdriving to help the
National Guard Bureau meet its end strength, as they have been doing so
for the past 10 years. When will this end strength be officially placed
in Texas, along with the corresponding full-time manning, equipment and
support personnel?
Dr. Esper. I recognize and am grateful to the State of Texas for
all the support it provides to ensure the readiness of the Total Army
Force. It is my understanding that force structure authorizations allow
States to recruit personnel, procure equipment, and receive full-time
manning support. I further understand that the ARNG does not have
additional force structure to allocate to Texas (or any other state) at
this time. If confirmed, I would consider Texas as a top tier candidate
to receive additional Force Structure and the accompanying End Strength
authorization, provided DOD receives relief from the BCA; the Army
receives an increase in force structure authorizations and sufficient
appropriations to support that increase; and the Army's Total Force
Policy supports such a decision.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
interagency cbrne training at army training facilities
17. Senator McCaskill. Dr. Esper, during your testimony, you each
acknowledged that the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
explosives (CBRNE) threat posed by North Korea presents a serious
concern to our national security, and that we are ill prepared to
respond to a CBRNE attack or operate in a CBRNE environment. Would you
agree that, given the nature of chemical and biological weapons, the
threat posed by a CBRNE at home is just as dangerous as that posed to
our forces overseas?
Dr. Esper. CBRNE environments are complex and dangerous, but
context specific. The threat posed to overseas forces is heightened as
a consequence of proximity to the threat and the access malign actors
have to deployed U.S. forces. That the overseas threat is contextually
different and more proxim ate than that posed to the Homeland does not
diminish the gravity of the threat to the Homeland.
18. Senator McCaskill. Dr. Esper, do you agree the Army's CBRNE
enterprise is critical in keeping both servicemembers deployed overseas
and civilians in the Homeland safe?
Dr. Esper. Yes. Effective CBRNE response relies on how rapidly help
arrives, what capabilities are immediately present at the scene, and
how emergency responders adapt to the complexity of the incident. I
understand the Army CBRNE enterprise is primarily a Homeland defense
mission. Through a mix of Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National
Guard forces, the Army can assist with chemical and biological
detection, identification, and decontamination; medical assistance for
mass casualty events; and support for domestic law enforcement.
I further understand that training for domestic CBRNE incidents
enhances the Army's ability to accomplish their wartime mission. These
well-trained CBRNE forces can effectively respond to and mitigate
threats to our forces, installations, national partners, and civilian
populations in the event of a CBRNE event overseas.
19. Senator McCaskill. Dr. Esper, do you agree that it is in the
Army's best interest to ensure the highest degree of interoperability
between Military Services and other Federal agencies?
Dr. Esper. Yes. Interoperability is a key task for the Army to
operate as a part of the joint force, and it is certainly in the Army's
best interest to find ways to enhance joint interoperability. I also
agree that the Army must work closely with the interagency, as well as
with multinational partners, to understand, prepare for, and counter
national security threats both abroad and in defense of the Homeland.
20. Senator McCaskill. Dr. Esper, do you agree with other military
CBRNE leaders who have said combined training leads to effective
response by building ``a common understanding of each interagency
partner's mission requirements and capabilities''?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I believe that training with other agencies
facilitates an improved common understanding of requirements and
capabilities, as does the exchange of information and ideas and other
coordination in areas of mutual interest. Execution of such training
must maximize efficiency and enhance service readiness consistent with
the Army's Title 10 responsibilities to provide trained and ready
military forces to the joint force.
21. Senator McCaskill. Dr. Esper, can I get your commitment today
that you will work with your counterparts across the Federal
Government, to secure the resources need to support interagency CBRNE
training conducted by the Army?
Dr. Esper. Yes. If confirmed, you have my commitment that the Army
will continue to review and assess opportunities to train with other
Services and agencies in order to increase readiness and gain
efficiencies, while ensuring the Army sustains its capabilities.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
equipment procurement
22. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Esper, the Committee is aware that the
Army awarded a contract earlier this year to procure the Advanced
Combat Helmet Generation II (ACH Gen II). Procurement of the 24 percent
lighter ACH Gen II is a step in the right direction to reduce the
weight of critical personal protective equipment (PPE). Although this
initial step is positive, it has come to my attention that the Army has
yet to begin placing orders for the ACH Gen II against the contract
awarded in March 2017. The Army indicated that industry plans for
production of 10,000 to 12,000 helmets per month, resulting in
significant investment in preparation to manufacture these helmets. The
Army has yet to meet this commitment or provide detailed information as
to when orders for production will begin. This is necessary to not only
sustain the health and safety of our soldiers but to ensure that we
maintain an ongoing and healthy industrial base. If confirmed, can you
provide a timeline and short-term update on the Army's plan to procure
the ACH Gen II helmet? Please be specific as to when orders are planned
to begin, planned order requirements per month, and the long-term plan
for the ACH Gen II program.
Dr. Esper. I believe the Army continues to provide the best
personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect soldiers while
constantly working to reduce weight and improve performance. The
Advanced Combat Helmet Generation (ACH Gen) II is example of that
effort. It is my understanding that the ACH Gen II will begin First
Article Testing in November 2017 to ensure it meets the Army's strict
protective requirements. I also understand that the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA), which maintains a stock of helmets to support funded
requisitions from Army sustainment organizations and supply units, is
expected to place an order for approximately 14,000 of the ACH Gen II
helmets, pending successful First Article Testing and production
approval; this is anticipated in March 2018. It is my understanding
that the DLA cannot establish or guarantee monthly order quantities,
but that future orders should go a long way to supporting a healthy
industrial base.
national guard readiness and care coordination
23. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Esper, New Hampshire currently ranks 51
out of 54 in terms of the poor condition of its facilities and armories
with many of these structures being more than a half-century-old. What
is your view on adequately resourcing the National Guard Readiness
Center Transformation Master Plan (RCTMP)?
Dr. Esper. As a former Guardsman, I believe adequately resourcing
the Army National Guard's (ARNG) Readiness Center Transformation Master
Plan (RCTMP) is a readiness priority and critical to maintaining the
National Guard as an Operational Reserve force. I understand that the
Army National Guard has a plan to fund improvements to various
Readiness Centers from fiscal year 2015 to 2023, and I agree this
should be a priority.
24. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Esper, the New Hampshire National Guard
employs a unique program called the Care Coordination program. This
program provides support to guardsmen and their families throughout the
deployment cycle with mental health issues, suicide prevention,
employment services, and educational assistance to name a few. Please
give me your perspective on the importance of programs like this and
the need to ensure that our servicemembers and their families have
resources available before, during and after overseas deployments.
Dr. Esper. Programs like the New Hampshire National Guard's Care
Coordination Program are essential to the overall well-being of
soldiers and families, and the readiness of the Force. With our
increased reliance on the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, it is
especially critical that programs, such as the Care Coordination
Program in New Hampshire, continue to function alongside traditional
federal programs. New Hampshire has demonstrated a best practice that
should be sustained, promoted, and shared throughout the force. With
on-going Congressional support, I understand the Army has been able to
devote significant resources toward supporting these programs to help
mitigate the stressors that some of its soldiers and families face
during their military service.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
transgender servicemembers
25. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, what is your position on
separating someone solely because of their gender identity?
Dr. Esper. While I understand the Secretary of Defense is currently
working with a panel of experts to develop a policy on the service of
transgender soldiers, I believe that individuals who meet the
requirements and standard for service, and who are able to make the
force more lethal and effective, should not be separated solely because
of their gender identify. If confirmed, I will provide my
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and work with the Secretary
of Defense to help develop a policy that enhances readiness and is
standards-based.
26. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, under what circumstances do you
think someone who is honorably serving and meeting the same standards
as other servicemembers should be separated solely based on their
identity?
Dr. Esper. I believe service in the Army is based on standards.
Provided the soldier meets the Army entry/service standards and
requirements, and can make the force more lethal and effective, I
believe they should be allowed to serve and not be separated based
solely on their gender identity.
27. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, Secretary of Defense James
Mattis has said his panel will look at the issue of transgender
accessions. Will you approach Secretary Mattis' review of transgender
accession with an open mind and do you foresee any issues?
Dr. Esper. Yes. If confirmed I will be open-minded in my approach
to all issues, including transgender accessions, and provide the
Secretary of Defense my best advice for transgender policy. At this
time, I do not foresee any issues based solely on gender identity.
28. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, if confirmed, how will you
safeguard the interests of openly serving transgender men and women as
members of the Army?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I would work closely with senior leaders,
military and civilian, to continually emphasize the importance of
treating all soldiers with dignity and respect, maintaining military
standards, and ensuring all soldiers meet those standards. Further, I
will hold leaders accountable for taking this approach to their duties.
29. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, if confirmed, will you commit to
meeting with openly transgender servicemembers to learn about their
experiences within your first month on the job and before the panel has
completed its analysis?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed I will meet with transgender soldiers,
medical providers, and commanders as early as possible during my tenure
to gain insights into their experiences, understand their medical
needs, and better inform policy decisions.
combat integration
30. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, I have been pleased by the
Army's progress in opening all occupational specialties to women. Will
you support the continued efforts of General Mark A. Milley, USA, Chief
of Staff of the Army, to open all Army roles to women?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I believe that any soldier who can meet the
physical, mental, and other standards for their desired career field,
and who can make the Army more lethal and effective, deserves the
opportunity to serve in that specialty, regardless of gender.
31. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, how can the Army continue to
recruit young women to combat arms roles?
Dr. Esper. As explained to me, the propensity for female recruits
to enlist in career fields previously closed to them far exceeds
initial expectations; the Army's expectations in this regard were based
on other nations' experiences with gender integration. If confirmed, I
would meet with appropriate Army Senior Leaders to review how the Army
can better recruit and retain quality female soldiers. Further, the
Army must continually evaluate and improve its marketing strategy to
more effectively reach all eligible youth (male and female) across the
country, and those who influence them.
military justice
32. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, both this year and last year,
Senator Ernst and I put into the National Defense Authorization Act a
military justice pilot to create litigation specialists in each
Service. Do you believe that we should have Army lawyers that
specialize in litigation and serve almost exclusively in trial
assignments?
Dr. Esper. It is my understanding that Army lawyers, both military
and civilian, develop expertise in a wide variety of practice areas.
Judge Advocates play an integral role in maintaining good order and
discipline through the prosecution of criminal misconduct. The Army
currently uses an Additional Skill Identifier to identify, track and
develop Judge Advocates with military justice experience with the goal
of developing senior judge advocates with extensive litigation
experience. The Army believes it should be allowed to assign Judge
Advocates where needed, based on mission requirements. Requiring Judge
Advocates to serve almost exclusively in trial assignments may limit
the ability to provide comprehensive legal support to the Army,
particularly as it executes its mission in forward-deployed locations.
That said, given that the Army has other occupations where service
members specialize, I intend to keep an open mind to any proposals that
can enhance the readiness and effectiveness of the force.
new york military installations
33. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, the Army's military and civilian
personnel assigned to Fort Drum, New York have proven themselves
invaluable to our Nation's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drum is
unique because of its airfield, which makes it easier for the 10th
Mountain to deploy quickly. As the Army reassesses its funding
priorities in the face of budget constraints and fiscal uncertainty,
are you committed to keeping Fort Drum as home of the 10th Mountain
Division?
Dr. Esper. It is my understanding that there are currently no plans
to relocate the 10th Mountain Division. While I generally support
efforts to reduce and realign excess Army infrastructure, especially in
light of budget uncertainty, if confirmed I will ensure these efforts
are informed by strategy, Department of Defense guidance, law, and the
Army's ability to fulfill its Title 10 responsibilities.
34. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, will you commit to visiting Fort
Drum if you are confirmed?
Dr. Esper. Yes.
army cyber
35. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Esper, the New York and New Jersey
National Guards have been awarded a joint Cyber Protection Team (CPT),
but because the Army did not include the Guard's teams in its
contribution to the Cyber Mission Force, the Guard teams are in a state
of limbo--they are supporting Cyber Command, but they do not officially
have a mission and are at the end of the line for funding and training.
I have been pushing for these teams to be included in the Cyber Mission
Force. I believe that we should view Army Guard CPTs as a national
asset given the incredible talent offered by these citizen-soldiers,
many of whom work in the private sector as information technology and
computer science innovators. Do I have your commitment that you will
look into the issue of the role of the Army Guard Cyber Protection
Teams?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will be committed to oversee the
effective build, readiness, and missioning of the Army's Total Force of
Cyber Protection Teams--Active, National Guard, and Army Reserve. I
understand that the Army National Guard teams from New York and New
Jersey are scheduled to be at an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by
fiscal year 2021 and to reach Full Operating Capability by fiscal year
2022. If confirmed, you have my commitment to look into the role of the
Army Guard Cyber Protection Teams.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
national urban security and technologies laboratory
diversity of the force
36. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Esper, do you agree that our military
and our country are made stronger with the ability to draw on all
individuals that are able to meet the rigorous requirements that our
Armed Forces demand?
Dr. Esper. I do. I understand the Army has made great progress at
ensuring a key qualification for joining the Army and a specific branch
is based on whether an individual can achieve the physical standard in
their given specialty, not their gender. I further understand that
studies preceding gender integration provided the impetus for military
occupation specialties to clearly define the qualifications required in
each career field, which ensures that readiness is grounded in
objective, performance-based measures. I welcome any individual who is
willing to serve, who meets the standards of service regardless of
race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, and who can make the
force more lethal and effective. And I fully agree that diversity makes
the Army stronger.
improved turbine engine program
37. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Esper, if confirmed, will you continue
to support Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) and commit to
ensuring it remains the Army's top aviation modernization program?
Dr. Esper. Yes. If confirmed I will fully support the Improved
Turbine Engine Program as one of the top modernization efforts for the
aviation leg of our combined arms team. The ITEP engine is designed to
buy back aircraft performance and ground commander payloads that have
eroded over many years of aircraft weight increase in our AH-64 Apache
and UH-60 Blackhawk fleets. This increased performance provides added
speed, range, and agility to ground maneuver commanders, while using
less fuel and increasing survivability for the aircrews. It is
extremely important that we increase these capabilities in the legacy
helicopter fleets and simultaneously bridge to future vertical lift.
38. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Esper, will you work to boost
investments in research and development (R&D) across the Army?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I will work to increase the Army's investments in
research and development (R&D). The Army requires increased Research,
Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding to facilitate the
transition of technology from S&T to programs of record, prototyping
new capabilities and providing the analytical support and architecture
for requirements. All of this is critical to the Army's current and
future readiness.
black hawk
39. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Esper, the Black Hawk continues to be
the backbone of Army aviation and its modernization strategy is
incredibly important given the wear and tear on the fleet over the last
15 years. Will you commit to supporting a robust Black Hawk
modernization program as Secretary of the Army?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I understand the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter has
been a workhorse for our ground maneuver forces over the last four
decades in both maneuver warfare and counter-insurgency. I support the
Army's goal of divesting A and L models from all components, and fully
digitizing its largest fleet of aircraft.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
role of modernization
40. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, in your advance policy question
responses you identified readiness and modernization as two of your top
priorities. As we work to try to finalize the NDAA for fiscal year
2018, what is your opinion on the relationship between readiness, the
size of the force, and modernization and how should the Army prioritize
across these areas?
Dr. Esper. The Army fights in formations; formations consist of
well-trained soldiers and equipment. For the Army, choosing between
readiness, modernization or end strength is not an all or nothing
option. While readiness must be our top priority right now, all three
legs must be balanced appropriately. The Army cannot have more end
strength than it has money to train, and it cannot have more units than
it can equip. All three must be resourced as a package to form combat
ready formations. As near-term readiness improves, more resources can
be devoted to modernizing the Army's weapons and equipment.
asia pacific
41. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, peace and stability in the Asia-
Pacific is essential to U.S. national security. It is important for the
United States to project strength and reassure our allies of our
commitment to the region, particularly in light of the actions of North
Korea. Can you discuss the role of Pacific Pathways in the Army's
actions in the Pacific?
Dr. Esper. I agree. I understand Pacific Pathways supports Pacific
Command's security cooperation requirements by building Allied capacity
and confidence throughout the Indo-Asia Region, while also building
U.S. Army readiness for participating units critical to our ability to
respond should a crisis or contingency arise. I further understand that
tangible benefits of Pacific Pathways include sustained readiness of
Army forces, increased confidence of our Allied partners, and improved
access in the region and regional familiarization. These benefits
directly contribute to increased readiness throughout the Pacific
Theater at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. The sum of
these activities results in greater resilience among our regional
Allies and Partners and improved deterrence against regional
competitors and adversaries.
42. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, what additional assets does the Army
envision directing to the Asia-Pacific area of operations?
Dr. Esper. I understand Combatant Commanders continue to demand
increased U.S. Army capabilities, including in the Indo-Pacific region.
As an example, the Army recently announced the stationing of an
engineer battalion headquarters that would improve engineering
capability and capacity in Korea. In addition, the Army stationed a
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in Korea early this
year to improve its ability to defend against ballistic missiles in the
region. As tensions increase in the Indo-Pacific area of operations,
the need for Army forces to respond to contingency requirements in the
region and elsewhere may increase the importance of additional armored
and long range fires capabilities, for example. If confirmed, I will
continue to monitor the need for additional Army assets, as necessary,
for the Indo-Pacific.
43. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, do you foresee any changes in the
roles of the Guard and Reserve components in future Asia-Pacific
missions?
Dr. Esper. I understand that, for decades, the U.S. Army has always
responded as a Total Force. Today, the Guard and Reserve components are
fully integrated with U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) and U.S. Pacific
Command (USPACOM) missions throughout the Indo-Pacific Region. They are
integral in support of the USPACOM Security Cooperation Plan, including
participation in Pacific Pathways, supporting State Sponsorship
Programs with key countries in the region, and rotating through the
USARPAC exercise program.
As someone who served in the Regular Army, Guard and Reserve
components, I understand the Total Army force provides the necessary
warfighting capabilities for future missions. At this time, I am not
aware of any needed changes in the Guard and Reserve components in the
region. I understand the Army would need to relook the requirements if
Guard and Reserve readiness and roles in the Pacific were to be
changed.
energy security
44. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, U.S. energy security is a vital
component to our national security. The need to reduce energy
consumption, use clean alternative energy sources, and increase U.S.
security is closely tied to our overall national security and an
important goal for all our branches of the military. How do you plan to
prioritize its long-term energy needs?
Dr. Esper. My understanding is the Army's Energy Security and
Sustainability Strategy acknowledges that energy security is critical
to Army mission accomplishment. If confirmed, I will work with the
Army's senior leaders to ensure the proper focus is placed in the
operational and installation community. Priorities include reducing
energy consumption while extending range, enhancing endurance,
increasing flexibility, and resilience, and considering clean
alternative fuel sources.
45. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, what efforts do you think would
increase energy security in the Army?
Dr. Esper. As outlined in the Army's Energy and Sustainability
Strategy, it is my understanding that the Army is enhancing mission
effectiveness through a range of power and energy initiatives.
Reduction of operational energy requirements in military operations
reduces soldier risk and vulnerability while improving combat
effectiveness. On the battlefield, I am aware of actions underway to
improve the lethality of weapon systems through energy efficiency, the
way that electric power is generated and distributed, and by reducing
the overall fuel requirements. At Army installations, it is my
understanding that the Installation Energy and Water Security Policy
sets a requirement to secure critical missions by providing the
necessary energy and water for a minimum of 14 days. While progress has
been made, a great deal of work remains. If confirmed, I plan on
continuing these efforts and will ensure new approaches and
technologies from industry partners are considered.
training areas
46. Senator Hirono. Dr. Esper, training is an integral part of
maintaining the capabilities and readiness of our force. As DOD
continues to focus on the Asia-Pacific and the importance of forward
based troops such as those assigned to Hawaii bases, it is imperative
that our servicemembers have the opportunity to continue to train and
hone their skills. Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) is a great asset to
all of the Services. The Army has been working to improve the facility
and increase capabilities. What additional ways can the Army expand
training opportunities for our forces stationed on Hawaii, including
additional capacity at PTA and the Jungle Training School at Schofield
Barracks?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will work with General Milley and other
senior Army leaders to ensure Pokahuloa Training Area (PTA), the Jungle
Training School, and all of the Army's training areas, ranges and
schools are operating and being used efficiently and to the maximum
extent relevant to the operational environment and emerging threats.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
energy resiliency and security
47. Senator King. Dr. Esper, the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA supports
energy resiliency and security for military installations. I believe as
part of this objective it is critical that the Army pursue the use of
biomass when evaluating energy alternatives. Biomass energy is a source
of local, affordable, reliable, cost-effective, clean, and secure
energy that could help the Army with its power generation needs. What
are your views on the importance of energy resiliency?
Dr. Esper. I support the Department of Defense's view that we must
strive to modernize our installation infrastructure, increase utility
and energy conservation, enhance energy demand reduction, and otherwise
improve energy resilience and efficiency. If confirmed, I will ensure
our efforts are focused on warfighter readiness by ensuring energy
supplies are secure and resilient. All energy supplies and sources, to
include locally-supplied biomass, should be evaluated and considered
for their ability to contribute to improved energy resilience for Army
critical missions.
48. Senator King. Dr. Esper, how will the Army make sure that
biomass energy receives fair consideration for energy resiliency
projects?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Army continues to
evaluate energy resilience projects for solutions that, first and
foremost, effectively support the Army's ability to enhance warfighter
readiness, project power, and support global operations. In so doing, I
will ensure that Army energy resilience projects fairly evaluate all
practical forms of energy for heat and electric power production, to
include biomass where it makes operational, technical, and economic
sense to do so.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
career management
49. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, the Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act (DOPMA) is nearly 40 years old and one of the key
features of DOPMA is the up or out promotion system. Do you support any
changes to that system, particularly for occupational specialties such
as cyber?
Dr. Esper. If confirmed, I support the review of all policies to
ensure they will provide our Nation with the Army that it needs and
deserves. I believe attracting and retaining the best talent in the
Total Army will require increased flexibility in areas such as
promotions, assignments, and transitions between components. This is
especially true in certain emerging high-demand skills like cyber. In
short, I believe DOPMA needs to be reviewed and modernized. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) and the other Services toward this end, while continuing
efforts to improve flexibility in the personnel system in the meantime.
50. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, would you be in favor of creating
separate career tracks for technical military occupational specialties?
Dr. Esper. I understand the Army already has separate career tracks
for a number of specialties, many of which are largely technical. These
career tracks for warrant officers do not include the traditional
command and operational assignments required for continued upward
mobility. I expect separate career tracks will continue to evolve with
mission requirements, with cyber being a good example. As such, if
confirmed, I am open to a continuing assessment of other skills and
specialties that would benefit from a more technically oriented and
separate career path.
ethics recusal
51. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, in testimony you would not commit to
going beyond the minimum requirement by recusing yourself from
particular matters regarding Raytheon for the duration of your time in
office. You said, ``What I'd like to do is, if confirmed, is come back
to you, maybe in a couple of years and see if there's an issue and
maybe revisit the issue with you at that time.'' If confirmed, what
factors would you consider in 2 years when weighing the decision to
extend your recusal?
Dr. Esper. The Army cannot afford to suffer from poor performance
by contractors, nor does Congress or the public have patience for such
shortcomings. Army acquisition must be improved, and I have committed
to take a deep and personal interest in this issue, if confirmed, to
ensure our soldiers have the weapons and equipment they need, when they
need them, to fight and win on the modern battlefield. Therefore, while
I am absolutely committed to not only meeting--and in some cases
exceeding--federal ethics regulations to ensure I avoid any conflicts
of interest, I am equally committed to ensuring I can meet my
obligations to hold all Army contractors, including Raytheon,
accountable.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE) regulations require that all
employees recuse themselves for one year from participation in a
particular matter in which their former employer is or represents a
party to the matter. Pursuant to the President's Ethics Pledge, if
confirmed, my recusal period will be doubled to two years.
Additionally, I have personally agreed to further raise the bar by not
seeking a waiver of the two year recusal period. I am committed to
upholding the integrity and impartiality of the Department of the Army
and if confirmed, I will continue to work closely with Army ethics
officials to avoid any conflicts of interest or impartiality concerns
for the duration of my appointment. All of this well exceeds OGE
requirements that have been in place through multiple administrations.
My principal concern is that further extending/expanding my recusal
may unnecessarily limit my ability, if confirmed, to personally and
directly engage Raytheon leaders and hold them accountable for any
failures or shortcomings that may arise in the future. My experience in
the business world has been that the personal and direct engagement of
a Service Secretary with the senior leaders of a defense contractor
regarding a troubled program conveys the seriousness of the matter, and
can be the best way to achieve a program turnaround that ultimately
benefits the soldier and the taxpayer. Accordingly, if confirmed, the
primary factors I would consider in two years concerning any extension
of my recusal period would include: whether there is any likelihood
that the public would question my impartiality at that point in time;
whether my ability to participate in such matters in the long term is
in the Army's and taxpayer's best interests; and conversely, whether
and to what extent my inability to participate in such matters over the
long term might negatively impact the Army's and taxpayer's interests.
As such, I believe a review at the two-year mark rightly places the
interests of the soldiers and the Army first, while balancing the
expectations of Congress and the taxpayers regarding contractor
performance and the ethical obligations of government officials, and
after consulting DOD ethics officials, I understand they consider this
to be more than a sufficient approach.
52. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, if confirmed, what do you expect to
have materially changed in 2 years?
Dr. Esper. The Army is operating in a highly dynamic environment,
making the ability for leaders to engage and react to the unforeseen
critical. Whether it is supporting peacekeeping or military operations,
fielding or reacting to new technological advancements or capabilities,
or addressing evolving performance issues under existing programs,
consistent with the considerations outlined above, my primary concern
is that all Army contractors, including Raytheon, are performing as
expected and required, and can meet mission requirements. It is the
very unpredictability of whether and when, if confirmed, my engagement
as Secretary of the Army may be critical that makes it prudent to defer
consideration of further extensions to my recusal and ensure that all
of the relevant facts and circumstances existing at that time can be
taken into account. As such, I believe a review at the two-year mark
places the interests of the soldiers and the Army first in this dynamic
environment, while balancing the expectations of Congress and the
taxpayers regarding contractor performance and the ethical obligations
of government officials. Additionally, my understanding is that the DOD
ethics officials consider an additional extension, outside of the
regulatory and Executive Order timeframes, to be unnecessary.
53. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, do the terms of your recusal include
decisions where Raytheon is not the prime contractor but is instead a
subcontractor?
Dr. Esper. Under the terms of my Ethics Agreement, I will have
varying degrees of recusals that will change over time as I become
further removed from my employment with Raytheon. Until I divest of my
financial interests in Raytheon, which will occur within the first 90
days, I am prohibited from participating personally and substantially
in any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect
on Raytheon's financial interests. Additionally, until such time as my
deferred compensation is paid in full, I will be prohibited from
participating personally and substantially in any particular matter
that would have a direct, predictable, and substantial effect on the
ability and willingness of Raytheon to meet their payment obligation.
Both of these recusals would apply to particular matters where Raytheon
is the subcontractor, if the matter meets the applicable direct and
predictable effect standard.
Additionally, as set forth in my Ethics Agreement, OGE regulations
require that all Executive Branch employees recuse themselves for one
year from participation in a particular matter in which their former
employer is or represents a party to the matter. Pursuant to the
President's Ethics Pledge, if confirmed, my recusal period will be
doubled to two years. And, since I have personally agreed to further
raise the bar by not seeking a waiver of the two year recusal period,
all of this well exceeds OGE requirements that have been in place
through multiple administrations. Since a sub-contractor is not a party
to the particular matter (e.g., the contract), these recusals would not
apply to matters where Raytheon is not the prime contractor, unless
Raytheon were serving as a representative for the prime contractor.
This standard is wholly consistent with ethics standards in place
through prior Administrations, and is designed to ensure senior
government officials can adequately perform their jobs in the best
interests of the soldiers and the taxpayers, consistent with the
expectations of Congress, while maintaining the highest ethical
standards. I am committed to upholding the integrity and impartiality
of the Department of the Army and if confirmed, I will continue to work
closely with Army ethics officials to avoid any conflicts of interest
or impartiality concerns for the duration of my appointment.
54. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, do the terms of your recusal include
decisions where Raytheon is not a contractor or subcontractor, but has
a competing product and so could materially benefit from any decision
you make?
Dr. Esper. Under the terms of my Ethics Agreement, I will have
varying degrees of recusals that will change over time as I become
further removed from by employment with Raytheon. Until I divest of my
financial interests in Raytheon, which will occur within the first 90
days, I am prohibited from participating personally and substantially
in any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect
on Raytheon's financial interests. Additionally, until such time as my
deferred compensation is paid in full, I will be prohibited from
participating personally and substantially in any particular matter
that would have a direct, predictable, and substantial effect on the
ability and willingness of Raytheon to meet their payment obligation.
Both of these recusals would apply to particular matters where Raytheon
is a competitor, if the matter meets the applicable direct and
predictable effect standard.
Additionally, as set forth in my Ethics Agreement, OGE regulations
require that all Executive Branch employees recuse themselves for one
year from participation in a particular matter in which their former
employer is or represents a party to the matter. Pursuant to the
President's Ethics Pledge, if confirmed, my recusal period will be
doubled to two years. And, since I have personally agreed to further
raise the bar by not seeking a waiver of the two year recusal period,
all of this well exceeds OGE requirements that have been in place
through multiple administrations. Where Raytheon is not a party to the
particular matter (e.g., an awarded contract), the recusal would not
apply. However, if the particular matter involves a procurement (e.g.,
a contract solicitation, a bid protest, etc.) where Raytheon is a
competitor and thus a party, then the recusal would apply. This
standard is wholly consistent with ethics standards in place through
prior Administrations, and is designed to ensure senior government
officials can adequately perform their jobs in the best interests of
the soldiers and the taxpayers, consistent with the expectations of
Congress, while maintaining the highest ethical standards. I am
committed to upholding the integrity and impartiality of the Department
of the Army and if confirmed, I will continue to work closely with Army
ethics officials to avoid any conflicts of interest or impartiality
concerns for the duration of my appointment.
55. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, in your nomination hearing, you
testified in response to one of my questions that you personally
lobbied on behalf of Raytheon regarding three Army programs during your
time with the company. I followed up by asking whether you oversaw
lobbying in other areas, to which you replied: ``The lobbyists that
reported . . . the team that reported to me . . . I oversaw all their
activities across all Services, NDA, non-defense activities.'' When I
asked whether that meant that you oversaw virtually everything that
Raytheon lobbied on, you replied in the affirmative.
Given that as Vice President of Government Relations at Raytheon,
you had at least some visibility into the entire array of government
programs that Raytheon lobbied on, do you believe that, if confirmed as
Army Secretary, it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from
any matter in which the lobbyists you supervised were involved
personally and substantially?
Dr. Esper. The President's Ethics Pledge requires that, if
confirmed, I recuse myself from participation in any particular matter
(or any specific issue area where such particular matter falls) on
which I lobbied within the two years prior to my appointment.
Furthermore, I have personally raised the bar higher by agreeing not to
seek a waiver of this recusal.
With regard to other Raytheon lobbyists, I did not lobby on any of
the issues on which they lobbied (excepting, of course, those matters I
identified in my confirmation hearing as being matters on which I
personally lobbied). Additionally, I did not serve as the first line
supervisor for those individual lobbyists. Rather, those individual
lobbyists reported to a Director, who served as their immediate
supervisor, which means I was twice removed from the details of their
activities.
Taken in context with all of the requirements and recusals set
forth in my Ethics Agreement, the requirements and recusals set forth
in the President's Ethics Pledge, and my personal agreement not to seek
waivers, I believe I have demonstrated my absolute commitment to
ensuring the highest ethical standards. Furthermore, if confirmed, I
will continue to work closely with Army ethics officials to avoid any
conflicts of interest or impartiality concerns for the duration of my
appointment. Additionally, as I have noted above, I am committed to
ensuring that all Army contractors, including Raytheon, are held
accountable and that if confirmed, I am able to fulfill my
responsibilities as Secretary of the Army in that regard.
I believe that the existing robust ethical framework, together with
my personal agreement not to seek waivers, strikes an appropriate
balance that is in the best interests of the soldiers and the
taxpayers, and is consistent with the expectations of Congress. With
regard to lobbying activities, this will prohibit me from participating
in matters on which I personally lobbied but will permit my engagement
and accountability on those matters for which I had no personal
involvement. If any matter arises in which the Committee is concerned
about my engagement as Secretary, if confirmed, I commit to working
openly and transparently to address any questions or concerns and to
avoid any appearance of impropriety.
research and development
56. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, I'm concerned that the Military
Services are not prioritizing research, particularly basic research. If
confirmed, will you commit to making basic research a priority?
Dr. Esper. It is my understanding that the Army has recently
undertaken a significant review of Science and Technology investments
to ensure it is postured to deliver necessary technologies to enable
its six modernization priorities. If confirmed, I am committed to
effectively balancing the Army's investment in basic research, applied
research, and advanced technology developments to deliver foundational
technologies in support of these modernization priorities to ensure the
Army's current and future readiness.
geographic diversity
57. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, more than half of our enlisted
recruits come from just six States. Much of New England and part of the
upper Midwest are underrepresented in the force and I am concerned that
this reinforces the divide between civilians and our military. What are
some of the things we could do to increase the geographic diversity of
the force?
Dr. Esper. I share your concern. If confirmed, I will review the
Army's marketing strategy and community outreach by region to determine
better methods of communicating with eligible youth, and those who will
influence their decisions, about opportunities for service and a career
in the U.S. Army.
58. Senator Warren. Dr. Esper, do you think geographic diversity is
important?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I believe geographic diversity improves and
enhances the quality of talent brought into the Army. Recruiting people
into the Army from every state and territory expands diversity of
thought and experiences, and ensures the Service can attract the
Nation's best and brightest, while also allowing the Army to be a truer
reflection of our great Nation.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters
humvee rollover
59. Senator Peters. Dr. Esper, I have been working with the Army to
field brake and stability kits onto the new and existing High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet for the Army, National
Guard, and Army Reserve. HMMWV rollover accidents have resulted in
injury or death for too many soldiers, as well as civilians when these
accidents occur on public roadways. I have been told that the effort to
field this technology to the HMMWV fleet will begin in fiscal year
2018. If you are confirmed, can you assure me that you will address the
issue of HMMWV rollovers by working to field brake and stability kits
to the HMMWV fleet?
Dr. Esper. Yes. I understand that with prior congressional funding,
the Army National Guard (ARNG) was able to modernize over 1,100 Up-
Armored HMMWVs and purchase over 1,200 HMMWV Ambulances. If confirmed,
I will monitor modernization efforts for these fleets to ensure they
receive field brake and stability kits as planned.
stryker lethality
60. Senator Peters. Dr. Esper, I'm proud of having co-sponsored the
amendment that supported the Army's requirement for up-gunning the
Stryker combat vehicle with a 30mm cannon in response to an Operational
Needs Statement from 2nd Cavalry Regiment. Within 15 months after the
release of funds, the industrial base provided a prototype for the Army
in a successful rapid acquisition program. The Stryker Lethality effort
remains on track to field all the vehicles requested by summer 2018, on
schedule and under budget. Following this success, the Army included a
second set of Stryker Lethality vehicles on its Fiscal Year 2018
Unfunded Priorities List, and this committee authorized funding for
them in the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA. I think the need for this up-gunned
capability for Stryker is crucial, both in Europe, and in Asia where we
see an increasingly unstable threat from North Korea and rising
tensions generally. Do you support the effort to enhance the lethality
of Stryker vehicles?
Dr. Esper. I support the Army's effort to enhance the lethality of
the Stryker vehicle. It is my understanding that with the support you
mentioned, the Army will deliver the first set of up-gunned Strykers to
Europe within the next 90-days, three years from when they received the
demand signal. That fielding, which makes the Strykers far more lethal,
will continue in Germany and Poland for the 2d Cavalry Regiment (2SCR)
throughout 2018. I appreciate the committee's support in the NDAA for
the Army's request to fund the second set of up-gunned Strykers and, if
confirmed, look forward to delivering them along a similar, rapid
timeline.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Mark T. Esper follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 25, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Mark T. Esper, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Army, vice Eric
K. Fanning.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Mark T. Esper, which was
transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Mark T. Esper
Education:
U.S. Military Academy
- July 1982 to May 1986
- BS, Engineering
JFK School of Government, Harvard University
- June 1994 to July 1995
- MPA, National Security
George Washington University
- January 1997 to August 2008
- Ph.D., Public Policy
Employment Record \1\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most dates prior to July 2008 are estimates.
U.S. Army
- Rifle Platoon and TOW Platoon Leader, Rifle Company
Executive Officer, Infantry Battalion Operations Officer (x2), Student
(x3), Airborne Rifle Company Commander, Army Staff Officer
- Fort Benning, GA; Fort Campbell, KY; Saudi Arabia; Vicenza,
Italy; Boston, MA; Arlington, VA.
- May 1986 to October 1996
Note: I continued my military service in the VA National Guard at
Fort Belvoir, VA; the DC National Guard in Washington, DC; and the U.S.
Army Reserves in Arlington, VA, from November 1996 until my retirement
as a L TC/0-5 in July 2007.
The Heritage Foundation
- Chief of Staff
- Washington, DC
- July 1996 to December 1998
Office of Sen Chuck Hagel
- Legislative Director and Senior Policy Advisor
- Washington, DC
- January 1999 to January 2000
Senate Government Affairs Committee/Office of Senator
Fred Thompson
- PSM/National Security Advisor
- Washington, DC
- January 2000 to July 2001
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- PSM for National Security Affairs
- Washington, DC
- July 2001 to April 2002
House Armed Services Committee
- Policy Director
- Washington, DC
- April 2002 to November 2002
Department of Defense, OSD Policy
- Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Negotiations Policy)
- Arlington, VA
- November 2002 to May 2004
Office of the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
- National Security Advisor
- Washington, DC
- May 2004 to May 2006
Aerospace Industries Association
- Executive Vice President
- Arlington, VA
- May 2006 to July 2007
Fred Thompson for President Campaign
- National Policy Director and National Security Advisor
- McLean, VA
- July 2007 to February 2008
Missouri State University, Department of Defense and
Strategic Studies
- Adjunct Professor (Part-time/Evenings)
- Fairfax, VA
- August 2006 to December 201 O
Performed multiple part-time jobs mostly simultaneously
- Commissioner, United States-China Economic and Security
Review Commission
- Washington, DC
- March 2007 to July 2008
- President, Virtusci International LLC (Consulting firm I
founded)
- Burke, VA
- March 2008 to July 2008
- Senior Scholar, National Institute for Public Policy
- Fairfax, VA
- April 2008 to July 2008
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- EVP for the Global IP Center, and, VP for Europe/Eurasia
- Washington, DC
- July 2008 to July 2010
Raytheon Company
- VP for Government Relations
- Arlington, VA
- July 2010 to Present
Honors and Awards:
Military Awards
- Legion of Merit, 2007
- Bronze Star, 1991
- Liberation of Kuwait Medal, 1991
- Defense of Saudi Arabia, 1991
- Combat Infantryman's Badge
- Meritorious Service Medals (2)
- Army Commendation Medals
- Army Achievement Medals
- Army Service Ribbon
Federal Civilian Awards
- Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public
Service, 2004
Other Awards
- Laurel Highlands Senior High School Hall of Fame Inductee,
2013
______
[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 Dr. Mark T.
Esper 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.)
Mark T. Esper
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Army
3. Date of nomination:
July 25, 2017
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.]
5. Year and place of birth:
1964, Uniontown, PA
6. Marital status: (Include full name of current spouse including
any other names used, including maiden name.)
Married to Leah Lacy Esper since 1989. Spouse's Maiden Name was
``Lacy''
7. Names of children (if over age 18):
Luke T. Esper
John R: Esper
Kathryn L. Esper
8. Education: List names of secondary and higher education
institutions attended, type of school (vocational, technical, trade
school, college, university, military college, correspondence,
distance, extension, and on-line) dates attended, degree received and
date degree granted.
U.S. Military Academy
- July 1982 to May 1986
- BS, Engineering
JFK School of Government, Harvard University
- June 1994 -July 1995
- MPA, National Security
U.S. Army Command & General Staff College
- Completed via correspondence in 2001
George Washington University
- January 1997 to August 2008
- Ph.D., Public Policy
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. If
the employment activity was military duty, list separate employment
activity periods to show each change of military duty station.
The following is my employment record for the last ten years. Some
of the listed work dates are estimated.
Aerospace Industries Association
- Executive Vice President
- Arlington, VA
- May 2006 to July 2007
Fred Thompson for President Campaign
- National Policy Director and National Security Advisor
- McLean, VA
- July 2007 to February 2008
Missouri State University, Department of Defense and
Strategic Studies
- Adjunct Professor (Part-time/Evenings)
- Fairfax, VA
- August 2006 to December 2010
Performed multiple part-time jobs near simultaneously
- Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission
- Washington, DC
- March 2007 to December 2008
- President, Virtusci International LLC (Consulting Firm I
founded)
- Burke, VA
- March 2008 to July 2008
- Senior Scholar, National Institute for Public Policy
- Fairfax, VA
- April 2008 to July 2008
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- EVP for the Global IP Center, and later, VP for Europe/
Eurasia
- Washington, DC
- July 2008 to July 2010
Raytheon Company
- VP for Government Relations
- Arlington, VA
- July 2010 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.
In addition to my service on the U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission, which is listed above, I was an appointed
member of two separate State Department and Commerce Department
Industry Trade Advisory Groups in 2007 given my position at AIA.
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.
Vice President, Government Relations, Raytheon
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars (and possibly the
American Legion)
Member, West Point Association of Graduates
I may be a member of the Association of the U.S. Army
(AUSA) as a result of attending their annual conference in Washington,
D.C.
Member, Nativity Catholic Church in Burke, 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).
N/A
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
N/A
(c) Itemize all individual political contributions of $100 or more
to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political
action committee, or similar entity for the past 5 years. List each
individual contribution and not the total amount contributed to the
person or entity during the year.
RA YPAC. I contributed annually to the Raytheon
Political Action Committee (RA YPAC) over the past five years as the
figures below show. These contributions were automatically deducted
from my paycheck based on a fixed percent deduction. With an average of
26 pay periods each year, my approximate average contribution per pay
period each year is listed in parentheses after the annualized amount.
Additionally, I have been the Treasurer of RA YPAC since 2010.
- 2012--$1,341.52 ($52)
- 2013--$1,091.07 ($42)
- 2014--$1,619.77 ($62)
- 2015--$1,683.63 ($65)
- 2016--$1,736.34 ($67)
- 2017--$748.49 ($71)
Richard Shelby via Shelby for U.S. Senate 2/8/2013
$500
McConnell Senate Committee 6/30/2014 $500$250
John McCain via Sedona PAC 3/3/2015 $250
John McCain via Sedona PAC 3/6/2015 $250
Right to Rise PAC 3/6/2015 $250
Friends of Kelly Ayotte 10/15/2015 $250
Marco Rubio for President 11/24/2015 $1,000
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, civilian service citations, military awards and decorations,
honorary society memberships, and any other special recognition for
outstanding service or achievements.
Military Awards
Legion of Merit, 2007
Bronze Star, 1991
Liberation of Kuwait Medal, 1991
Southwest Asia Service Medal, 1991
Combat Infantryman's Badge, 1991
Overseas Service Ribbon
Meritorious Service Medals (2)
Army Commendation Medals (2)
Army Achievement Medals (5)
Expert Infantryman's Badge
National Defense Service Medal
Army Service Ribbon
Army Staff Identification Badge
Qualifications: Airborne (Senior Parachutist), Ranger,
Pathfinder, Air Assault, Jumpmaster
Federal Civilian Awards
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public
Service, 2004
Other Awards
Laurel Highlands Senior High School Hall of Fame
Inductee, 2013
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written including articles published on the internet.
I wrote a monograph in 1991 at the Infantry Officers
Advanced Course on the experiences of my Army unit in the Gulf War
entitled "The Screaming Eagles of Desert Storm," which has subsequently
become available online.
I wrote a few (2-3) short public interest stories for
my hometown newspaper, the Uniontown Morning Herald, in late 1991,
recounting my personal experiences in the 1990-91 Gulf War.
I wrote an Op-Ed about the war in Bosnia that was
published in the Washington Times in early 1998.
I completed my Ph.D. Dissertation titled "The Role of
Congress in the Development of the United States' Strategic Nuclear
Forces, 1947-68" in 2008. It was not published, but was archived
through George Washington University.
I am aware of at least three op-eds and articles
dealing with intellectual property issues that were published under my
name during my tenure as EVP of the Global IP Center at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce from 2008-10.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years of which you have
copies and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None
17. Commitments regarding nomination, confirmation, and service:
(a) If confirmed, will you adhere to applicable laws and
regulations governing conflicts of interest?
Yes
(b) Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?
No
(c) If confirmed, will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including questions
for the record in hearings?
Yes
(d) Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to Congressional requests?
Yes
(e) Will you promise to enforce or ensure whistleblower protections
for all those witnesses?
Yes
(f) Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request
before this Committee?
Yes
(g) Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
a duly constituted Committee, or to consult with the Committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
such documents?
Yes
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the Committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the Committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Mark T. Esper
This 27th day of July, 2017
______
[The nomination of Mark T. Esper was reported to the Senate
by Chairman McCain on November 7, 2017, with the recommendation
that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on November 15, 2017.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Joseph D. Kernan 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. I support the Committee in its effort to reform the
organization and management of the Department of Defense (DOD). I
firmly believe that continuously examining DOD policies and processes
to find ways to best accomplish its missions is an enduring imperative.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the armed services,
intelligence, and defense appropriations committees on implementation
of these reforms as they relate to the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) and the defense intelligence
enterprise.
Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
be appropriate for this Committee to address?
Answer. I believe there is opportunity for continued reform within
the Department of Defense and, if confirmed, I would look carefully
across the organization, management, and activities of the defense
intelligence enterprise to determine where improvements could be made
to support defense and national security challenges and priorities. If
confirmed, I will engage and consult routinely with the Committees to
conduct defense intelligence enterprise activities in more efficient
and effective ways.
Question. Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 required the Secretary of Defense to establish cross-
functional teams to address critical objectives of the Department.
Do you agree that the Department must be able to integrate its
diverse, functional capabilities well in order to successfully defend
the nation from increasingly complex and dynamic security threats? Will
you meet this requirement to the best of your abilities?
Answer. Yes, I strongly agree with the need to integrate these
capabilities, and if confirmed, I am committed to proactively meeting
this requirement to the best of my abilities. Today's diverse threats
cross all domains and require a whole-of-government approach to
developing comprehensive responses. The use of cross-functional teams
leverages expertise across the DOD, including the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, the combatant commands,
the Military Departments/Services and the combat support agencies.
Bringing talent together from across the Department, soliciting
innovative thinking and delivering integrated solutions are crucial to
improving DOD's ability to address threats to national security. As
appropriate, I will as well advocate for cross-functional teams to
include participants from other government agencies so that,
collectively, we can better address national security challenges.
For example, I understand that the USD(I) has been tasked by the
Deputy Secretary to oversee a cross-functional team focused on
algorithmic warfare, and on leveraging technology to improve the
processing, exploitation, and dissemination of full motion video
collected from airborne platforms. That is a critical capability that
would have been extraordinarily useful to me as a deployed special
operations force commander and it remains so for our deployed military
forces in harm's way.
Question. What is your understanding of the attributes and
characteristics of effective cross-functional teams?
Answer. My belief, and I understand this is the practice for DOD's
cross-functional teams, is the inclusion of subject matter experts from
across the Department with technical expertise, appropriate knowledge
of policy, strategy, and operations and the commitment to
collaboratively tackle our most important national security challenges
is an important imperative.
Question. What are your views on the potential focus areas and uses
for future cross-functional teams?
Answer. I believe that we need to focus on and commit to drawing on
cross-functional expertise from across the intelligence community. The
ability of our joint force to integrate intelligence faster and more
effectively than our adversaries will continue to drive U.S.
competitive military advantage and better inform decision-making.
Cross-government teams of this nature could be equally beneficial in
bringing together solutions from across DOD and the Intelligence
Community to address adversary threats. If confirmed, I will continue
to support and promote participation in cross-functional teams.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the role, duties, and
functions of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I))?
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) is
responsible for supporting the Secretary of Defense in discharging his
intelligence and security responsibilities and authorities under Title
10 and Title 50 of the United States Code.
From DOD Directive 5143.01, I understand the responsibilities of
the USD(I) to include: serving as the Principal Staff Assistant and
intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Defense; exercising authority,
direction, and control on behalf of the Secretary of Defense over the
Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-intelligence
Agency, the National Security Agency / Central Security Service, the
National Reconnaissance Office, and the Defense Security Service;
establishing policy and priorities for, and providing oversight of, the
defense intelligence enterprise; exercising oversight of personnel
policy to ensure that intelligence organizations in the Department of
Defense are staffed, organized, trained, and equipped to support the
missions of the Department; ensuring that the DOD intelligence
components that are also elements of the intelligence community are
responsive to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in the
execution of the DNI's authorities; ensuring that the combatant
commanders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the civilian leadership of
the Department are provided with appropriate intelligence support;
ensuring that counterintelligence activities in the Department are
conducted and managed efficiently and effectively; ensuring that other
sensitive activities which the Department conducts or supports are
conducted and managed efficiently and effectively; overseeing the
implementation of assigned DOD security policies and programs to ensure
efficiency and effectiveness; serving as the Program Executive for the
Military Intelligence Program, and ensuring that the Department
provides the U.S. Congress with information sufficient to execute its
oversight responsibilities. I believe an implied responsibility of
USD(I), when appropriate, beneficial, and lawful, is to collaboratively
support the intelligence-related needs for the whole-of-government
mission to protect our nation's security.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the USD(I)?
Answer. At this time, I do not have specific recommendations for
changes in the duties and functions of the USD(I). If confirmed, I
will, as the Principle Staff Assistant and advisor to the Secretary of
Defense and his Deputy, carry out those aforementioned duties and
functions contained in DOD Directive 5143.01. I would coordinate widely
across the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community, and inform
the Committee of any recommendations.
Question. How do you view the relationship and division of
responsibilities between the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence (OUSD(I)) and the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy?
Answer. Secretary Mattis has emphasized collaboration,
partnerships, and reform of the Department. If confirmed, I would work
closely and collaboratively with each of the Under Secretaries, their
Principal Deputies, and other Department officials, recognizing the
complementary perspectives each brings to the Department's mission. I
believe that a close and continuing partnership between the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and the USD(I) is essential to best
align intelligence policies and capabilities with Policy objectives.
Critically, and from my personal military career experience, I know
that the key beneficiaries of this collaboration, strong relationship,
and alignment between USD(P) and USD(I) are the warfighters, those in
uniform that endeavor every day to support national security.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience, particularly in the area
of intelligence matters, do you possess that qualify you to perform the
duties of the USD(I)?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe I have the appropriate background
and experience to effectively perform the duties of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence.
Over the course of my 36 years in uniform, predominantly as a Naval
Special Warfare/SEAL officer, I was a collector, consumer, and user of
intelligence from a multitude of intelligence sources.
The bulk of my military career was spent serving with Special
Operations and Special Warfare units participating in operations and
exercises globally on many levels. I commanded platoons at Underwater
Demolition Team 12, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team One, and SEAL Team Five.
I commanded SEAL Team Two and the Naval Special Warfare Development
Group (NSWDG).
Commanding NSWDG on 9/11, and subsequent Joint Task Forces through
the initial operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, helped shape my
knowledge of how special operators and other military combat forces
depend on, and work effectively with, intelligence professionals.
The past 16 years of operations have brought intelligence and
special operations professionals together in unique ways, with
intelligence providing a battlefield advantage to both conventional and
special operations forces and operators, and in return, providing
intelligence officers the opportunity to validate and evolve their
intelligence practices. This relationship is critical in how the United
States will conduct conventional and irregular warfare operations in
the 21st Century.
While serving in each of the geographic areas of responsibility for
the Combatant Commands, on a Combatant Command staff, and deployed in
support of named and contingency operations and exercises, I worked
closely with intelligence professionals from the Joint Staff, Service
components, Combat Support Agencies, the intelligence community, and
law enforcement entities. Intelligence underpinned the planning and
decision-making process of every operation. The fidelity of this
intelligence directly correlated to mission success, mitigation of risk
to our forces, and achievement of tactical to strategic objectives. The
intelligence leveraged came not only from U.S. intelligence entities
but from many ally and partner sources. I place a very high priority on
the value of enduring collaboration and intelligence fusion.
While serving as the Deputy Commander of U.S. Southern Command, I
observed how the Command's Joint Intelligence Operations Center and the
Joint Interagency Task Force provided intelligence that drove defense,
law enforcement and allied forces' activities to interdict illicit
trafficking throughout the region. Additionally, I gained deep insights
from my front row seat as the Senior Military Assistant to former
Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, where I viewed the collaborative
decision processes with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Services and the Combatant Commands and USD(I) efforts to coordinate
intelligence community support to address defense intelligence needs.
Collectively, I believe these experiences both qualify me for, and
would inform my efforts as, the USD(I), if confirmed. I would be
honored to serve with our nation's intelligence professionals.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the OUSD(I) and the Senate Armed Services Committee in
particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. I view the relationship between the OUSD(I) and the
Committee as indispensable to building a more capable and responsive
intelligence enterprise to meet our nation's security needs. I believe
that a close and collaborative relationship between DOD and Congress is
an obligation and essential for both to perform their duties. My
experience has been that the Department and DOD components have been
responsive to the Committee. If confirmed, I would seek to routinely
engage the Senate Armed Services Committee and other committees of
jurisdiction to strengthen OUSD(I)'s relationship with this Committee
and Congress.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the OUSD(I)?
Answer. If confirmed as USD(I), I would pursue an open, continuing,
and forthright dialogue with Congress concerning issues vital to
defense intelligence and national security. Furthermore, I would
actively seek perspective, advice, and support from committees of
jurisdiction; be forthcoming in explaining intelligence activities,
programs, and budgets; seek to provide Congress with the information
needed to carry out its Article I constitutional responsibilities; and
be accountable to the Congress in carrying out my duties and
responsibilities.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the OUSD(I) and the Defense Intelligence Enterprise?
Answer. I believe the major challenges confronting OUSD(I) and the
defense intelligence enterprise include adapting to and providing
timely awareness and insights into a diverse, complex and ever-changing
array of security challenges. The broad scope and fast pace of global
operations will very likely be conducted with a smaller force and in a
constrained fiscal environment. Despite these constraints, the
obligations and increasing demands on the intelligence enterprise to
support policy, operations, acquisitions and decision-making will not
wane, and our posture and capabilities must continue to support the
full spectrum of security challenges. We must prevent strategic and
military surprises. While accepting this responsibility, the USD(I)
must also address these challenges in an environment that requires
better protection of our intelligence sources and methods, the networks
on which we function, and from the full spectrum of threats--from
traditional espionage to insider threats and unauthorized disclosures,
whether ideologically-motivated or inadvertent.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that sufficient and available
resources are devoted to the defense intelligence enterprise and pursue
additional resources if there are critical shortfalls. I would seek to
effectively implement the Secretary's priorities for the Department
across the defense intelligence enterprise and ensure that
comprehensive programs and policies are developed to support the
execution of these priorities. The success of the defense intelligence
enterprise depends on a workforce--a team of highly talented and
experienced professionals with a wide range and depth of skill. If
confirmed, I would pursue relentlessly those commercial technologies
that show promise of rapidly advancing our intelligence superiority and
advocate for initiatives. I would place a high priority on policies and
programs that effectively recruit, train and retain the uniquely
talented workforce required to advance the intelligence enterprises
ability to mitigate, preempt, and respond to adversarial activities.
Question. How would you anticipate developing priorities for
allocating your time and resources as the USD(I)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would align my priorities with those of the
Secretary of Defense: to support increasing the lethality of the joint
force, cultivating partnerships, and reforming the Department. I would
seek to ensure that resources are allocated strategically to, and
across, the defense intelligence enterprise in full support of military
forces.
In developing intelligence-centric priorities in support of the
Secretary's priorities, I would closely collaborate with the uniformed
and civilian leaders to ensure optimal support to priority intelligence
requirements of the combatant commanders and the operational and
military forces that they task and lead. Additionally, I would place a
high priority on developing and acquiring intelligence capabilities to
maintain and advance our technological superiority; improve the
tradecraft of personnel working in the defense intelligence enterprise;
and protect our infrastructure and technologies from external and
internal threats. Finally, I would allocate the necessary time to
ensure the proper management and activities of the OUSD(I) staff focus
on efficiency and effectiveness in support of Department modernization
efforts.
Question. If confirmed, how would you balance the need to provide
intelligence support to the warfighter with the need to provide
intelligence support to policy makers?
Answer. My understanding and belief is that balancing these needs
is one of the USD(I)'s primary responsibilities. If confirmed, I would
work to ensure the defense intelligence enterprise continues to satisfy
requirements for operationally-relevant intelligence that directly
enables warfighter success, and I would work collaboratively across the
Defense Department and with interagency partners to inform policy and
military decision-making by our national leaders.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the geographic
combatant commands are adequately assessing and prioritizing their
intelligence needs?
Answer. The last position I held before retiring from the U.S. Navy
was as the Deputy Commander of U.S. Southern Command. Assessing and
prioritizing intelligence needs was one of the most critical roles I
had in that position. If confirmed, and in coordination with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other Department and
interagency partners that work with and support Combatant Commands, I
would seek to strengthen integration and collaboration between the
geographic and functional combatant commands and the elements of the
intelligence community. The intelligence picture and assessments
created by the intelligence enterprise inform commanders in their
requirements and priority deliberations. An unwavering commitment to
providing definitive intelligence and capabilities will help shape
combatant commander assessments and priorities.
budget
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of the budget caps
required by the Budget Control Act on the capacity and capabilities of
the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to meet requirements?
Answer. The impact has been significant on defense intelligence
enterprise (DIE) readiness. I understand that the DIE has been
inhibited by five consecutive years of one-year budget reductions to
meet budget caps. This has stressed the ability of the DIE to optimally
address warfighting requirements in South Asia and the Middle East and
has a cascading negative impact in other regions. These constraints
have forced tough choices on where to invest limited resources, such as
between the competing requirements of intelligence support to counter-
terrorism efforts and fortifying our intelligence capabilities against
nations like Russia and China. The DIE has also experienced delays in
system upgrades, facility maintenance and slowed the desired pace to
address the emerging challenges presented by China's rapidly growing
military and a resurgent Russia. I would expect that budget constraints
will also limit investment in potentially enterprise-enabling
technologies that could address complex intelligence needs. If
confirmed, I will pay close attention to these areas and identify
related issues and shortfalls.
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 fully support the standards on detainee treatment
and intelligence interrogation laid out in the Army Field Manual, DOD
policy, and the law. If confirmed, I will continue to support and
enforce these standards and I would expect all DOD personnel to be held
accountable for doing so.
management of the defense intelligence enterprise
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the OUSD(I) in
overseeing and coordinating the efforts of the elements of the Defense
Intelligence Enterprise?
Answer. I understand the USD(I) is responsible for supporting the
Secretary of Defense, as his Principal Staff Assistant for assigned
intelligence matters, in discharging his intelligence-related
responsibilities and authorities under Title 10 and Title 50 of the
United States Code. This includes exercising authority, direction, and
control on behalf of the Secretary of Defense over the defense
intelligence components of the Department of Defense and working
closely with the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, Service components
and the ODNI to develop effective policy, plans, programs, and
priorities.
Question. Are additional authorities, policy guidance, or resources
necessary for effective oversight of the enterprise?
Answer. If confirmed, I would carefully assess the adequacy of the
existing authorities, policies, and resources to determine what
changes, if any, are needed for effective oversight of defense
intelligence activities and to improve the performance of the
enterprise. On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, I would work closely
with the committees of jurisdiction to seek the support and resources
necessary to execute effective oversight.
Question. Are there opportunities to improve coordination with the
National Intelligence Community to improve intelligence support to the
warfighter and, if so, where are the opportunities?
Answer. From my experience in uniform, I believe there are always
opportunities to improve collaboration across the intelligence
community to better support the warfighter. If I am confirmed, I would
engage early and often with the combatant commanders to improve my
understanding of their needs and I would frequently engage leaders
within the national intelligence community to obtain support to meet
those warfighter needs. I am particularly interested in improving the
integration of national and defense intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities, and applying greater attention to faster,
more agile and adaptive processing, exploitation, and dissemination of
intelligence data to better support the warfighter and others that
engage our adversaries at the tactical edge.
background investigations
Question. The National Background Investigations Bureau at the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is currently charged with
conducting background investigations (BIs) for the Department of
Defense. However, its ownership of this process has led to a backlog of
over 600,000 cases, which is increasing by more than 10,000 a month.
This has led to unacceptable delays for Department personnel and
programs as both are idled waiting for clearances. Secretary Mattis has
indicated that he has made a decision in principle to transition from
outsourcing BIs from OPM to having the Department of Defense conduct
its own BIs. In addition, section 938 of S. 1519, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as passed by the Senate Armed
Services Committee, mandates this transition.
Do you support this transition?
Answer. Yes. I fully support this effort. The unacceptable backlog
of more than 700,000 cases has a significantly negative impact on DOD
mission readiness. Appropriately cleared personnel, uniformed, civilian
and contractor, are critical to the day-to-day operations of the
Department as well as our future readiness and capabilities. Of
concern, individuals cleared on an interim basis do not have access to
the full scope of information they need to perform their duties, and,
without a completed background investigation, the Department is
accepting increased risk. The Department needs to address these issues
and build a program that is effective in both avoiding backlogs and
minimizing risks to our security. If confirmed, these issues will have
my full attention.
One objection to the transfer of Defense Department BIs from OPM to
the Department is that OPM would lose its ``economy of scale'' (as the
Defense Department comprises the vast majority of OPM's investigations
workload) and there would be yet more duplication of personnel security
overhead than already exists today. A counter-argument is that the
small remaining investigations workload at OPM could also be
transferred to the Defense Department, in much the same way that the
Defense Security Service today manages the industrial security program
for almost the entire Federal Government.
Question. What are your views on this issue?
Answer. My understanding is that the current OPM-led process is
overwhelmed, and costs have spiraled in recent years. I would need a
better understanding of the current program details and the concerns
regarding economy of scale before I could provide my views. However, if
confirmed, I would closely examine IT systems and the practices of OPM
and DOD to conduct background investigations to ensure existing
economies of scale are preserved and possibly improved. Additionally, I
would ensure that any methods to reduce costs and develop improvements
were shared, as appropriate, throughout the U.S. government.
allocation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (isr)
assets through the global force management process
Question. This Committee has expressed concerns about the process
and underlying analysis supporting the allocation of ISR assets to the
combatant commands under the Global Force Management Process (GFMAP).
While these GFMAP problems are numerous, the Committee has noted in
particular that, since the events of September 11th, U.S. Central
Command has received the overwhelming share of ISR assets, to the point
where the Committee expressed doubt that ``a rigorous analysis would
consistently rank the lowest priorities of one or more combatant
commands higher than the highest priorities of other combatant
commands.''
What is your understanding and assessment of the adequacy of the
process for allocating ISR capabilities under the GFMAP process?
Answer. The Global Force Management Process (GFMAP) was designed to
allocate forces and capabilities across the Combatant Commands to best
meet their prioritized requirements, including allocation of
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. As the
former Deputy Commander of U.S. Southern Command, I have personal
experience competing with the U.S. Central Command and other Combatant
Commands for limited ISR resources. While our troops fighting in active
combat zones must always have priority for our resources, due
consideration must be given to other security concerns. During my
participation in the GFMAP process, I found that combatant commander
requirements always exceeded the ISR assets available. If confirmed, I
would closely coordinate with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to support a process that achieves an appropriate balance in ISR
allocation so we ensure that our global security responsibilities are
best met.
Question. In your view, are modifications to the process warranted?
Answer. I am not aware currently of the exact distribution of ISR
resources, but if confirmed, I would personally review current ISR
allocations and participate, as appropriate, in the allocation process.
cyber
Question. How do you perceive the challenges we face in cyberspace?
Answer. I believe that the cyberspace domain offers a multitude of
benefits, but it also poses one of the greatest threats to our nation's
security. DOD, like our nation, faces a daily and growing threat in
cyberspace. In recent years, malicious cyber activities conducted by
our adversaries, both state and non-state actors, are increasingly
complex, technologically advanced, disruptive, and persistent. DOD
continues to face challenges in protecting and securing its networks,
systems, infrastructure, and in developing its overall cyber
capabilities. If confirmed, and in close collaboration with both the
government and civilian sectors, as well as Congress. I would be fully
committed to addressing this challenge with both defensive and
offensive measures.
Question. Briefly describe what policy objectives the Defense
Department should be seeking to achieve in the cyber realm and the
strategy you think is necessary to address these challenges.
Answer. The Secretary has discussed the need for both a whole-of-
government effort regarding U.S. responses to malicious cyber activity
and hardening our information networks and critical infrastructure,
which I fully support. If confirmed, DOD's role in cyber will be one of
my key focus areas, as the Department continues to support efforts to
better assess the threat, bring technological and policy advancements
to bear to deter our adversaries and protect our networks, support
defensive and offensive cyber operations, fully develop the Cyber
Mission Forces, and empower and resource U.S. Cyber Command.
Question. What role should the OUSD(I) play in addressing
challenges in cyberspace?
Answer. I believe that OUSD(I)'s role is to facilitate an
integrated perspective on cyberspace as it relates to intelligence.
This includes providing the Secretary and our national security
leadership a holistic look at the capabilities, operations, personnel,
and resources across the defense intelligence enterprise needed to
provide more effective and efficient intelligence support to DOD cyber
operations. If confirmed, I would foster a close and continuing
partnership between OUSD(I), OUSD Policy, the Joint Staff, U.S. Cyber
Command, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security
Agency as we must collectively work to operate freely and safely in
this domain.
Question. What is your understanding of the support that the
OUSD(I) should provide to the Principal Cyber Advisor's cross-
functional team under section 932 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014?
Answer. I understand that OUSD(I) supports the Principal Cyber
Advisor cross-functional team through direct liaison and collaboration
with the Director for Defense Intelligence that oversees defense
technical collection and special programs. If confirmed, I will review
the current level of support and identify any needed changes.
information operations
Question. The Russian government conducted an aggressive
information operations campaign against the United States in 2016 in an
attempt to influence the presidential election and undermine faith in
America's democratic system and institutions. The Russian government
has been conducting similar operations for a number of years, including
in 2017, against U.S. allies in Europe. The Department of Defense, and
the Federal Government as a whole, was ill-prepared to detect, defend
against, and respond to these operations, which have been conducted
primarily, but not exclusively, through cyberspace. Section 1042 of S.
1519, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as
passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a cross-functional task force to
integrate across the Department's capabilities and organizations to
respond to and conduct information operations and cyber-enabled
information operations.
What are your views on the preparedness of the Department of
Defense and the Federal Government as a whole to deter, defend against,
and conduct integrated strategic information operations?
Answer. While I have been out of government for several years and
have not been privy to the Department's progress in conducting
information operations, I believe the ability of the Department of
Defense and the Federal Government to understand, conduct, and deter
strategic information operations falls short of what the nation needs.
The 2016 Russian example is only one of many recent examples that
highlight significant gaps in capability to counter strategic
information operations and to develop an effective U.S. government-wide
communications strategy. There is much work to do, including potential
organizational reform and reallocation of resources. If confirmed, I
would work closely with the other Primary Staff Assistants and the
Joint Staff to understand how the intelligence community and defense
intelligence enterprise can enhance operations in the information
environment. This effort would include a review of OUSD(I)'s internal
organizational structure. I understand that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff recently approved the introduction of a new, seventh
Joint Function (information) that should serve as a springboard to
better organize the entire Department to address strategic,
operational, and tactical information operations.
Question. What is your assessment of section 1042?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to an extensive review of the
potential implications of section 1042. If section 1042 is enacted into
law, it may provide new opportunities to transform DOD information and
cyber operations by prioritizing and integrating DOD efforts across the
information environment. I would look forward to working closely and
collaboratively with other stakeholders in the Department to ensure we
have the requisite capabilities to operate effectively with speed and
agility in the information environment and cyberspace domain. OUSD(I)'s
internal organizational structure would also need to be examined to
ensure that we are postured to meet the objectives of section 1042.
Question. What role would you foresee for the Defense intelligence
components in supporting the task force proposed in section 1042?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the defense intelligence
enterprise is prepared to support the task force proposed in section
1042, if enacted into law. I foresee important roles for the defense
intelligence components in supporting section 1042 objectives.
Intelligence has always been a cornerstone of effective offensive and
defensive operations in the information environment and thus a strong,
impactful role for USD(I) to achieve the objectives outlined in section
1042 is appropriate. If the position of Defense Intelligence Officer
for Information Operations and Cyber Operations was established in law,
it may allow for substantial gains in effective, efficient, and
proactive support for cyberspace operations, military deception,
operations security, military information support operations,
electronic warfare, and other indirect approaches that address the
cognitive nature of war.
space
Question. What do you perceive as the threats to our national
security space satellites?
Answer. The United States, its allies, and partners rely on space
capabilities for their security and prosperity. Losing access to our
space capabilities would have severe consequences on the battlefield
and our way of life here at home. Our adversaries recognize this
dependency and have invested in a range of anti-satellite capabilities,
from kinetic weapons to be employed against our satellites to non-
kinetic cyber weapons that can disable our satellite ground stations
and jam command, control, and communications links. Additionally, space
has become increasingly congested, with the number of objects in orbit
steadily growing, threatening our ability to operate safely.
Question. Briefly describe what policy objectives the Defense
Department should be seeking to achieve and the strategy you think is
necessary to address these threats.
Answer. If confirmed, I would support the Secretary and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy in their articulation of the
Department's space policy objectives. I believe that our defense
intelligence enterprise must have the capabilities, personnel, and
resources to adequately assess space threats and technology to better
support the acquisition and operation of new space capabilities.
Furthermore, I believe that OUSD(I) can work to better integrate
intelligence with operations in protecting our space advantage, as well
as increase the integration of space and airborne ISR in delivering
intelligence advantage to our warfighters.
Question. Given that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) would
be required to respond operationally to active threats to
reconnaissance satellites by adversaries in a conflict, should the
Department consider designating the NRO as a combat support agency?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look into what changes may be
warranted to our overall space enterprise based on the current and
predicted threat environment.
relationship with respect to the assistant secretary of defense for
special operations and low intensity conflict (asd solic)
Question. How are responsibilities for the oversight of the
activities and programs of special operations forces delineated between
the OUSD(I) and ASD SOLIC?
Answer. Since 9/11, U.S. special operations forces have
successfully integrated operations and intelligence at every level of
tactical and operational command. To the extent that these forces
engage in intelligence, counterintelligence, security, sensitive
activities, or other intelligence-related activities, the USD(I) and
the ASD(SO/LIC) share responsibility for overseeing those activities.
If confirmed, I will continue to build upon the active partnership
between the USD(I) and ASD SO/LIC teams to ensure collaboration that
strengthens the Department's oversight and effectiveness of special
operations activities and programs.
Question. Are there any programs that are currently overseen by the
OUSD(I) that would be more appropriately overseen by ASD SOLIC?
Answer. I am not aware of any currently. However, I would need to
better understand the full range of program oversight. If confirmed, I
would work closely with ASD SO/LIC and the Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command to help ensure that supporting activities and
programs are in place and overseen to support the Special Operations
Command's effectiveness, and aligned to ASD SO/LIC's roles and
responsibilities.
personnel security and insider threats
Question. The Secretary of Defense established the Department of
Defense Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) in 2014
to oversee the mitigation of insider threat risks to the Department and
specific actions on insider threat cases. The Department faces
technical, cultural, management, and organizational challenges in
creating integrated, automated means to access data from, and make
correlations across, the intelligence, counter-intelligence, law
enforcement, physical security, cybersecurity, personnel security, and
human resources organizations in all the military services, defense
agencies, combatant commands, and Office of the Secretary of Defense,
as well as the Department's contractor population. The USD(I) is the
designated Department of Defense official accountable for managing and
overseeing the Department's insider threat program.
How, if at all, should the Department change its data ownership and
governance policies to allow for DITMAC to accomplish its mission?
Answer. It is vital that the Department, and USD(I), as the
accountable manager for the program, develop appropriate tools and
propose policies to collectively mitigate risk and address threats. I
believe the Department should take an innovative, directive approach,
seeking to implement promising data management technologies that
develop an ``all source,'' shared picture of the potential insider
threats. The threat is too significant to not aggressively resolve
those other aforementioned issues that are within the Department's
ability and responsibility to resolve. If confirmed, I will closely
examine the Department's insider threat mitigation program, identify
any policy constraints, and work closely with leaders and staffs across
the Defense Department to propose those data ownership and governance
policies that are in the best interests of mitigating insider threats.
Question. Does the OUSD(I) have the authority and technical
expertise necessary to guide the development of a comprehensive insider
threat capability that integrates all sources of information for
identifying insider threats using modern information technology?
Answer. I believe that the Department's insider threat program is
still developing. I understand that the Department is using a phased
approach to implement capabilities that will integrate the latest
technologies available. The goal is for the program to be comprehensive
by aggregating and analyzing available information vital to timely
awareness and action in countering insider threats. If confirmed, I
would pursue the expertise and technology to optimize this goal from
any appropriate source and I will assess whether additional authorities
or other resources would be needed for OUSD(I) to optimally address
this threat.
Question. Is it advisable and appropriate, in your view, for the
DITMAC to have access or be integrated into the Defense Department
contractors' human resource, cybersecurity, physical security, and
personnel security data systems, given that contractors were
responsible for multiple recent insider threats?
Answer. I believe insider threat programs should address threats in
a comprehensive and integrated way that ensures effective mitigation of
threats regardless of their origin. If confirmed, I would evaluate
fully the options to address any information-sharing challenges,
including potential use of contractor data. I would propose the
necessary integration and access protocols that best mitigate the
insider threat while protecting sensitive data where appropriate.
personnel security to support the department of defense's innovation
strategy
Question. The Department of Defense is pursuing a wide-ranging
strategy to engage with commercial entities engaged in cutting-edge
research and development, including through the Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental (DIUx). The Department's leadership recognizes that it
needs new acquisition policies and practices to enable the Department
to engage with this sector with the necessary speed, agility and
flexibility. Two related obstacles are the time and difficulty involved
in acquiring security clearances and the hurdles that non-traditional
contractors face in getting access to data to test and demonstrate new
information technology and software. The National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, for example, has concluded that it lacks the
authority necessary to share even its unclassified imagery data with
companies and universities it hopes can develop dramatically improved
exploitation capabilities through machine learning-based artificial
intelligence algorithms.
What are your views on the importance of, and potential approaches
for, the Defense Department's security apparatus adapting and tailoring
its requirements and procedures to better support the Department's
innovation agenda?
Answer. It is vital that DOD innovation efforts are secure and
protected appropriately from all threats, just as it is vital for the
Department to pursue those capabilities that will markedly enhance
critically important capabilities. It is my understanding that a
provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 required the establishment of an Enhanced Security Program to
Support the Department of Defense Innovation Initiative. If confirmed,
I would work to ensure the effective implementation of this program at
DOD innovation hubs, such as DIUx. In addition, I would aggressively
support continued outreach to industry and seek the means to safely and
rapidly bring data exploitation and emerging machine learning and
artificial intelligence capabilities to bear on national security
challenges.
u.s. special operations command intelligence operations
Question. In your view, how are intelligence operations carried out
by special operations personnel different from those carried out by
others in the intelligence community?
Answer. In my experience, special operations missions require very
precise and detailed intelligence to prepare the battlespace and ensure
operations can be executed on short timelines and in high risk
environments. This range of missions also requires access to agile and
flexible intelligence-related infrastructure, tradecraft, and
capabilities to meet operational requirements. Additionally, U.S.
Special Operations Forces have trained and honed their skills to
conduct meticulous site exploitations throughout the course of their
operations. These have led to many follow-on successes against our
adversaries. Sixteen years of close collaboration between the
intelligence community and special operations forces has provided a
critical battlefield advantage.
If confirmed, how would you ensure intelligence activities carried
out by special operations forces are adequately coordinated with other
activities carried out by those in the intelligence community?
Answer. I recognize the importance of fully coordinating special
operations forces' intelligence activities with those of the
intelligence community. While I believe this coordination and
collaboration is closer than at any time in our nation's past, I would,
if confirmed, continue efforts to improve coordination and
deconfliction and promote the leveraging of each other's activities to
meet intelligence needs from the tactical to the strategic levels.
need for independent intelligence analysis
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that intelligence
analysts within the Defense Department, including those who may be
seconded to offices that are not part of the Defense intelligence
structure, are independent and free of pressure from influence from
their chain of command to reach a certain conclusion, including a
conclusion that fits a particular policy preference?
Answer. I am firmly committed to the principle of analytic
integrity for defense intelligence analysts. Through my career
experience, I understand how important it is that the unvarnished
truth, no matter how unwelcome, always makes its way from the field to
the headquarters and national leaders. If confirmed, I would fully
support policies and programs that ensure defense intelligence analysis
is objective and free from the personal or political biases of
individual analysts or managers. I am aware of and fully support
actions taken by OUSD(I) in light of recent recommendations made by the
DOD Inspector General to ensure analytic integrity, such as
establishing an analytic ombudsman at each defense component that
produces intelligence analysis and an analysis of alternatives to
evaluate differing hypotheses when applicable.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this position, to appear before this
Committee and other appropriate committees of 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 USD(I)?
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. Yes.
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. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
arctic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities gap
1. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kernan, the current DOD Arctic Strategy
identifies significant shortfalls in U.S. domain awareness in the
Arctic. Given Russia's continuing military buildup of the Arctic
region, can you commit you will take a hard look at securing the
capabilities you need to fill this critical intelligence gap?
Mr. Kernan. I fully recognize Russia's continuing military buildup
in the Arctic region and the threat that it poses. I understand that
the Department has established processes by which it constantly
assesses and readjusts resource allocation based on DOD priorities and
changing world circumstances. If confirmed, one of my highest
priorities will be to drive intelligence operations and activities to
satisfy national security requirements and shape intelligence efforts
to best support current operations and political-military decision-
making. This will include ensuring current and future intelligence
systems have the capability and capacity for Arctic domain awareness
and operations.
readiness challenges
2. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kernan, what will you do to try to fill
it?
Mr. Kernan. One of the greatest challenges the Department faces in
the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) domain is
meeting expansive warfighter and domain awareness demands. I understand
that the Department addresses this challenge through a continuous
process of ISR asset allocation where it carefully balances defense
priorities against risk. I intend to support ongoing efforts that seek
opportunities to cultivate and enhance information sharing agreements
with our allies, which can help bring partner capabilities to bear. I
also intend to explore innovative ways of fielding multi-domain ISR
capabilities to support the force of the future. If confirmed, I will
assess our current intelligence capabilities, support priority-based
allocations, and continue to seek ISR resources and capabilities to
address Arctic and other global needs.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
kaspersky
3. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Kernan, what is your understanding and
opinion of the nature of the concern as it relates to the relationship
between the Russian Government and Kaspersky Labs products?
Mr. Kernan. I understand and share the concerns expressed by the
Federal Government about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials
and Russian intelligence and other Russian Government agencies. I am
also concerned about requirements under Russian law that allow Russian
intelligence agencies to request or compel assistance from Kaspersky,
and to intercept communications transiting Russian networks. The risk
that the Russian Government, whether acting on its own or in
collaboration with Kaspersky, could capitalize on access provided by
Kaspersky products to compromise United States Government information
and information systems directly jeopardizes U.S. national security.
4. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Kernan, what is your level of awareness
regarding the issues and concerns surrounding Kaspersky Labs products
on DOD information systems, both classified and unclassified?
Mr. Kernan. Is it my understanding that on September 13, 2017, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Binding Operational
Directive (BOD) 17-01 directing all departments and agencies to:
identify any use or presence of Kaspersky products on their information
systems; develop plans to remove and discontinue present and future use
of the products; and, unless directed otherwise by DHS based on new
information, begin to implement agency plans to discontinue use and
remove the Kaspersky products from information systems. While the DHS
BOD covers only civilian agencies and non-national security systems, it
is my understanding that the Department is taking action consistent
with the DHS BOD to determine if and where Kaspersky products are used
on DOD unclassified and classified information systems and take
appropriate actions to mitigate and remove any instances that are
discovered.
5. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Kernan, do I have your commitment that,
if confirmed, you will conduct a speedy review of the existence of, and
the threat imposed by, Kaspersky products used by DOD contractors on
unclassified networks?
Mr. Kernan. I understand the importance of a speedy review of the
threat posed by the existence of Kaspersky products on unclassified
networks used by DOD contractors. If confirmed, you have my commitment
to continue the review of DOD's networks to mitigate the threat posed
by Kaspersky Labs and, in close coordination with the DOD Chief
Information Officer and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
support any efforts to address risks posed by Kaspersky to DOD
contractor unclassified networks.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
iran nuclear deal
6. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Kernan, in recent months, we have seen
the Trump administration attempt to politicize intelligence, notably to
justify the President's refusal to certify the Iran nuclear deal. For
example, after certifying the deal in July, the media reported that the
President instructed staffers to make his case for de-certifying the
deal in October. He reportedly told them that he wanted to be in a
place to decertify Iran's compliance 90 days hence and that it was
their job to put him there. This is not how intelligence gathering and
analysis should work. We damage our ability to defend this country when
we blind ourselves to intelligence that conflicts with our political
motives and tailor our analysis to meet a political end. If confirmed,
can I have your assurance that the information you provide to this
Committee and to Congress will be unbiased, uncensored, and not
politicized?
Mr. Kernan. Yes. I am committed to a strong foundation of analytic
tradecraft and objectivity that is vital to the production of all-
source intelligence consistent with Intelligence Community standards.
If confirmed, you have my commitment to provide this Committee and
Congress with information that is unbiased, uncensored, and not
politicized.
north korea
7. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Kernan, while the North Korean nuclear
threat is discussed widely in the media, the threat posed by North
Korea's rapidly developing hacking and cyber heist capabilities has
been far less publicized. Nevertheless, North Korean hackers are
suspected of stealing U.S. and South Korean military plans, have been
blamed for the May 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, and accused of
cyber heists from banks in Bangladesh and Taiwan. How would you assess
the current North Korean cyber threat?
Mr. Kernan. I view this as a very serious threat to our nation's
security. As you described, North Korea has demonstrated the capability
and willingness to conduct damaging and destructive cyber effects in
support of their policy objectives against the United States, South
Korea, and other allies and partners.
8. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Kernan, do you feel we are adequately
prepared to defend ourselves against North Korean cyber-attacks?
Mr. Kernan. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense
works closely with the Department of State, the Department of Justice,
the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community, and
our allies and partners in the Western Pacific to improve the security
of our systems and respond appropriately to the destabilizing North
Korean cyber activities. In addition, our alliance with the Republic of
Korea continues to deepen and evolve, and includes expanding
cooperation in the cyber domain.
I share the Department's view of the need to defend against North
Korean cyber attacks and fully understand the need for actionable
intelligence required to sustain a viable U.S. deterrence posture.
Therefore, if confirmed, it is my intent to work closely with other
elements of the Department, the Intelligence Community, and our allies
and partners to provide intelligence warning and analysis, build
cybersecurity capacity, share threat information, and conduct the
exercises, education, and training necessary to inform and conduct
directed defensive and offensive operations.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
9. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Kernan, in your advance policy
questions, you noted that ``If confirmed, I would closely coordinate
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support a process
that achieves an appropriate balance in ISR allocation so we ensure
that our global security responsibilities are met.'' How will you work
to address the shortfall?
Mr. Kernan. From my time in uniform, I am aware that the Department
has established approaches and processes by which it constantly
assesses and readjusts resource allocation based on DOD priorities and
changing global circumstances. If confirmed, I would ensure that USD(I)
remains directly involved in the process run by the Joint Staff that
results in the Secretary's allocation of resources to Combatant
Commanders. If analysis indicates that senior-level attention is
warranted to address significant reallocation needs, I will engage at
my level with Combatant Commanders, defense intelligence leaders, and
our foreign counterparts to help develop and improve methods to share
information between the U.S. and its friends and allies. I intend to
continue efforts to assist the Combatant Commanders by seeking
innovative methods and resources to develop and field new capabilities
where and when it makes good sense to meet the requirements of ongoing
operations, the force of the future and collective national security
needs. For example, I support DOD's efforts to deliver artificial
intelligence-based algorithms to tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems, MQ-
1/9, and MQ-9 Wide Area Motion Imagery processing and exploitation
systems by the end of 2018.
10. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Kernan, ISR alone will not solve the
root problem of rooting out terrorism and its sympathizers. How will
you work with the State Department and U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to address these issues?
Mr. Kernan. In my view, DOD has a supporting role in a whole-of-
government effort to address and counter terrorist-based
radicalization. Effective counter-terrorism strategies should
incorporate all elements of power and influence, and if confirmed, I
will work with my counterparts within the Department and across other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government in support of these
efforts.
intelligence community election report
11. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Kernan, in January the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence's declassified report found Putin
ordered a campaign to ``undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process.'' Do you have any reason to question the Intelligence
Community's conclusions?
Mr. Kernan. No, I have no reason to question their conclusions.
12. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Kernan, if confirmed, will you commit
to ensuring we are adequately deterring and preventing Russia from
interfering in future elections?
Mr. Kernan. If confirmed, I am committed to doing whatever I can to
protect the integrity of the U.S. political system, including
elections, from the influence of foreign powers with ill intent.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
cross functional intelligence
13. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kernan, DOD's ``third offset strategy''
incorporates anti-access and area-denial, undersea warfare, cyber and
electronic warfare, human machine teaming, guided munitions, the
development of new operating concepts--many of which incorporate
advanced intelligence and cross functional concepts. How to you plan to
incorporate these concepts into the DOD's intelligence community?
Mr. Kernan. If confirmed, I will advocate for the use of innovative
concepts and technologies in the modernization of current and future
intelligence capabilities. Using advances in decision-aiding
technologies, such as advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence, and
machine learning in our Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) systems, I believe we will be able to increase the speed of
intelligence support to the warfighter through automated target
recognition, processing, and dissemination. I also intend to continue
support to the Department's cross-functional teams that provide
expertise from across the DOD and the Intelligence Community to develop
new intelligence technologies and processes for informed and timely
actions by decision-makers and the Department of Defense.
14. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kernan, what is your plan for recruiting
and retaining uniformed and civilians who have these technical
skillsets?
Mr. Kernan. I recognize the importance of recruiting and retaining
the best technical expertise our nation has to offer in support of our
national security goals, but also understand the challenges of
attracting and keeping talent who have significant opportunities
available to them in the private sector. If confirmed, I will
investigate the utility of attractive incentives in areas such as
training, education, and compensation, as well as highlighting the
unique work opportunities and authorities unavailable in the civilian
sector. I will also examine the possibility of changes to the current
talent management processes within the defense intelligence enterprise,
which include developing non-traditional DOD career paths that afford
equitable advancement, closed-loop detailing within highly skilled
technical areas, and industry exchange and fellowship programs.
15. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kernan, what, if any, changes in the
organization of the Services/DOD do you think will enhance success?
Mr. Kernan. I am committed to optimizing the organization of the
Department to fully support the Secretary's priorities. If confirmed, I
will be open to options that will enhance the ability of the Services
and DOD as a whole to deliver the best intelligence to support policy,
warfighter, and the acquisition communities. I will leverage all
available information to inform my decisions and work with leadership
of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to identify and implement
changes that enhance success in the most efficient and effective
manner.
information operations
16. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kernan, DOD defines ``psychological
operations'' as planned operations to convey selected information to
targeted foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives,
objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign
governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. Russia's
involvement in the recent U.S. presidential election fits squarely in
this definition. What is your plan for preventing these types of
information operations from occurring in the future?
Mr. Kernan. If confirmed, I am committed to working with my
counterparts within the Department and across other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government to utilize the full suite of tools
and capabilities to counter corrosive foreign narratives, including
strategic communication, public diplomacy, public affairs, and robust
partner engagement.
17. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kernan, how can DOD work with industry,
particularly social media groups, in the future on these issues?
Mr. Kernan. I believe forming strategic relationships with industry
partners is an essential component to a whole-of-government effort
aimed at countering terrorist messages and recruitment. I recognize
both the importance and the challenges of some public/private
partnerships and wielding those strategic relationships in support of
this broader effort. I believe we must build these relationships with
full consideration of our security concerns and our Nation's values.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Joseph D. Kernan follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 19, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Joseph Kernan, of Florida, to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, vice Marcel John Lettre II.
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Joseph D. Kernan, which was
transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Joseph D. Kernan
Education:
Rockledge High School
- Rockledge FL
- 1970 to 1973
United States Naval Academy
- 1973 to 1977
- BS June 1973
National Defense University
- 1997 to 1998
- MS June 1998
Employment Record:
Senior Vice President for Corporate Development, SAP
National Security Services
- Rockville MD
- September 2013 to Present
Advisor, SwiftShips
- October 2013 to December 2013
- Morgan City LA
Advisor, JLM Companies (Fairlead Integrated)
- Portsmouth VA
- April 2014 to Present
Deputy Commander, US Southern Command
- Miami FL
- June 2011 to September 2013
Senior Military Assistant to Secretary Defense,
Pentagon
- June 2009 to May 2011
Commander, US Fourth Fleet
- Jacksonville FL
- May 2008 to May 2009
Deputy Commander & Commander, Naval Special Warfare
Command
- Coronado CA
- October 2006 to August 2008
Honors and Awards:
Military Awards
- Defense Distinguished Service Medal (2)
- Distinguished Service Medal (2)
- Defense Superior Service Medal (3)
- Legion of Merit (2)
- Bronze Star (3)
- Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1)
- Meritorious Service Medal (2) and Presidential Unit Citation
______
[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. Joseph D.
Kernan 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.)
Mr. Joseph D. Kernan
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)
3. Date of nomination:
July 19, 2017
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.]
5. Year and place of birth:
1955, Travis AFB CA
6. Marital status: (Include full name of current spouse including
any other names used, including maiden name.)
Janet M Kernan (Williams)
7. Names of children (if over age 18):
Sean Joseph Kernan
Shannon Marie Mader
8. Education: List names of secondary and higher education
institutions attended, type of school (vocational, technical, trade
school, college, university, military college, correspondence,
distance, extension, and on-line) dates attended, degree received and
date degree granted.
Rockledge High School
- Rockledge FL
- 1970 to 1973
United States Naval Academy
- 1973 to 1977
- BS June 1977
National Defense University
- 1997 to 1998
- MS June 1998
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. If
the employment activity was military duty, list separate employment
activity periods to show each change of military duty station.
Senior Vice President for Corporate Development, SAP
National Security Services
- Rockville MD
- September 2013 to Present
Advisor, SwiftShips
- October 2013 to December 2013
- Morgan City LA
Advisor, JLM Companies (Fairlead Integrated)
- Portsmouth VA
- April 2014 to Present
Deputy Commander, US Southern Command
- Miami FL
- June 2011 to September 2013
Senior Military Assistant to Secretary Defense
- Pentagon
- June 2009 to May 2011
Commander, US Fourth Fleet
- Jacksonville FL
- May 2008 to May 2009
Deputy Commander & Commander, Naval Special Warfare
Command,
- Coronado CA
- October 2006 to August 2008
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
Board Director, SAP National Security Services
Advisor, JLM Companies: Fairlead Integrated
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Board Director, The Mission Continues
Board Director, The National Navy SEAL Museum
Member, UDT/SEAL Association
Chairman, NS2 Serves
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).
N/A
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
N/A
(c) Itemize all individual political contributions of $100 or more
to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political
action committee, or similar entity for the past 5 years. List each
individual contribution and not the total amount contributed to the
person or entity during the year.
N/A
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, civilian service citations, military awards and decorations,
honorary society memberships, and any other special recognition for
outstanding service or achievements.
Military Awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Defense Superior Service Medal (3), Legion of Merit
(2),
Bronze Star (3)
Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1)
Meritorious Service Medal (2) and Presidential Unit
Citation
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written including articles published on the internet.
N/A
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.
N/A
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.
Joseph D. Kernan
This 25th day of July, 2017
______
[The nomination of Mr. Joseph D. Kernan was reported to the
Senate by Chairman McCain on November 7, 2017, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 16, 2017.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Guy B. Roberts 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.
Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
be appropriate for this Committee to address?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed I would expect that in the process of implementing the FY
2017 NDAA reforms that we may identify additional changes that would be
worth considering.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 also
required that the Secretary of Defense establish cross-functional teams
to address critical objectives of the Department.
Question. What are your views on the potential focus areas and uses
for future cross-functional teams?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed I would expect that in the process of implementing the FY
2017 NDAA reforms that we may identify focus areas and potential
teaming opportunities.
duties
Question. Section 138 of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological Defense Programs (ASD(NCB)) shall advise the Secretary of
Defense on nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological
defense.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
ASD(NCB)?
Answer. The ASD(NCB) is the principal advisor to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) on nuclear energy,
nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense.
The ASD(NCB) is the principal advisor to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) for the nuclear matters and
provides technical guidance to the Secretary of Defense regarding the
nuclear stockpile. Nuclear Matters, under the (ASD(NCB) serves as the
focal point for DOD activities and initiatives related to the dual
missions of sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent
and countering the threat from nuclear terrorism and nuclear
proliferation.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you possess that
qualify you for this position?
Answer. I have over thirty years of working arms control, anti-
proliferation, deterrence and strategic stability issues. This
includes:
Serving as a staff officer in the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency working on the Conventional Forces in Europe and Open Skies
Agreement;
While on active duty in the Marine Corps I served as an action
officer on the Joint Staff with a portfolio that included the Chemical
Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, Certain Conventional
Weapons Convention addressing landmines and incendiaries. I was on the
U.S. delegations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference, the
Conference on Disarmament, and the International Atomic Energy Agency
Board of Governor's meetings on the North Korean nuclear weapons
program.
As the Department of the Navy's Associate Counsel for arms control
agreements, I reviewed all naval programs for compliance with strategic
arms controls agreements and provided legal advice with regard to the
Polaris Sales Agreement with the UK. While serving as the Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy I was appointed
Deputy Head of Delegation to the Biological Weapons Convention Review
Conferences and I was a member of the Moscow Treaty negotiating team. I
also participated in the creation and implementation of the
Proliferation Security Initiative and the negotiation of UN Security
Council Resolution 1540 which requires states to ensure their territory
is not used for WMD purposes.
As NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for WMD Policy and the
Director for Nuclear Policy I was responsible for NATO's Countering WMD
policy and initiatives. I also oversaw NATO's nuclear deterrence
posture and was one of the drafters of NATO Deterrence and Defense
Posture Review.
Finally, as a private consultant I have provided subject matter
expertise on arms control, non-proliferation, international legal
issues and strategies to combat terrorism to over 30 international
domestic organizations and institutions.
major challenges and priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
Answer. Maintaining a safe and secure nuclear deterrent capability,
ensuring the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile,
decreasing the threat of proliferation of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, and to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists and
other enemies by locking down, monitoring, and destroying weapons and
weapons related materials.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that you
would confront, if confirmed?
Answer. Working to synchronize the NCB priorities to support our
Combatant Commands, International Partners and Interagency
collaborators without duplication of effort.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Office of the ASD(NCB) and the Senate Armed Services
Committee in particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. Responsiveness to the SASC and to Congress writ large is
essential so representatives can make informed legislative decisions on
behalf of our Nation.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Office of the ASD(NCB)?
Answer. I will be available as needed to brief Congress and to
discuss any Congressional concerns.
reorganization of at&l
Question. The Department of Defense plans to divide the duties of
the Under Secretary of Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics, under
which the ASD(NCB) falls, into two separate organizations as of
February 2018. As directed by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017, these will be the Under Secretary for Research
and Engineering and the Under Secretary for Acquisition and
Sustainment.
Will the Office of the ASD(NCB) be kept intact after the
reorganization, and if so, under which Under Secretary will it fall?
Answer. The leadership of the Department is working on organization
decisions and plans and I am not yet privy to or party to these
conversations.
Question. What opportunities do you see for this office under the
reorganization?
Answer. The NDAA presents an opportunity to further collaborate
with our partners in Policy, Security Cooperation and CWMD to find
efficiencies and build better synergistic relationships.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work to make sure that this
office both takes advantage of advancements in research and innovation
and keeps the modernization programs on schedule and within budget?
Answer. I will work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure
that advances in research and innovation are effectively leveraged for
safeguarding the warfighter and U.S. national security, while
simultaneously relaying the acquisition needs to ensure that such
efforts are effectively targeted towards modernization programs. I look
forward to additionally working with the other affected and interested
agencies to ensure that cost, schedule, and performance goals
pertaining to modernization programs are met.
nuclear weapons council
Question. Section 179 of title 10, United States Code, designates
the ASD(NCB) as the Staff Director of the Nuclear Weapons Council.
What is your understanding of this role?
Answer. The law directs that the DOD and the DOE/NNSA provide
experts to serve as the NWC staff. Since the beginning of the NWC, the
ASD(NCB) has performed the role of NWC executive secretary, in addition
to the legally mandated staff director function. As executive
secretary, the ASD(NCB) sets the agendas and facilitates the activities
of the NWC. As staff director the ASD(NCB) also has oversight
responsibilities for the NWC staff and the other subordinate
organizations of the NWC.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Nuclear
Weapons Council duties are effectively executed?
The Nuclear Weapons Council is the primary interface for
coordinating nuclear weapons enterprise issues between the Department
of Defense and the Department of Energy. Its top priority is to ensure
the success of stockpile life extension and nuclear infrastructure
modernization programs in the current fiscal environment; in
particular, to advocate for the appropriate resource recommendations to
ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal.
As the staff director and executive secretary of the NWC, I
understand the need to decisively address the issues facing our nuclear
program managers and to control the cost of the weapon system and
warhead development programs included within our program of record. I
will work with the Nuclear Weapons Council, its subordinate bodies, and
its individual members to oversee major nuclear acquisition programs,
and ensure NWC annual reporting requirements are fulfilled in a timely
manner.
Question. Are there any changes that you would recommend to the
membership, organization, structure, or responsibilities of the Nuclear
Weapons Council?
Answer. If confirmed, in support of the USD, I will review the
operations of the Nuclear Weapons Council and make recommendations for
appropriate changes and/or request any legislative language to ensure
the NWC has the necessary authorities and responsibilities to maintain
the nation's capability to develop, field, and ensure the safety,
security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons.
Question. What do you see as the challenges that the Nuclear
Weapons Council will face over the next four years, and what would you
do to address these challenges, if confirmed?
Answer. The Departments of Defense and Energy each have ongoing
efforts to modernize the nation's nuclear forces and weapons complex.
If confirmed, I would work closely with the Nuclear Weapons Council,
Air Force, Navy, and National Nuclear Security Administration, and
other relevant OSD Components to ensure we successfully execute our
planned modernization efforts and address emerging and future threats
to deter adversaries and assure allies. In order to maintain a safe,
secure, and effective nuclear deterrent it is essential that we
maintain the capability to conduct design and manufacturing of every
element of that deterrent. Cost is always a consideration, but the
foundational elements of remaining a nuclear weapons state cannot and
should not be overlooked. Rebuilding infrastructure, some of which
dates to the Manhattan Project Era, is an essential element of that, as
is maintaining our intellectual capability.
In addition to ongoing efforts to modernize the nuclear enterprise,
I am aware that the DOD is leading the on-going Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR), which will have a significant impact on our nation's plans for
the future of the nuclear enterprise. I have not yet been briefed on
the details of the NPR process or content. However, I would assume,
based on Secretary Mattis' open testimonies on the FY18 budget, that
the Nuclear Posture Review will address this issue. As he stated,
``We're looking at each leg of the triad and we're looking at each
weapon inside each leg. What I'm looking for is a deterrent that will
be most compelling and make certain these weapons are never used.''
nuclear modernization
Question. Do you support and intend to advocate for the
modernization of all legs of the triad of nuclear delivery vehicles?
Answer. Yes. I fully support both Departments' ongoing efforts to
modernize the nation's nuclear forces and weapons complex. If
confirmed, I would work closely with the Nuclear Weapons Council, Air
Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and other
relevant OSD components to ensure we successfully execute our planned
modernization efforts and address emerging and future threats to deter
adversaries and assure allies.
Question. Do you support and intend to advocate for the funding,
development, and fielding of the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon?
Answer. I believe that the modernization of all elements of the
triad are necessary. Our nation has maintained a nuclear cruise missile
capability for decades, and I believe it continues to be an essential
element of our deterrent capability and the Long Range Stand-Off is the
logical successor for a timely modernization. I also believe that the
ongoing Nuclear Posture Review will address this question more fully.
That review will leave the ultimate determination to the Secretary of
Defense and I will support the Secretary's position fully and
completely.
Question. The Nuclear Weapons Council has laid out a schedule for
modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile over the next 20 years
that involves life extension programs, major alterations, and
interoperable warheads, in addition to maintenance of the existing
stockpile systems.
Do you support and intend to advocate for all components of this
program?
Answer. Yes. I fully support both Departments' ongoing efforts to
modernize the nation's nuclear forces and nuclear weapons complex. If
confirmed, I will work through the Nuclear Weapons Council, Air Force,
Navy, NNSA, and other relevant OSD components to ensure we successfully
execute the planned modernization efforts to deter 21st-century threats
and reassure our allies.
In addition, although I have not been briefed on the on-going NPR,
I am aware of the significant impact that such a review may have on the
future of the nuclear enterprise, and I would expect to incorporate
outcomes from this effort into the program of record for the nuclear
enterprise.
Question. Do you agree that programs to modernize and replace
critical infrastructure, such as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement at Los Alamos and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12,
are national security priorities that should be addressed in a timely
manner?
Answer. Yes. It is my understanding that much of the Nation's
critical nuclear infrastructure is at or beyond end of life, and no
longer provides the reliability and flexibility that we need to sustain
a modern nuclear deterrent. Congress has supported a significant,
multi-year investment in the new Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-
12 plant, and in recent NDAAs has expressed concern that the Nation
needs to reestablish a plutonium pit production capability that
supports the needs of the nation. If confirmed, I look forward to
learning the details behind plans and programs to modernize and replace
critical infrastructure, and how current and future infrastructure
investments have been sequenced to address national security needs.
Question. Are the multiple components of the nuclear modernization
plan appropriately sequenced and scoped in order to meet the
operational needs of the commander of U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of current U.S.
Strategic Command operational plans and needs, and so cannot judge how
well the current nuclear modernization plan is sequenced and scoped
from that perspective. However, from experience in the military and
elsewhere I know that the Commander of USSTRATCOM has significant input
to budgeting decisions in the Department of Defense and in nuclear
weapons decisions made by the Nuclear Weapons Council. If confirmed, I
will work closely within the Department of Defense and with the
Department of Energy to ensure that we sequence and scope nuclear
modernization plans to support our 21st century nuclear deterrent.
Question. How do you intend to ensure the health of the specialized
industrial base needed to produce certain components of the delivery
systems currently being modernized?
Answer. The nuclear weapons enterprise within DOD is not unique in
having concerns over the ability of the underlying industrial base to
meet national needs. This is a much broader problem that affects a wide
variety of acquisition programs in the Department of Defense. In my
opinion, part of the answer is to provide clear demand signals and
ensure that we try to appropriately sequence acquisitions over time, so
that we don't ask our industrial partners to cycle between periods of
high demand and inactivity. If confirmed, I will work with my
colleagues in the DOD and DOE to see that we have aligned procurements
of delivery platforms, warheads, and bombs in a way that can be met by
the industrial base, and I will support the Undersecretary of Defense
for AT&L in her efforts to address this problem in a broader sense
across the acquisition community.
nuclear command, control, and communications
Question. Section 171a of title 10, United States Code, outlines
the responsibilities for the Council on Oversight of the National
Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System. The nuclear
command, control, and communications (NC3) system consists of more than
100 separate programs managed by the Navy, Air Force, or DISA. The
system is aging and has suffered from inattention, yet is vitally
important to ensuring the President has direct control over nuclear
weapons and their use, during peacetime and in crisis.
What role do you see for the ASD(NCB) in oversight of the NC3
system?
Answer. The DOD Chief Information Officer has primary oversight of
the NC3 system. If confirmed, I will work with CIO, Joint Staff, the
Services, DISA, and other OSD Components to ensure that our NC3 system
is assured and reliable at all phases of a crisis. In particular, I
anticipate playing a role in oversight of the survivability of relevant
NC3 systems in nuclear weapon environments.
Question. What actions will you take to ensure there is a long-term
road-map and acquisition strategy to ensure the NC3 system meets
requirements for the President?
Answer. As USSTRATCOM Commander General Hyten has emphasized, the
nuclear deterrent is only as effective as the command and control that
enables it to function, and many of those systems are facing
obsolescence. If confirmed, I will support the Undersecretary for AT&L
and the successor Under Secretary in emphasizing a strategic approach
to modernizing NC3 systems across all programs. I believe that is the
best way to meet our stringent nuclear command and control requirements
within our budgetary constraints.
navy shipbuilding
Question. In the 1970s and 1980s, the United States procured the
current Ohio-class submarines within the Navy's shipbuilding (SCN)
account. In 2015, Congress created a special fund, the National Sea-
Based Deterrence Fund for procurement of Columbia-class SSBNs, the
replacements for the Ohio-class SSBNs.
Do you have a view on how the cost of Columbia-class SSBNs should
be funded--solely from Navy resources, from a combination of Navy and
other-than-Navy (e.g., OMB and other Defense) sources, or with a
different approach? If so, please explain.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DOD leadership and the
US Navy to ensure that proper resourcing is provided for the Columbia-
class SSBNs. This is a critical leg of our nation's nuclear deterrent.
It is the nation's responsibility to provide the appropriate funds by
any method deemed appropriate, regardless of the mechanism used.
nuclear enterprise
Question. The nuclear enterprise functions through collaboration
between the Navy, the Air Force, the Under Secretaries of Defense for
Policy and for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the National
Nuclear Security Administration headquarters, and the national
laboratories and production sites.
Do you believe that the current system adequately connects military
requirements to acquisitions and procurement to technical expertise and
production?
Answer. The Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) serves as the focal point
for interagency analyses and decisions to maintain and manage the
nuclear weapons stockpile. By law, the NWC is responsible for
coordinating and approving activities of the Department of Energy for
the study, development, and production of nuclear weapons. The NWC
develops nuclear weapons stockpile options and the costs of such
options and alternatives. I understand that the NWC reviews and
approves requirements and ensures acquisition plans address those
requirements. Through its subordinate committees, member agencies, and
various annual review processes, the NWC has access to the technical
expertise and insight into the production capabilities needed to
support nuclear weapons procurement. If confirmed, as Staff Director to
the NWC, I would endeavor to assure that the process works efficiently
and effectively.
Question. Do you have any recommendations for improving the
functions of the complex?
Answer. If confirmed, and consistent with whatever guidance comes
from the Nuclear Posture Review Process, I will review the functions of
the complex with my partner agencies to evaluate its performance and
develop recommendations for improvement.
stockpile stewardship program
Question. Do you support the Stockpile Stewardship Program and have
you reviewed the elements of this program as conducted by the National
Nuclear Security Administration?
Answer. Yes, I support the program as I understand it. The National
Nuclear Security Administration through this program ensures the Nation
sustains a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent through the
application of science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing. I
am aware that this program enables maintaining the active stockpile,
executing Life Extension Programs (LEPs) and performing Weapons
Dismantlement without the need for underground nuclear testing. I am
also aware that investment in a specialized science and engineering
workforce with appropriate facilities and infrastructure are required
for the program to be successful.
Question. In your view, are there any additional capabilities that
the Stockpile Stewardship Program should develop?
Answer. Since 1995, there has been a requirement to conduct an
annual stockpile assessment to evaluate the safety, performance, and
reliability without nuclear explosive testing. This review is based on
physics and engineering analyses, experiments, and computer
simulations. These reviews drive changes into the NNSA Stockpile
Stewardship program and new capabilities are planned appropriately. I
am not familiar with the details of the assessments to date and the
recommendations for new capabilities. If confirmed, I will review the
results of the annual stockpile assessment with my partners and make
appropriate recommendations on new capabilities.
Question. As materials and designs age, what is your opinion on
whether the modeling and simulation will continue to suffice
indefinitely in place of underground testing in ensuring the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the reviews and
assessment of the adequacies of the modeling and simulation
capabilities. If confirmed, I will review the results of the annual
stockpile assessment process with my partners and make appropriate
recommendations on the adequacy of modeling and simulation capabilities
to underpin the certification of the stockpile.
Question. If the technical conclusions and data from the Stockpile
Stewardship Program could no longer confidently support the annual
certification of the stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable, what
would your recommendation be?
Answer. Since 1995, there has been a requirement to conduct an
annual review of the stockpile to evaluate the safety, performance, and
reliability without nuclear explosive testing. This review is based on
physics and engineering analyses, experiments, and computer
simulations. The Directors of the three DOE nuclear weapons
laboratories--Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)--are
required to complete annual assessments of the safety, reliability, and
performance of each weapon type in the nuclear weapons stockpile. In
addition, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command provides an
assessment of the military effectiveness of the stockpile. These
assessments also include a determination as to whether it is necessary
to conduct an underground nuclear test to resolve any identified
issues. The Secretaries of Energy and Defense are required to submit
these reports unaltered to the President, along with any conclusions
the Secretaries consider appropriate. If confirmed, I would review the
results of the annual stockpile assessment results with my partners and
make appropriate recommendations.
chemical and biological defense matters
Question. Section 138 of title 10, United States Code, states that
the ASD(NCB) shall advise the Secretary of Defense on chemical and
biological defense in addition to nuclear matters.
What is your understanding of your roles and responsibilities with
respect to chemical and biological defense matters?
Answer. The ASD(NCB) is the principal advisor to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) for activities that
combat current and emerging WMD threats, including all matters related
to Research, Development and Acquisition of chemical, biological,
radiological defense. In this capacity, I will provide oversight for
the development of acquisition policies, provide advice, and makes
recommendations for chemical, biological, radiological, medical and
non-medical defense as well as the safety and security of chemical and
biological agents that are used to research medical countermeasure
capabilities to protect the force.
Question. How do these roles and responsibilities relate to those
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction?
Answer. The DASD(CWMD) serves as the primary point of contact
within the OUSD(P) for development and implementation of policies to
counter WMD and ensures coordination for Homeland defense activities.
The integration of DASD(CWMD) with the NBC components (NCB/NM, NCB/
TRAC, NCB/CBD, and DTRA) are critical to the Department's efforts to
counter WMD.
DASD(CWMD) provides DOD policy and guidance for the programs and
activities of the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program in
conjunction with NCB/TRAC and DTRA.
DASD(CWMD) develops, coordinates, and monitors implementation of
DOD policies for arms control and nonproliferation of nuclear,
radiological, chemical, biological, and advanced conventional weapons
and missiles, and international technology transfers with NCB/TRAC and
DTRA.
DASD(CWMD) oversees international countering WMD initiatives
building U.S. and partner capacity in chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear defense capabilities and combating
transnational threats in conjunction with all NCB components.
DASD(CWMD) is the Secretary of Defense representative for non-
proliferation and arms control matters, including but not limited to
those involving the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical
Weapons Convention, with the National Security Staff, the Department of
State, and other departments, agencies, and interagency groups.
Question. What do you believe are the principal challenges in
chemical and biological defense, and what would be your priorities for
the Department of Defense's Chemical and Biological Defense Program?
Answer. The principal challenges are that the Threat is real and
evolving, the Norms which have previously protected civilians and
security forces are at risk, and technology advancements and ease of
proliferation are lowering or eliminating barriers to those who wish to
obtain WMD and increasing the capability of those who already have
access to WMD.
To address these threats, the CBDP has three objectives; Prepare
for Surprise, Advanced Early Warning, and Protect the Force:
Prepare for Surprise: Understanding of current CB threats and seize
technical opportunities.
Collaborate with the Intelligence Community to identify
threats
Characterize and forecast emerging, advanced, and non-
traditional threats
Maintain a robust, proactive technology watch
Advance Early Warning: Ensure early detection, information sharing
and forecasts of impacts.
Develop detection and diagnostic systems for forward/
field use
Build networked information systems that integrate CWMD
and health sources
Ensure processes are in place for effective sharing of
critical information
Protect the Force: Develop and deploy effective materials,
products, technologies, and medicines to minimize the effects of any CB
agent.
Invests in capabilities that are integrated into
Warfighter CONOPs and training
Develop flexible and broad-spectrum technologies--e.g.,
protective equipment, medical countermeasures, and decontamination--for
diverse user communities
Explore how capabilities can be combined to optimize
outcomes
Interaction with Other Federal Agencies on Chemical and Biological
Matters
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health
and Human Services play important roles in planning and implementing
U.S. policy and programs for protecting the United States against
biological and chemical threats, including the development and
stockpiling of vaccines and therapeutic products.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with these agencies to
ensure the effective coordination and collaboration of efforts to
improve U.S. security against biological and chemical threats?
Answer. Coordination and collaboration with the other responsible
agencies is not only critical to protecting the Homeland, but also to
protecting the Warfighter. I strongly support the need for coordination
and collaboration with DHS and DHHS to prevent duplicative efforts,
increase efficiencies, and introduce cost-sharing measures in the
development of medical countermeasures against biological and chemical
threats. These interactions are formalized through the Public Health
Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE).
chemical demilitarization
Question. The United States is a party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) and, under the terms of the treaty, was obligated to
destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by no later than the extended
deadline of April 2012.
Do you agree that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Government
should be in full compliance with the terms and obligations of the CWC
and the Biological Warfare Convention, including the deadline for
destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile under the CWC?
Answer. Yes, I agree that the Department of Defense and the U.S.
Government should be in full compliance with the terms and obligations
of the CWC and the Biological Warfare Convention. If confirmed, I will
ensure all programs under my purview will remain in compliance with and
meet the obligations of the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy our
chemical weapons stockpile in the most expeditious manner while
ensuring the safety of the people and protecting the environment as
well as the Biological Warfare Convention.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to ensure that the Department
takes steps needed to minimize the time to complete destruction of the
U.S. chemical weapons stockpile, without sacrificing safety or
security?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department continues
to evaluate options to accelerate the destruction schedules and
complete destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile by the
congressionally mandated destruction deadline of December 31, 2023.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure
adequate funding is requested to permit the most expeditious
destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile, consistent with the
legal requirement to protect public health, safety, and the
environment?
Answer. The destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile is a
priority within the Department. I will work with the Comptroller and
members of Congress to obtain the fiscal resources required to complete
the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile while protecting
public health, safety, and the environment.
Question. Recently, there have been challenges at both major
chemical demilitarization plants. The Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction
Pilot Plant began destroying mustard agent back in September 2016,
however, an unanticipated roof replacement and a hazardous waste spill
halted operations. Additionally, the Blue Grass Army Depot has further
schedule delays due to construction complications.
If confirmed, what management actions would you take to address
these problems?
Answer. A new Program Executive Officer (PEO), Assembled Chemical
Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) began in June 2017. The new PEO is
evaluating initiatives to improve the management and performance of the
program. If confirmed, I will review these initiatives with the PEO and
determine appropriate management actions.
Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the structure,
organization, or reporting relationships within the chemical
demilitarization program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the program's organization and
management structure as well as the reporting requirements and make
changes as appropriate.
cooperative threat reduction programs (nunn-lugar programs)
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs?
Answer. Yes, I support the Nunn-Lugar CTR program. CTR is DOD's
primary program for helping other countries eliminate, secure, detect,
and interdict the flow of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and related
materials. This mission is critically important given the national
security threats that we currently face relating to detecting WMD and
WMD-related items that may fall outside state control, and securing
especially dangerous pathogens, chemical precursors, and nuclear
material.
If confirmed, I will support the DOD CTR Program and other relevant
threat reduction programs by ensuring they are resourced and capable of
fulfilling the mission to mitigate WMD-related risks.
Question. If confirmed, would you support joint research programs
with foreign nations partnered with the United States in the areas of
chemical or biological weapons defense?
Answer. Yes. In addition to chemical and biological defense
research with more developed foreign partners such as the UK,
Australia, and Singapore, the CTR program works with civilian and
military counterparts in partner countries across the former Soviet
Union, Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia to eliminate, secure or
prevent proliferation of WMD. It accomplishes this mission in
collaboration with international and non-governmental partners by
developing locally appropriate, sustainable programs. These joint
research opportunities provide unique opportunities to advance key U.S.
partnerships abroad, to protect the warfighter, as well as to safeguard
the national security of the United States and its allies.
Question. What is your understanding as to your responsibilities
with respect to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs?
Answer. Acquisition oversight of the CTR program is my primary
responsibility. This includes monitoring cost, schedule, and
performance, as well as approving engagement plans, validating
requirements, and issuing tiered guidance to the program that informs
its long-term planning activities and investments.
It is my understanding that my responsibilities, if confirmed, will
include exercising authority, direction, and control over the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). In this role I shall provide oversight
of countering WMD efforts executed through DTRA's Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program, with support from the office of the DASD(TRAC).
consequence management of cbrne incidents
Question. The Department of Defense has a mission of providing
support to civil authorities for consequence management of domestic
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive
(CBRNE) incidents, if directed by the President or the Secretary of
Defense. Since 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command have had
responsibilities for planning and executing that mission.
If confirmed, how would you expect to work with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command on issues related to the Department's capabilities to
provide support to civil authorities for CBRNE consequence management,
as well their Homeland defense missions related to nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapons or materials?
Answer. I would expect to continue to work with my Homeland Defense
and NORTHCOM counterparts to address any issues and ensure that we are
delivering the CBRN capabilities required to defend the Homeland.
DOD support to civil authorities is an important component of our
mission, and I will continue to prioritize such support. The Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, which is overseen by the ASD(NCB), already
provides valuable assistance for CBRN events to CCMDs, including
USNORTHCOM, and to civil authorities. In addition, I would direct DTRA
to continue to fully participate in USNORTHCOM exercises such as
VIGILANT SHIELD, ARDENT SENTRY, and VIBRANT RESPONSE. I would also
instruct DTRA to support USNORTHCOM joint task forces established
during National Special Security Events.
Question. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead federal
agency for planning, coordinating, and implementing consequence
management of CBRNE incidents in the United States, in conjunction with
the States and territories.
If confirmed, what relationship would you expect to have with the
Department of Homeland Security and its component entities?
Answer. I understand that the Department has ongoing relationships
to enhance efficiencies and would seek to strengthen those
relationships.
If confirmed, I will continue our excellent relationship with the
DHS on efforts of mutual concern to both of our organizations. For
example, DTRA collaborates with DHS to develop technologies to address
threats of mutual concern. These challenges include development of
technologies for threat detection, hazard prediction, event modeling,
and decision support.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role for the
Department of Defense in providing support to civil authorities for
CBRNE consequence management?
Answer. There are well established policies and procedures for DOD
support to civilian authorities. DOD routinely exercises with civilian
agencies through both NORTHCOM and National Guard exercises and deploys
requested capabilities in support of high threat events, such as
National Special Security Events.
I support the current laws and authorities which allow DOD to
provide support to civil authorities in response to requests for
assistance for domestic emergencies to include CBRNE incidents. For
example, DTRA supports equipping and training the National Guard Civil
Support Teams (CST). DTRA has developed a Mobile Field Kit for these
CSTs which is a sensor integration and situational awareness tool to be
used for nuclear and radiological detection.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to have in
regard to the oversight of Department of Defense capabilities related
to consequence management of CBRNE incidents?
Answer. The CBRN defense equipment used in a response is primarily
developed and fielded under the joint Chemical and Biological Defense
Program. I don't envision any change to the current oversight
responsibilities.
If confirmed, I will continue to exercise oversight activities of
the DTRA consequence management programs and other collaborative
efforts with NORTHCOM and DHS.
reporting chain
Question. Section 138 of title 10, United States Code, states that
the ASD(NCB) may communicate views on issues directly to the Secretary
of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the
approval or concurrence of any other official within the Department.
What is your understanding of why this direct access is necessary?
Answer. The Department of Defense Military Liaison Committee
coordinated military requirements with the Atomic Energy Commission.
The committee functioned as the authorized channel of communication
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy on all
atomic energy matters relating to the military applications of atomic
weapons or atomic energy. The committee addressed matters of policy,
programming, and commitment of funds to the military application of
atomic energy.
In 1951, the Secretary of Defense moved the committee to the
Pentagon and designated its chairman as the Deputy to the Secretary of
Defense for Atomic Energy Matters. In 1953, this position was re-
designated as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic
Energy.
Question. In 1996, Congress added the responsibilities of chemical
and biological defense. Since then, Congress has maintained that the
position was necessary to ensure appropriate senior-level policy
oversight and implementation guidance within the Department.
What is your understanding of how this process has functioned in
the past?
Answer. In my understanding, the ASD(NCB) has always had the
required access to the Secretary of Defense on all issues under its
purview.
Question. If confirmed, would you expect to have direct and timely
access to the Secretary of Defense for matters pertaining to the
safety, security, and reliability of nuclear weapons?
Answer. I am totally committed to maintaining a safe, secure and
effective nuclear deterrent. If confirmed, I would expect to still
maintain direct and timely access to the Secretary of Defense regarding
safety, security, and reliability of nuclear weapons.
notification of congress
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to promptly notifying
Congress of any significant issues in the safety, security, or
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. If confirmed, once I have the facts, I will commit to
prompt notification surrounding any significant issue in the safety,
security, or reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
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 an agreement to change the budget caps. Both
Bipartisan Budget Agreements in 2013 and 2015 increased spending levels
above the BCA caps and maintained parity between defense and non-
defense funding.
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, and specifically on
nuclear modernization plans?
Answer. Budget realities, such as the BCA discretionary caps, have
forced reductions in the scope, schedule margin, and management
flexibility in recapitalization plans for the nuclear enterprise.
Despite these challenges, the Department remains committed to
strengthening and modernizing the nuclear Triad. The DOD continues to
look for creative solutions to reduce costs, such as the incremental
funding of the first Columbia submarine and the potential for greater
commonality in Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems. These
issues continue to be addressed at each budget cycle through issue
teams led by the DOD Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.
Question. Do you believe that any future budget agreements must
maintain parity between defense and non-defense funding?
Answer. If confirmed, my priorities will include supporting the
secretary in obtaining the top-line defense budget, the necessary
resources to rebuild the military, and participating in defense
strategy and reform. If I am confirmed, I will work in close
partnership with this committee to provide the appropriate
justifications for the resources the department requests and in
particular to ensure funding for our critical nuclear modernization
program--a paramount national security priority.
Question. If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the
adequacy of funding for the missions under your supervision?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is entering a period when
multiple weapon delivery systems require significant modernization as
they near end-of-life. The Department delayed several programs in
previous years, thereby removing any schedule margin for recapitalizing
these systems. Moreover, the internal and external reviews of the DOD
nuclear enterprise conducted in 2014 brought additional focus on needed
recapitalization and resulted in increased investments to ensure the
long-term health of our nuclear forces.
Modernization and replacement programs will require increased
investment over current levels for much of the next 15 years and will
depend on sustained Congressional funding. The National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) must also be funded at an adequate level
to maintain and extend the lifetime of the existing stockpile, while
sustaining or modernizing its aging facilities and infrastructure. As a
result, substantial funding will be required in the near future.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Responsiveness to the SASC and to Congress writ large is
essential so representatives can make informed legislative decisions on
behalf of our Nation.
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 ASD(NCB)?
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. Yes.
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. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
counter-weapons of mass destruction mission
1. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Roberts, nuclear terrorism is one of the
most dangerous threats to the United States. How will you work to
support DOD, specifically the new U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) responsibility for the counter-weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) synchronization mission, in efforts to improve capability and
capacity for this vital mission?
Mr. Roberts. Working to ensure the Department has the capabilities
and the capacity to counter weapons of mass destruction, especially for
USSOCOM, will be a primary focus of my office, if confirmed. The recent
mission changes that give USSOCOM additional authorities and
responsibilities for counter-WMD activities have provided an excellent
opportunity for increased support to this critical mission set, and I
will work within the department, with other departments and agencies,
international partners, and with Congress to ensure resources are
aligned to requirements, gaps are closed, and the United States is
better prepared to counter WMD. I understand that the Department has
made great strides, particularly at the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, in this area, and if confirmed, one of my first actions will be
to meet with the USSOCOM commander, and other members of the CWMD
community, to ensure our warfighters receive the support they need.
readiness to fight in a chemical and biological environment
2. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Roberts, how will you work to improve our
servicemember's survivability and combat effectiveness in a chemical
biological threat environment?
Mr. Roberts. If confirmed, I will continue the work within DOD and
with our interagency partners to ensure our service members can not
only survive, but are able to accomplish their mission in a chemical or
biological environment. I will review our current efforts within DOD to
ensure that they are addressing the highest priority requirements of
our Services to accomplish their missions in a chemical and biological
environment.
3. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Roberts, are DOD and Congress
appropriately focused on this potential threat; what more do we need?
Mr. Roberts. My current assessment is that DOD and Congress are
appropriately focused on the chemical and biological threat
environment. If confirmed, I will review our efforts to ensure that the
focus remains appropriate to ensure our warfighters can effectively
accomplish their missions in a chemical or biological environment.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
nuclear labs hiring challenge
4. Senator Perdue. Mr. Roberts, earlier this year I had the honor
to tour and meet with the great work force of U.S. Department of Energy
Pantex Plant just northeast of Amarillo, Texas which is our Nation's
primary facility for the final assembly, dismantlement and maintenance
of nuclear weapons.
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released
this week, they ``estimate it will cost at least $1.2 trillion between
2017 and 2046 to introduce the mix of nuclear-armed submarines, bombers
and missiles that are now under construction.''
Nuclear labs are potentially facing a hiring challenge due to over
half of their workforce being retirement eligible, 42 percent will be
retirement eligible in 5 years specifically at Pantex. How do you plan
to mitigate these challenges?
Mr. Roberts. The U.S. nuclear weapon research, development, and
production complex, of which the Pantex Plant is a key component,
reports to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which
is part of the Department of Energy. The entire U.S. nuclear
enterprise, including the DOD, NNSA, and their contractors, is facing
the challenge of hiring the next generation of workers as the current
workforce that sustained the United States, through the Cold War reach
the end of their careers. The nuclear enterprise has been vigorously
hiring the workforce for the 21st century and, if confirmed, I am
dedicated to working with the NNSA, national laboratories, and
production plants to continue to recruit and, more importantly, retain
a talented workforce.
5. Senator Perdue. Mr. Roberts, I understand it is crucial to our
Nation's security to modernize our nuclear triad, but how do we find
the balance of modernizing over the next 30 years while also having a
plan to incentivize bright young Americans to pursue careers in the
nuclear labs?
Mr. Roberts. The best and brightest young Americans are attracted
by challenging and important work, and the sustainment and
modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent are among the
most challenging and important in the nation. Each of our national
nuclear laboratories faces unique challenges in the recruitment and
retention of their work force, and will require aggressive, effective
engagement by senior leadership. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the national laboratories and the NNSA leadership to help recruit and
retain the best and brightest to develop our next generation of nuclear
forces.
6. Senator Perdue. Mr. Roberts, what will you do to recruit and
retain the most qualified professionals that are needed for such a
technical and complex department?
Mr. Roberts. If confirmed, I will work with our national
laboratories and the NNSA to reach out actively to our high schools and
universities to promote science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education. In addition, I will make sure we take advantage
of the Department's hiring authorities to recruit the best and the
brightest from around the country to revitalize our nuclear enterprise.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
interagency cbrne training at army training facilities
7. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Roberts, during your testimony, you each
acknowledged that the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
explosives (CBRNE) threat posed by North Korea presents a serious
concern to our national security, and that we are ill prepared to
respond to a CBRNE attack or operate in a CBRNE environment. Would you
agree that, given the nature of chemical and biological weapons, the
threat posed by a CBRNE at home is just as dangerous as that posed to
our forces overseas?
Mr. Roberts. I agree that a CBRNE attack is a dangerous threat to
our national security, regardless whether it occurs overseas or at
home.
8. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Roberts, do I have your commitment to
ensuring the coordination and collaboration between DOD, the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) referenced in your advance policy questions will extend
to the tactical level, where civilian first responders to a CBRNE event
will be working shoulder to shoulder with military personnel?
Mr. Roberts. You have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will
continue to collaborate and coordinate with DHS and HHS to avoid
duplication of effort and develop and deliver capabilities that will
enable our military and first responders to respond more effectively to
a CBRNE event.
9. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Roberts, will you commit to ensuring the
military is properly resourced to provide the proper level of CBRNE
response to ensure DOD is capable of effectively working with
interagency partners?
Mr. Roberts. If confirmed, I do commit to ensuring that the
military is properly resourced to respond effectively to a CBRNE event
and that DOD is capable of working with interagency partners.
10. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Roberts, what steps are necessary to
ensure DOD and the Federal Government are capable of rapidly and
effectively responding to a CBRNE event in the Homeland?
Mr. Roberts. DOD's CBRNE response enterprise is already organized
and equipped to provide an effective and rapid response to a CBRNE
event in the Homeland. In my view, DOD must, however, continue to
ensure that it is properly resourced and maintain the effective
training and response relationships with the other Federal, State, and
local government organizations that have CBRNE responsibilities in the
Homeland.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
iran nuclear deal
11. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Roberts, President Trump recently
refused to certify that Iran is in compliance with the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and called it ``one of the worst
and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered
into''. Nevertheless, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
stated repeatedly that Iran has been in regular compliance, and our
allies have questioned our credibility in adhering to the agreements
we've signed. As the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on
the formulation of nuclear defense policy, would you say the Iran
nuclear deal--the JCPOA--increased or decreased the threat posed by
Iran's nuclear capabilities?
Mr. Roberts. The JCPOA has the potential to decrease the threat
posed by Iran's nuclear capabilities because it limits the production
of weapons-usable nuclear material. If the compliance by Iran can be
certified and verified appropriately, it could delay the possibility of
Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. I am, however, troubled by perceived
inadequacies of the verification provisions in the JCPOA. If confirmed,
I will work closely with my colleagues in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the interagency, and with the monitoring organizations to
understand fully the effectiveness of the JCPOA verification regimes
and provide my best advice on the extent of Iranian compliance with the
agreement.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
national urban security and technologies laboratory
12. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, in your advance policy
questions you state that coordination and collaboration with other
Federal agencies ``is not only critical to protecting the Homeland, but
also to protecting the warfighter.'' Do you agree that at a time of
increasing instability, we must ensure first responders have the
training, tools, and technologies needed to protect from nuclear,
chemical, and biological attacks?
Mr. Roberts. I agree that we must ensure first responders have the
training, tools, and technologies needed to protect against and recover
from nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks.
13. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, if confirmed, you will be
responsible for deterring nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks
both at home and abroad. Do you agree that the National Urban Security
and Technologies Laboratory (NUSTL) develops innovative training and
technology for first responders to use in the instance of a nuclear or
radiological attack on the Homeland and is a critical resource for your
operations?
Mr. Roberts. I agree that first responders must have the necessary
training and technological support to respond effectively to nuclear or
radiological attacks. While I am not familiar with the work of this
specific laboratory, if confirmed, I will ensure that DOD continues to
work with DHS and its capabilities, like the NUSTL, to continue to
deliver the training and technological support that our first
responders require.
14. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, will you commit to working
with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure critical
programs for first responders, like NUSTL, are not only continued but
fully supported?
Mr. Roberts. I am committed that, if confirmed, that I would
continue DOD's work with DHS to ensure our first responders receive the
critical support they require from DHS's laboratories, like the NUSTL.
syria's chemical weapons
15. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, the UN Security Council has
until November 16 to pass a resolution extending the Joint
Investigative Mechanism's mandate. Do you support its continuance to
investigate chemical attacks in Syria?
Mr. Roberts. I support the continuance of the Joint Investigative
Mechanism's mandate to investigate the chemical attacks in Syria.
16. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, if it's not renewed, what is
the risk to our special operators in country, our partners, and the
innocent civilians?
Mr. Roberts. The Joint Investigative Mechanism provides an
international mechanism to enforce the tenets of the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC). Its continued work reaffirms that the use of chemical
attacks are a violation of international norms. Any actions that
undermine enforcement of the CWC could increase the risk of future
chemical attack against our forces, our partners, or innocent
civilians.
17. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Roberts, do you agree we must do more
to pressure Russia and Iran to end their support for Assad's murderous
regime?
Mr. Roberts. I agree that we must continue to work with the
international community to prevent further casualties from chemical
attacks in Syria in violation of international law. That work must
include pressing key nations, particularly Russia and Iran, based on
their influential relationships with the Assad regime, to support UN
efforts to resolve the country's conflict and dictate the terms of any
settlement.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
research for defending against biological attacks
18. Senator Hirono. Mr. Roberts, botulinum toxin is one of the most
toxic poisons known. Botulinum toxin gained public attention after a
vial of the bacteria was found by investigators in Iraq after the
ouster of Saddam Hussein. The bacteria are easy to grow, and the toxin
is relatively easy to produce in large quantities. This makes it a
prime candidate for the bioterrorist's arsenal. The Department
currently funds research to develop antitoxin drugs to counter the
effects of the Botulinum toxin. Can you discuss the importance of these
types of research programs as they impact the safety and security of
our military and civilians and if confirmed, will you look into and
provide me an update on the current state of the research and
development of the antitoxins for Botulinum?
Mr. Roberts. Medical countermeasures for biological warfare agents,
such as Botulinum toxin, are a key component of the DOD's integrated
and layered defense against chemical, biological, and radiological
hazards. If confirmed, I will review our research and development of
antitoxins for Botulinum and provide you an update on the current state
of that work.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
plutonium sustainment
19. Senator Heinrich. Mr. Roberts, Los Alamos Lab has long been the
Nation's designated center of excellence for plutonium research and is
the only facility in the country capable of meeting the military's
cost-and-schedule requirements for pit production. As we discussed when
we met in my office, in response to section 3114 of the Fiscal Year
2013 NDAA, the Nuclear Weapons Council sent a letter to the Senate
Appropriations Committee in July 2014 committing the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to begin the process of designing and
building modular buildings [for pit production] at Los Alamos. If you
are confirmed and the NNSA were to propose a deviation from the
strategy the Nuclear Weapons Council endorsed in July 2014, can I have
your commitment to recommend to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) that the Pentagon's
independent Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office
conduct an independent analysis of the assumptions and conclusions of
the proposed alternative?
Mr. Roberts. A significant amount of work has already been done in
exploring the ability to meet the military requirements for plutonium
pit production. I understand that the Nuclear Weapons Council endorsed
a strategy in 2014. The delays that have occurred subsequently are, as
we discussed, concerning. If confirmed, I will seek to understand the
changes in the program that have occurred since that time and will work
closely with the Nuclear Weapons Council to ensure that there is a
full, detailed, and independent analysis conducted by the appropriate
body of all the assumptions and conclusion of the alternatives
presented to the Nuclear Weapons Council.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Guy B. Roberts follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 19, 2017.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Guy B. Roberts, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Andrew Charles Weber.
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Guy B. Roberts, which was
transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Guy B. Roberts
Education:
Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
- 1994 to 1995
- M.A. National Security and Strategic Studies, (with highest
distinction).
Georgetown University School of Law, Washington, DC
- 1983 to 1985
- LLM International and Comparative Law.
University of Southern California (London, England
Program)
- 1981-83
- M.A. International Relations (with distinction)
University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
- 1972-75
- Juris Doctor Law Degree
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
- 1968-72
- B.A. Political Science (Magna cum laude)
Employment Record:
United States Marine Corp.
- Held a wide range of assignments in policy formulation,
operations support, negotiations, management, litigation and policy/
legal advisor before retiring with the rank of Colonel. Positions and
responsibilities during this 25-year span included:
- Legal counsel to four-star combatant commander (U.S.
Southern Command)
- Staff Judge Advocate to Commanding General, Second Marine
Division
- Joint Staff Action Officer responsible for arms control/
nonproliferation issues
- Staff Attorney, Headquarters, Marine Corps
- Staff Judge Advocate to Commanding General, 9th Marine
Brigade
- Staff Attorney, Administrative Law, Navy Judge Advocate
General
- Staff Attorney, Naval Legal Service Office, London,
England
- Prosecutor and Defense Attorney, Camp Pendleton,
California
- Platoon and Company Commander, Camp Pendleton, California
- November 1975 to January 2000
Office of General Counsel, Department of the Navy
- Associate Counsel (Arms Control/Non-proliferation)
- January 2000 to May 2003
Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, the
Pentagon
- Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense/Principal Director for
Negotiations Policy
- June 2003 to July 2005
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
- Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Weapons of Mass
Destruction Policy and Director, Nuclear Policy
- July 2005 to August 2011
GBR Consultancy, Ashland, VA (Sole Proprietorship)
- CEO, Subject Matter Expert (SME) and Senior National
Security Consultant
- September 2011 to Present
University of Mary Washington and Virginia Commonwealth
University
- Adjunct Professor/Lecturer on terrorism, arms control, non-
proliferation, international law
- September 2012 to Present
Computer Science Corporation (CSRA)
- SME, Consultant/Casual Employee
- September 2012 to Present
Honors and Awards:
Military Awards
- Defense Superior Service Medal
- Legion of Merit
- Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster (in
lieu of second award)
- Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star (in lieu of second
award)
- Joint Service Achievement Medal
- Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal
- National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star
Federal Civilian Awards:
- Exceptional Public Service Award, Department of Defense
- Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Certificate of
Appreciation
- Annual Department of Navy Performance Awards, 2000-2003
Academic Awards:
- Stephen B. Luce Award for Academic Achievement (First in
Class), Naval War College
- General Linhard Award for Outstanding Research, Institute of
National Security Studies, Air Force Academy
______
[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. Guy B.
Roberts in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed, use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
part a--biographical information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in Committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearing and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Guy Bradley Roberts (Former last name ``West'' and nickname
``Lucky'')
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological Defense
3. Date of nomination:
July 19, 2017
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
Committee's executive files.]
5. Year and place of birth:
1950, Greeley, Colorado
6. Marital status: (Include full name of current spouse including
any other names used, including maiden name.)
Married to Helene Wilhelmina Roberts (Maiden Name: Ceelen)
7. Names of children (if over age 18):
Matthew William Roberts
Alexander Guy Roberts
8. Education: List names of secondary and higher. education
institutionsattended, type of school (vocational, technical, trade
school, college, university, military college, correspondence,
distance, extension, and online) dates attended, degree received and
date degree granted.
Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
- Military College
- 1994-95
- M.A. National Security and Strategic Studies, (with highest
distinction).
Georgetown University School of Law, Washington, D.C.
- Law School
- 1983-85
- LLM International and Comparative Law.
University of Southern California (London, England
Program)
- Graduate College
- 1981-83
- M.A. International Relations (with distinction)
University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
- Law School
- 1972-75
- Juris Doctor Law Degree
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
- Four Year College
- 1968-72
- B.A. Political Science (Magna cum laude)
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. If
the employment activity wasmilitary duty, list separate employment
activity periods to show each change of military duty station.
July 2005 to August 2011
- Title: Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Weapons of
Mass Destruction Policy and Director, Nuclear Policy,
- Name of Employer: Assistant Secretary General (Gabor
lklody), Emerging Security Challenges Division, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO),
- Location of Work: NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
- Key NATO official responsible for developing policy and
implementing NATO's comprehensive policy on preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
August 2011 to Present
- GBR Consultancy, Ashland, VA (Sole Proprietorship)
- CEO, Subject Matter Expert (SME) and Senior National
Security Consultant
- September 2011 to Present
- University of Mary Washington and Virginia Commonwealth
University
- Adjunct Professor/Lecturer on terrorism, arms control,
non-proliferation, international law
- September 2012 to Present
- Computer Science Corporation (CSRA)
- SME, Consultant/Casual Employee
- September 2012 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.
None
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
The following firms I have served or have made myself available
to serve as a subject matter expert, consultant on national security or
military issues, and advisor on nonproliferation, arms control,
terrorism topics:
1. Institute for Defense Analysis (Provided expert advice on
NATO issues for a study on NATO force posture) (I have not provided
paid consulting services to IDA in the last two years.)
2. CSRA Corporation (Previously known as CSC or Computer Science
Corporation) (Employed as a subject matter expert for presentations and
training in support of Defense Threat Reduction Agency programs)
3. Cubic Corporation (Available as a subject matter expert for
various proposals/projects.) (I have not provided paid consulting
services to Cubic in the last two years.)
4. CSIS (designated a Senior Associate) (Participated in
variousdialogues/studies) (I have not provided paid consulting service
to CSIS in the last two years.)
5. TOK (Tree of Knowledge, Inc.) Corporation (advice on how to
do business with Department of Defense) (I have not provide paid
consulting services to TOK in the last two years.)
6. Key Solutions Inc. (provided subject matter expertise on
statement of work for U.S. Government project) (I have not provided
paid consulting services to Key Solutions in the last two years.)
7. CACI Corporation (available as a subject matter expert) (I
have not provided paid consulting services to CACI in the last two
years.)
I will sever my working relationships with these entities prior
to assuming a position with the Administration in the Department of
Defense.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Licensed to practice law in Colorado, California,
Arizona, U.S. District Court (10th Circuit), and before the Court of
Military Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
Member: Colorado, California, Arizona bar associations
(now inactive);
Member: International Society for Military Law and Law
of War; Hague Academy of International Law; International Institute of
Strategic Studies(Inactive).
Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
Chapter Vice President/Member, Richmond Chapter of
Military Officers Association of America.
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).
None. I have never been a candidate for a political office.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None
(c) Itemize all individual political contributions of $100 or more
to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political
action committee, or similar entity for the past 5 years. List each
individual contribution and not the total amount contributed to the
person or entity during the year.
None
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, civilian service citations, military awards and decorations,
honorary society memberships, and any other special recognition for
.outstanding service or achievements.
Stephen B. Luce Award for Academic Achievement, Naval
War College
Exceptional Public Service Award, Department of Defense
Defense Superior Service Medal
Legion of Merit
Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
(in lieu of second award)
Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star (in lieu of
second award)
Joint Service Achievement Medal
Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal
National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Certificate of
Appreciation
General Linhard Award for Outstanding Research,
Institute of National Security Studies
Department of Navy Performance Awards, 2000-2003.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written including articles published on the internet.
``The New Rules of War: The Case Against Ratification
of Additional Protocol I,'' 26 Virginia Journal of International Law,
fall 1985.
``Covert Operations for Intelligence Gathering in
Combatting Terrorism: The Moral Dilemma,'' in Fighting Back
(Livingstone and Arnold, eds. 1986).
``Self-help in Combatting State-Sponsored Terrorism:
Self-Defense and Peacetime Reprisals,'' 19 Case Western Reserve Journal
of International Law 243 (Spring 1987).
``Treaty Violations in Afghanistan,'' in Afghanistan--
The Great Game Revisited (Klass ed. 1987).
``Judaic Sources of the Laws of War,'' Navy JAG
Journal, 1988.
``Enforcing the CFE Treaty: Ensuring Compliance Before
it's too Late,'' Strategic Review, fall 1990.
Co-Editor, National Security Law Documents, Carolina
Academic Press, 1995, 2002.
``An Elegant Irrelevance: The ABM Treaty in the New
World Disorder,'' Strategic Review, spring 1995.
``Five Minutes Past Midnight: The Clear and Present
Danger of Nuclear Weapons Grade Fissile Materials,'' Institute for
National Security Studies Occasional Paper #8, February 1996.
``Nuclear Weapons-Grade Fissile Materials: The Most
Serious Threat to US National Security Today?'' Airpower Journal,
Special Edition 1996
``Reality Check: NATO's Ambitious Response to the
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,'' Airpower Journal, fall
1997
Co-author, ``International Cooperation and NATO's
Counterproliferation Policy,'' in Countering the Proliferation and Use
of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Hays, Jodoin, Van Tassel eds. 1998).
``Caribbean Drug Challenges: Operations and the U.S.
Southern Command,'' in Oceans Policy: New Institutions, Challenges and
Opportunities (Nordquist and Moore eds. 1999)
``The Counterproliferation Self-Help Paradigm: A Legal
Regime for Enforcing the Norm Prohibiting the Proliferation of Weapons
of Mass Destruction,'' Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
summer 1999
``This Arms Control Dog Won't Hunt: The Fissile
Material Cut-Off Treaty and the Conference on Disarmament,'' Institute
for International Security Studies Occasional Paper #36, January 2001.
Co-author, ``Building Democracies with Southern
Command's Legal Engagement Strategy,'' Parameters, 2001
``Cooperative Security Measures,'' in Arms Control:
Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment (Larsen, ed. 2002)
``Arms Control Without Arms Control: The Failure of the
Biological Weapons Convention Protocol and a new Paradigm for Fighting
the Threat of Biological Weapons,'' Institute for International
Security Studies Occasional Paper #49, March 2003.
``The UN Charter Paradigm on the Brink: The Legal and
Policy Predicates for Use of Force Against Iraq,'' 42 Military Law and
the Law of War Review 443, 2003.
``Beyond Arms Control: New Initiatives to Meet New
Threats,'' in Arms Control and Cooperative Security (Larsen and Wirtz,
eds. 2009).
``Hostis Humani Generis: The Threat of WMD Terrorism
and How NATO is Facing the Ultimate Threat,'' Defence Against Terrorism
Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2009.
``Effectiveness of Enforcement of Reduction Agreements:
NATO's Role,'' Implications of Nuclear Disarmament for Global Security,
Studies and Comments 11, R. Huber, K. Lange, D. McDonald (eds.), Hanns
Seidel Foundation, 2010, p. 51.
``The Threat Posed by Biological Terrorism,'' Global
Terrorism and International Cooperation Symposium Proceedings, 15-16
March 2010, Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism, p. 113.
``NATO and Preventing the Proliferation of WMDs,''
Partnership for Peace Review, Vol. 2. No. 1, Spring 2011, p. 1