[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Shelby, (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Alexander, Murkowski, Moran,
Hoeven, Boozman, Durbin, Murray, Tester, Schatz, and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MARK T. ESPER, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The Committee will come to order.
This morning, we are pleased to welcome Secretary Esper and
General Milley to the Committee for an update on the Army
operations and a review of the 2020 budget request.
The Army is seeking $182.3 billion in its current request,
which is an increase of $2.4 billion over amounts appropriated
for 2019, and while we are here to focus on this budget
request, we are also interested in hearing how the Army is
executing the money that we appropriated, Mr. Secretary, in
2019.
Readiness remains the cornerstone of the Army's resourcing
decisions, and although building and maintaining readiness is
the number one priority, it must be balanced against the need
to meet manning goals and to modernize and enhance our
competitive advantage.
The fiscal year 2020 request slows down the pace of the
Army's plan to get to 500,000 active-duty soldiers. The new
plan is to add 2,000 troops, as I understand it, in 2020 and
subsequent years, with proportionate growth in the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve.
This Committee understands that the budget request before
us is informed by the 2018 National Defense Strategy, and that
the recent creation of the Army Futures Command has further
changed many planning assumptions here.
The American people expect that their military will be
adequately resourced and that the funding that they provide for
that purpose will be diligently examined to ensure that it is
well spent.
To that end, this Committee considers the President's 2020
budget request. We will be looking closely at both the
reductions and eliminations that the Army recently undertook
and the tradeoffs that were made since the Army defended its
previous budget before Congress.
We appreciate your service, Mr. Secretary and General
Milley, and look forward to working with you during the
appropriations process to meet the needs of the Army in today's
complex and strategic environment.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
Good morning, the Subcommittee will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome Secretary Esper and General Milley to the
Committee for an update on Army operations and a review of the fiscal
year 2020 budget request.
The Army is seeking $182.3 billion in its current request, which is
an increase of about $2.4 billion over amounts appropriated for fiscal
year 2019. While we are here to focus on this budget request, we are
also interested in hearing how the Army is executing 2019 funds.
Readiness remains the cornerstone of the Army's resourcing
decisions. Although building and maintaining readiness is the number
one priority, it must be balanced against the need to meet manning
goals and to modernize and enhance our competitive advantage.
The fiscal year 2020 request slows down the pace of the Army's plan
to get to 500,000 active duty soldiers. The new plan is to add 2,000
troops in fiscal year 2020 and subsequent years, with proportionate
growth in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
This Committee understands that the budget request before us is
informed by the 2018 National Defense Strategy, and that the recent
creation of the Army Futures Command has further changed many planning
assumptions.
Moreover, the American people expect that their military will be
adequately resourced and that the funding that they provide for that
purpose will be diligently examined to ensure that it is well spent.
To that end, as this committee considers the President's fiscal
year 2020 budget request, we will be looking closely at both the
reductions and eliminations that the Army recently undertook and the
tradeoffs that were made since the Army defended its previous budget
before congress.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your service and look forward to working
with you during the appropriations process to meet the needs of the
Army in today's complex strategic environment.
Now I turn to the Vice Chairman, Senator Durbin, for his opening
remarks. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in
welcoming the Secretary of the Army Mark Esper and the Chief of
Staff of the Army General Mark Milley to our hearing to review
the Army's budget request for fiscal year 2020. Thank you both
for being here to discuss your priorities.
Since this is General Milley's first appearance before the
Subcommittee in several months, I want to take this occasion to
congratulate you on your nomination to be the next Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think it is an excellent choice,
and I am looking forward to working with you in that capacity.
If you name a hotspot in the world, the odds are good that
the men and women in the United States Army are there, over
81,000 Army soldiers deployed worldwide: Afghanistan, South
Korea, Iraq, Syria, Europe, and beyond.
Many of the decisions made in this budget were focused on
China and Russia's ability to match or surpass the U.S.
military, despite the fact that the United States spends more
on national defense than China and Russia and most of our major
enemies combined. In fact, the Army's fiscal year 2020 OCO
(Overseas Contingency Operations) budget--request of $63
billion is itself almost as high as Russia's entire national
defense budget this year.
We have already debated privately and personally and will
continue to debate how we measure defense budgets, why it is
more expensive to put a soldier, American soldier in the field,
and the various competitive advantages that perhaps some of our
enemies might have. But the fact is, in raw numbers, we are
dramatically outspending every other country on earth when it
comes to national defense. We do not want to come in second in
any war, but at some point, we have to pause, step back, and
take a look and ask ourselves, ``Is this money really achieving
the defense and security that we need as a nation?''
Our non-war defense budget grew by 18 percent between 2017
and 2019, and yet we know our defense budget is growing by
leaps and bounds.
With these large budgetary increases, any institution would
struggle to responsibly manage the mountains of money that we
are pushing into the Department of Defense.
This year, we have a new problem: the President. He is
diverting defense funds for a border wall so he can keep a
campaign promise.
On Monday, Congress learned that the $1 billion in excess
Army pay and benefits will not go back into the Army and other
military priorities but will go to build the President's wall.
The President also wants to cancel $3.6 billion in military
construction projects that the Army and other services asked
for last year so he could build his wall. How will those
military construction needs be met?
The President's appointees hope Congress gives them the
money in the next year's budget to make up for what they are
taking out of this year's budget. Meanwhile, we have no answers
on how the armed forces are going to pay for pressing readiness
issues this year, like repairing bases from natural disasters,
paying the cost of deploying soldiers and the National Guard to
our border.
So it would appear the President is really building his
wall at the expense of America's military. So what we have
seen, what we have seen to be seeing, is that the Congress and
the military services are seeing dramatic changes in the way we
establish a defense budget.
Some of the ordinary practices between Congress and the
Department of Defense when it comes to reprogramming and
consent from Congress are being pushed aside in the name of
this wall. This should be extremely concerning to all of us and
every American, each of whom is asking for clear answers to who
is being held accountable for spending tax dollars and is the
military still the President's top priority.
We have many other issues to discuss with this panel, and I
have only mentioned a few. I look forward to the testimony
about efforts to overhaul the Army acquisition, cut waste, and
move on to our top priorities.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Secretary
of the Army, Mark Esper, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General
Mark Milley, to our hearing to review the Army's budget request for
fiscal year 2020. Thank you both for being here to discuss your
priorities to maintain and modernize our great Army.
Since this is General Milley's first appearance before the
Subcommittee in several months, I would also like to congratulate him
for his forthcoming nomination to be the next Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Not many military promotions are announced by tweets
in early December, but I am certain that the Senate will receive the
standard paperwork on General Milley's nomination at the appropriate
time.
growing defense budgets to counter emerging world threats
If you name a hot spot in the world, the odds are good that the
women and men of the United States Army are there. Over 81,000 Army
soldiers are deployed worldwide in Afghanistan, South Korea, Iraq,
Syria, and Europe.
Many of the decisions made in this budget were focused on China and
Russia's ability to match or surpass the United States' military
capability, despite the fact the U.S. spends more on national defense
than China and Russia--and several other countries--combined.
In fact, the Army's fiscal year 2020 OCO budget request of $63
billion is itself almost as high as Russia's entire national defense
budget this year.
Our non-war defense budget grew by 18 percent between 2017 and
2019. And yet, how we can find ourselves struggling to keep up with our
adversaries' new technologies remains a puzzle.
risks of massive budget increases
With these large budgetary increases, any institution would
struggle with responsible management of all those funds.
But this year we have an additional concern: the President is
diverting defense funds to the border wall so that he can fulfill a
campaign pledge.
On Monday, Congress learned that $1 billion in excess Army pay and
benefits will go not toward top military priorities, but to build a
border wall that Congress never agreed to fund.
The President also wants to cancel $3.6 billion in military
construction projects that the Army and the other services asked for
last year so that he can fund other portions of the wall.
How will those military construction needs get met?
The President's appointees hope Congress gives them money to re-
start them in fiscal year 2020.
Meanwhile, we have no answers on how the Armed Forces are going to
pay for pressing readiness issues this year, like repairing bases from
natural disasters, or paying the cost of deploying soldiers and the
National Guard to the border.
So it would appear that the President has taken a hostage, and it
is unfortunately our U.S. military.
What we seem to be seeing is that the Congress and the military
services are both losing control of a defense budget that is escalating
very quickly.
This should be extremely concerning to every American, each of whom
is owed clear answers to who is accountable for spending their tax
dollars.
conclusion
We have many other issues to discuss with this panel--only some of
which I have mentioned. I look forward to hearing from Secretary Esper
and General Milley about their efforts to overhaul Army acquisition,
cut waste, and move out on their top priorities.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Esper, General Milley, we again
welcome you to the Committee.
Secretary, your written testimony and the General's written
testimony will be made part of the record. You proceed as you
wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MARK T. ESPER
Secretary Esper. Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Durbin,
and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I want to first thank Congress for helping us reverse the
readiness decline that developed following several years of
budget uncertainty. Because of the strong support provided in
the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 budgets, we have
increased the number of fully-ready Brigade Combat Teams by 55
percent over the past 2 years. However, I am confident we would
prevail against--while I am confident we would prevail against
any foe today, our adversaries are working hard to contest the
outcome of future conflicts.
As a result, the Army stands at a strategic inflection
point. If we fail to modernize the Army now, we risk losing the
first battles of the next war. For the past 17 years, the Army
bore the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a
decade, we postponed modernization to procure equipment
tailored to counter insurgency operations.
Our legacy combat systems, designed for high-intensity
conflict, entered service when I joined the Army in the early
1980s. While they dominated in past conflicts, incremental
upgrades for many of them are no longer adequate for the
demands of future battle, as described in the National Defense
Strategy.
We must build the next generation of combat systems now
before Russia and China outpace us with their modernization
programs.
Despite Russia's looming economic difficulties, they are
steadily upgrading their military capabilities. In addition to
field testing their next-generation T-14 Armata tank, they
continue to advance the development of their air defense and
artillery systems; and when combined with new technology, such
as drones, cyber, and electronic warfare, Russia has proven its
battlefield prowess.
We have no reason to believe that Moscow's aggressive
behavior will cease in the short term. Russia's blatant
disregard for their neighbors' sovereignty, as demonstrated in
Ukraine and Georgia, is a deliberate strategy meant to
intimidate weaker states and undermine the NATO alliance.
In the long run, China presents an even greater challenge.
They continue to focus their military investments in cutting-
edge technologies, such as artificial intelligence, directed
energy, and hypersonics. Beijing's systematic theft of
intellectual property is also allowing them to develop the
capabilities cheaper and faster than ever before.
Additionally, China's coercive economic practices are
expanding its sphere of influence in ways contrary to our
Nation's interests.
To deter the growing threat posed by great power
competitors and to defeat them in battle, if necessary, we must
leap ahead to the next generation of combat systems, and we
must do so now.
Over the past year, the Army took a major step forward in
reorganizing its entire modernization enterprise with the
establishment of Futures Command. In doing so, we stripped away
layers of bureaucracy and streamlined our acquisition process
while achieving unity of command and greater accountability.
Guided by our six modernization priorities, Army Futures
Command is hard at work developing the systems needed to
maintain battlefield overmatch in future conflicts.
When we received our budget this time last year, we felt
that it was unreasonable to ask Congress for the additional 4-
to $5 billion needed annually to fund our modernization without
first looking internally to find the necessary resources. As a
result, the Army senior leaders took an unprecedented
initiative to comprehensively review every Army program.
Our goal was simple: Find those programs that least
contribute to the Army's lethality and reallocate those
resources into higher priorities. After over 50 hours of
painstaking deliberations, we eliminated, reduced, or delayed
nearly 200 programs, freeing up over $30 billion over the next
5 years. We then reinvested this money into our top priorities,
those systems and initiatives we need to prevail in future
wars.
The Army will continue to ruthlessly prioritize our budgets
to provide a clear predictable path forward that will achieve
our strategic goals. That process is under way now as we
develop next year's budget.
Support for the Army's fiscal year 2020 budget is critical
to building the Army the Nation needs and demands. Those who
are invested in legacy systems will fight to hold onto the
past, while ignoring the billions of dollars in opportunity
created by our investments in new technologies and what it
means for the Army's future readiness.
While change will be hard for some, we can no longer afford
to delay the Army's modernization. We believe we are following
the sound guidance conveyed to us by many of you.
In this era of great power competition, we cannot risk
falling behind. If left unchecked, Russia and China will
continue to erode the competitive military advantage we have
held for decades.
The Army has a clear vision, which I ask be entered into
the record.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
The purpose of the Army Vision is to guide the development of a
modern, ready, and lethal Army prepared to meet the nation's needs over
the next 10 years, and is articulated as follows: ``The Army of 2028
will be ready to deploy, fight and win decisively, against any
adversary, in a joint, multi-domain, high-intensity conflict. The Army
will do this through the employment of modern manned and unmanned
ground combat vehicles, aircraft, sustainment systems, and weapons,
coupled with robust combined arms formations and tactics based on a
modern warfighting doctrine and centered on exceptional Leaders and
Soldiers of unmatched lethality.''
The Army will further achieve this vision through the following
five objectives in the coming years: man, organize, train, equip, and
lead. We will ensure that our Soldiers, civilian workforce, and their
families enjoy the professional opportunities and quality of life they
deserve. From the top down we must also remain committed to the Army
Values. The Army is at its best when we work and fight as one team, and
our Army Values, coupled with our Warrior Ethos, will guide and serve
us well as we face the challenges ahead.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Esper. With a sound strategy to maintain
battlefield overmatch, we are making the tough choices. We now
need the support of Congress to modernize the force, and it
starts with the fiscal year 2020 budget.
The bottom line is this. We owe it to our soldiers to
provide them the weapons and equipment they need, when they
need it, to win decisively in future battlefields.
Thank you again for your continued support. I look forward
to your questions and appreciate the opportunity to discuss
these matters before you today.
Senator Shelby. General Milley.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. ARMY
General Milley. Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Durbin
and distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to join Secretary Esper here today. It remains an
incredible privilege for me to represent all of the 1 million
soldiers in the regular Army, National Guard, and United States
Army Reserve that are arrayed in 18 divisions and 58 Brigade
Combat Teams and deployed with over 180,000 soldiers today in
140 countries worldwide on freedom's frontier.
While much of our testimony today and your questions will
focus on the Army's challenges and how to make us stronger and
more lethal, it is important to note up front for you, the
Committee, for the entire Congress, for the American people,
our allies, and perhaps, most importantly, to our adversaries
that the United States Army is highly capable today. We are
globally deployable today on very short notice. We can go
anywhere in the world. We have the training, the equipment, the
people, and the leaders to prevail today in ground combat
against anyone, anywhere, anytime.
I concur with Secretary Esper's comments on the threats
posed by China and Russia, and they are in fact rising. The
international order and, by extension, the United States'
interests are under increasingly and dangerous pressure. China
is a significant threat to the United States and our allies in
the mid and long terms, and I would categorize them as a
revisionist power seeking to diminish our influence in the
Pacific and establish themselves as the controlling regional
power in Asia, and they are setting conditions to challenge the
United States on a global scale.
Russia seeks to return to global great power and will
continue to challenge the United States, not only in Europe,
but also in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, the Arctic, and the
Western Hemisphere.
Russia continues to undermine NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) as an alliance and does sow dissent throughout
the European continent and, as we know, in our own homeland
through a variety of means.
Russia remains the only current existential threat to the
United States and will likely become increasingly opportunistic
in the near term, in my view.
In the last 17 years, our strategic competitors have eroded
our military advantages as outlined by Secretary Esper. With
your help, starting 2 years ago, we began to restore our
competitive advantage, and our recent budgets have helped
improve readiness and lay the groundwork for future
modernization. And we ask with this budget that you sustain
those efforts.
Our goal remains 66 percent, two-thirds, of the active-duty
Army Brigade Combat Teams and 33 percent of the National Guard
and U.S. Army Reserve units stay at the highest levels of
readiness. Those numbers, those levels of readiness, are what
we need to be able to align with the strategy that is laid out
in the National Defense Strategy, and with continued,
consistent, predictable congressional support, we can reach
those levels of readiness sometime in 2022.
Specifically, this budget will fund, in terms of readiness,
58 Brigade Combat Teams, 6 Security Force Assistance Brigades
for the total Army, 32 Combat Training Center rotations, to
include four for the National Guard, increased prepositioned
stocks in both Europe and INDOPACOM and many, many other
readiness initiatives.
In terms of modernization, which is really just another
term for future readiness, this budget will fund the improved
capabilities across our six modernization priorities, which
include 31 specific programs that are embedded within them. In
addition, it funds 51 other programs that are of significant
importance to the Army. In short, it will increase the
lethality of munitions across the globe and increase lethality
of the Army in the future.
It will also fill very specific solutions that we have
identified, reference 17 critical gaps relative to our near-
peer competitors of China and Russia, and I can brief you in
detail on those in a classified hearing, if you so choose.
Lastly, I want to highlight that this Committee and
Congress as a whole has provided us tremendous support over the
last several years. We recognize that, and we are committed to
applying our resources deliberately and responsibly,
understanding that they have been entrusted to us by Congress
and the American people. And we will continue to do that going
forward to ensure that our soldiers--that we remain with our
solemn obligation to our soldiers, that we never send our sons
and daughters in harm's way unless they are properly trained,
fully manned, and have the best equipment money can buy and are
extraordinarily well led.
We recognize that we the United States Army and indeed we
the United States military are extraordinarily expensive. We
also believe that our strength preserves the peace globally in
terms of great power competition and the awful potential for
great power war. We know that the only thing more expensive
than preserving the peace is to have a war, and the most
expensive is to lose a war.
Thank you again for your continued support to our soldiers
and their families, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark T. Esper and
General Mark A. Milley
introduction
America's Army stands ready today to deploy, fight, and win our
Nation's wars. The Army has made great progress in recent years,
recovering from depleted levels of readiness following extended periods
of sustained conflict and reduced defense spending. Our near-peer
competitors, however, capitalized on this period to advance their own
positions by modernizing their militaries and reducing the overmatch we
held for decades. Aligned with the National Defense Strategy (NDS), the
Army is pursuing a path to ensure we stay ahead of our competitors and
remain ready and lethal into the future.
The Army's Vision and Strategy outline the force needed to prevail
over the threats of the future, along with the plan for building that
Army. To accomplish this, the Army's efforts are focused on three
priority areas: building readiness for high-intensity conflict against
strategic competitors; modernizing our doctrine, equipment, and
formations to conduct multi-domain operations; and reforming our
personnel system, business processes, and fiscal management to ensure
our resources are put towards the highest priority activities.
Additionally, the Army will continue to take care of its people, live
the Army Values, and strengthen our alliances and partnerships to
sustain long-term success in wartime and peace.
We are grateful to Congress for the strong and timely support
provided to the Army in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations. Receiving
this funding on time reduced risk to short term readiness and allowed
us to make significant investments towards our six modernization
priorities. In order to achieve the defense objectives in the NDS and
meet our goals as outlined in the Army Vision, we must receive
predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding in the future. The
Army's total fiscal year 2020 budget request is $182.3 billion,
consisting of $150.7 billion for base requirements and $31.6 billion
for Overseas Contingency Operations requirements. This request provides
the resources the Army needs to build readiness, while modernizing for
the future.
strategic environment
The Army faces a global security environment that continually grows
more competitive and volatile. The challenges are many: the reemergence
of great power competition; a resilient but weakening post-World War II
order; accelerating technological advancements empowering state and
non-state actors; and persistent threats to the Homeland. The Army must
be ready now, and in the future, to confront this challenging strategic
environment. We must have an Army prepared for high-intensity conflict,
modernized to extend overmatch against near-peer adversaries, and
trained to fight as part of the Joint Force alongside our allies and
partners, all while sustaining our ability to conduct irregular
warfare.
The modern battlefield encompasses all domains--air, land, sea,
space, and cyber-space--and is increasing in geographic scale. Near-
peer competitors, like China and Russia, are aggressively pursuing
modernization programs to erode American overmatch. They have developed
sophisticated anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) systems, fires,
cyber, electronic warfare, and space-based capabilities that generate
layers of stand-off to disrupt the deployment of military forces, deny
the build-up of combat power, and separate Joint Force capabilities in
time and space. These capabilities may embolden more aggressive
behavior in the conventional realm. China's military modernization
program aims to transform the People's Liberation Army into a modern,
mechanized, Information Age force in the next one to two decades and a
world-class military capable of strategic force projection and
warfighting by mid-century. Their military strategy seeks to protect
Chinese interests outside of Asia and into Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa. Furthermore, Russia is likely to threaten our interests for the
next 20 years as they attempt to regain control of historic spheres of
influence and shape European economic and security structures in their
favor. Although we may not face China and Russia directly, we are
likely to face their systems and methods of warfare as they proliferate
military capabilities to others.
Regional state adversaries, namely North Korea and Iran, also
present significant challenges as they pursue advanced capabilities and
weapons of mass destruction to gain regional influence and ensure
regime survival. Additionally, transnational terrorist organizations
continue to pose a threat to our Homeland and our interests, as well as
our allies and partners. The Army must be prepared to defeat and deter
highly capable adversaries while disrupting violent extremists and
simultaneously defending the Homeland.
Today, the Army contributes to our Nation's efforts to counter
these challenges by providing Combatant Commanders over 179,000
Soldiers in more than 140 countries, including 110,000 Soldiers
deployed on a rotational basis. This includes over 30,000 Soldiers
supporting operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan; 8,000
Soldiers supporting NATO operations and the European Deterrence
Initiative; and over 17,000 Soldiers providing a forward American
presence on the Korean Peninsula. Additionally, Army forces remain
prepared to respond to other contingency requirements, both abroad and
at home. Concurrently, the Army is investing in the research and
development of the next generation of weapons and equipment needed to
stay ahead of our adversaries. Through a disciplined prioritization of
resources, the Army will remain postured to defend the Nation in an
increasingly dangerous world.
readiness
America's Army stands ready today to defeat any adversary that
threatens our Nation and our national interests. We have made great
progress in rebuilding warfighting readiness, which remains the Army's
number one priority as we increase lethality to prepare for the future.
Ready forces must be organized, trained, and equipped for prompt and
sustained ground combat. This ensures the Army can deploy, fight, and
win decisively in high-intensity conflict against any adversary,
anytime, and anywhere. Over the past year, the Army balanced our force
structure, increased manning in combat units, filled equipment
shortfalls, and improved deployability to build readiness across the
force. From September 2016 to December 2018, we increased the number of
ready Brigade Combat Teams from 18 to 28, and more broadly, increased
readiness across all Army units by nearly 11 percent. We achieved these
readiness gains despite sustained operational demand for Army units.
Our fiscal year 2020 budget request sustains this momentum, so the Army
can achieve our readiness objectives by 2022.
The Army has implemented several readiness initiatives to
reorganize for high- intensity conflict against near-peer competitors.
We are increasing combat readiness by working to fill our operational
units to 100 percent of authorized strength this year and 105 percent
of strength by the end of 2020. Furthermore, we reduced the non-
deployable rates of Soldiers from 15 percent in 2015 to 6 percent
today. We anticipate achieving our goal of 5 percent non-deployable
Soldiers by the end of this year. This equates to thousands more
Soldiers ready to deploy in support of global contingency operations.
We also rebalanced our force structure to increase lethality by
initiating the conversion of two Infantry Brigade Combat Teams to
Armored Brigade Combat Teams, our most potent battlefield formation.
Furthermore, we plan to modestly grow the Regular Army to 480,000 with
associated growth in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve in
2020. This growth will allow the Army to fill critical gaps in the near
term in cyber, air and missile defense, and fires while we develop the
necessary force structure and end strength needed to execute Multi-
Domain Operations.
Another critical element of readiness is training. We overhauled
Army basic training to develop more lethal, disciplined, and resilient
Soldiers. This includes extending Infantry One Station Unit Training
from 14 weeks to 22 weeks. Initial reports show a significant reduction
in attrition and injuries with significant improvements in physical
fitness, land navigation, and marksmanship skills based on the
additional training time and a reduced Drill Sergeant to trainee ratio.
Other branches may see similar adjustments through fiscal year 2024.
Army collective training focuses on high-intensity conflict, with
an emphasis on operating in complex terrain, electronically degraded
environments, and under constant surveillance. Training is tough,
realistic, iterative, and task focused. We eliminated or reduced over
85 individual training requirements to unburden commanders and allow
them to focus on training their units. In the Army National Guard and
the Army Reserve, we increased the training days for select units to
increase the pool of reserve component units available to support
operational requirements. Additionally, we maximized capacity at our
combat training centers to meet Army force readiness requirements. The
Army will execute 26 Decisive Action Training Environment rotations for
Brigade Combat Teams and six other mission specific rotations for a
total of 32 combat training center rotations in fiscal year 2019.
Moreover, we continue to develop a Synthetic Training Environment which
will integrate live, virtual, constructive, and game-based training
environments into a single platform to increase home station training
repetitions and enhance training realism in a variety of scenarios and
locations.
We also approved the new Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) to
fundamentally improve our fitness culture, reduce injuries, increase
deployability, and increase the probability that a Soldier survives on
the battlefield of the future. We have focused our fitness standards on
the skills needed to fight in sustained close combat where physical
toughness and endurance will be pushed to the extremes of human
capacity. We began field-testing the ACFT in 2018 with 63 units across
the Total Army and will begin full implementation this year. By the end
of fiscal year 2020, the ACFT will be the fitness test of record for
all Soldiers.
Increasing readiness is also about improving our equipment. To this
end, Army Materiel Command increased the spare parts inventory and
ammunition stockpiles. The Army also redistributed equipment to Focused
Readiness Units, which remain at higher readiness levels to support
global response. Furthermore, we are making progress towards achieving
ground and aviation equipment readiness goals Army-wide.
To further improve equipment readiness and enhance our power
projection capabilities, the Army uses prepositioned stocks to quickly
execute operational plans and conduct contingency operations. We
budgeted $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 to
improve the readiness of Army Prepositioned Stocks. Additionally, we
initiated a Configured-for- Combat effort to equip Army Prepositioned
Stocks with combat enablers such as communications, modernized weapons,
and counter-measure systems in order to speed our ability to build
combat power. This reduces the time it takes to build combat power by
weeks and significantly reduces the amount of strategic airlift
previously required to deploy early entry Army forces. Follow-on forces
will continue to rely on modern and ready strategic lift assets,
especially sealift, to deliver ready and lethal ground forces in
support of the Joint Force. We must continue to invest in robust power
projection platforms and strategic lift capabilities to ensure we can
rapidly deploy and operate anywhere in the world.
Through these readiness initiatives, the Army is getting stronger
by the month in manning, training, and equipping the force. With
Congressional support, our fiscal year 2020 budget will allow us to
continue to increase readiness and build lethality.
modernization
While we continue to build readiness, the Army must also prepare
for the future. This includes modernizing our doctrine, equipment,
processes, and organizational structures to extend our overmatch
against any competitor on any battlefield. Guiding our modernization
effort is our Multi-Domain Operations concept, which identifies the
threats and challenges we will face in the future. Great power
competitors like China are developing capabilities to create standoff
intended to frustrate our ability to build combat power and maneuver at
will. To counter this, the Army will need to integrate our capabilities
with the Air Force, Navy, and Marines even more in the future. The
Army's new Multi-Domain Operations concept describes how we will
synchronize our capabilities across all domains in support of the Joint
Force.
The Army is using the Multi-Domain Operations concept to inform
future force development through numerous iterations of experimentation
and analysis, including field experimentation with Multi-Domain Task
Force pilots in the Indo-Pacific region and Europe. Our future success
depends on modernized equipment, evolving doctrine, and the
organizations essential to ensure overmatch against our competitors.
These elements will work in concert to increase our combat capabilities
across all domains.
As a major step towards developing the capabilities needed for
Multi-Domain Operations, we reorganized our entire modernization
enterprise for greater speed and efficiency. Last year, the Army made
its most significant organizational change in over 40 years by
establishing the Army Futures Command (AFC). We stood up AFC in the
innovation hub of Austin, Texas with a focus on providing unity of
command and unity of effort for the modernization enterprise. For the
first time, one commander is driving concept development, requirements
determination, organizational design, science and technology research,
and solution development. We located AFC outside of a traditional Army
installation to increase their accessibility and ability to collaborate
with industry and academia. Through these partnerships, AFC will
identify and deliver new capabilities with greater speed and more
efficient use of our resources.
To guide AFC, the Army established a clear set of modernization
priorities that emphasize rapid maneuver, overwhelming fires, tactical
innovation, and mission command. Our six modernization priorities will
not change, and they underscore the Army's commitment to innovate for
the future. We have one simple focus--to make Soldiers and units more
capable and lethal. Over the last year, we identified $16.1 billion in
legacy equipment programs that we could reinvest towards 31 signature
systems that are critical to realizing Multi-Domain Operations and are
aligned with these priorities. The six Army modernization priorities
are:
--Long Range Precision Fires.--We will improve the range and
lethality of cannon artillery and increase missile capabilities
to ensure overmatch at each echelon. Army artillery weapons,
including Extended Range Cannon Artillery and the Precision
Strike Missile, will neutralize and dis-integrate adversary A2/
AD networks, from extended ranges, to create windows of
opportunity for the Joint Force to exploit. The Extended Range
Cannon Artillery is on schedule for delivery in fiscal year
2023. It will protect and support maneuver forces in the close
and deep operational maneuver areas with an extended range out
to 70km and increased 6-10 rounds/minute volume of fire. The
Army has requested $1.31B for Long Range Precision Fires in the
fiscal year 2020 President's Budget to accelerate prototyping
and initial fielding.
--Next Generation of Combat Vehicles.--The Army will modernize the
next generation of combat vehicles through technology
development, experimentation, and prototyping to ensure
overmatch against near-peer competitors. These vehicles will
employ greater firepower, mobility, and protection to
successfully maneuver on more lethal battlefields. They will
have manned and unmanned variants for combined arms maneuver,
and be built with future growth in mind. The first prototype
will arrive in fiscal year 2021 to accelerate experimentation
and initial fielding. We requested $2.0 billion in the fiscal
year 2020 President's Budget to deliver an initial capability.
--Future Vertical Lift.--We will increase our competitive aviation
advantage with next generation aircraft to penetrate contested
airspace and support independent maneuver from greater
distances through extended range, endurance, and lifting
capacity. The most important FVL investments at the moment are
the Army's development of the Future Armed Reconnaissance
Aircraft, designed to address the gap left by retirement of the
Kiowa, and the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft. An
additional investment includes integrating unmanned aerial
systems, which we will prototype in fiscal year 2024, for
manned/unmanned teaming and improved lethality, situational
awareness, and survivability. Over $797.2M is included in the
fiscal year 2020 President's Budget to develop initial designs
and unmanned demonstration systems.
--Army Network.--The Army Network supports mission command and the
continuous integration of combined arms and Joint capabilities.
We will deliver a resilient and secure tactical communications
network effective in the most challenging contested and
congested electromagnetic spectrum and cyber environments. This
network includes advanced information technology, hardware and
software, and a reduced electromagnetic signature. We have
allocated $2.28B in the fiscal year 2020 budget to build our
integrated tactical network as part of our network
restructuring.
--Air and Missile Defense.--Advanced air and missile defense will
protect our forces from adversary aircraft, missiles, and
drones to enable joint operations. This includes both theater
systems and short-range air defense, like the Mobile Short-
Range Air Defense with directed energy technologies. The fiscal
year 2020 budget includes $1.4 billion to rapidly deliver an
initial capability by fiscal year 2022.
--Soldier Lethality.--We will equip and train Soldiers to extend
overmatch through increased lethality, mobility, and
survivability against emerging threats. This includes improved
weapons, sensors, body armor, and training. The fiscal year
2020 budget includes $1.18B for prototyping, development, and
procurement of the Next Generation Squad Automatic Weapon and
Squad Rifle, Enhanced Night Vision Goggles, Integrated Visual
Augmentation System (HUD 3.0), and Synthetic Training
Environment.
Eight Cross Functional Teams (CFTs), aligned under AFC, lead the
development of these modernization priorities. The CFTs streamline Army
acquisition processes to reduce the requirements process, shorten
acquisition time, and, by engaging Soldiers early in development,
ensure fielded systems are affordable and meet warfighter needs. This
approach demonstrates our commitment to good stewardship of taxpayer
dollars. In addition to this organizational realignment, we updated
acquisition policies. Our new intellectual property policy will
encourage private industry to work with our CFTs to develop innovative
solutions to maintain technological overmatch.
The Army is taking a holistic approach to modernization so we can
achieve multi- domain dominance by 2028. Next generation equipment,
combined with modern doctrine and formations, will allow the Army to
maintain overmatch on future battlefields.
reform
Over the past year, the Army aggressively pursued reforms to free
up time, money, and manpower for our highest priorities and to empower
subordinate commanders to make more effective and timely decisions. In
addition to our detailed program review process, we are executing the
Army Reform Initiative, instituting fiscal discipline, scrutinizing
contract management and contract services, and working towards
financial auditability. Through these reform efforts, we realigned over
$30 billion across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for higher
priority programs to build readiness and increase lethality.
In our most significant reform effort, Army Senior Leaders
conducted a detailed review of Army equipping programs for the fiscal
year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 budgets. Through this in- depth, time
intensive process, we eliminated, reduced, or consolidated nearly 200
legacy programs to reallocate funding towards our modernization
priorities. While each of these programs had value, we must continue to
make hard choices to ensure we spend each dollar wisely and remain
aligned with Army priorities.
Through the Army Reform Initiative, we garnered over 700 ideas to
eliminate, delegate, consolidate, or streamline Army policies, programs
and practices. Inputs included work efficiencies, business process
improvements, and structural realignments. For example, through our
installation management reform effort, we are realigning Installation
Management Command under Army Materiel Command and consolidating staff
functions to garner personnel savings and improve efficiency. This
integration of sustainment and installation functions provides the
ability to prioritize resources on key requirements for both combat
readiness and Soldier and family support. Additionally we have an
ongoing headquarters reduction effort across multiple levels of
command. The goal of the Army Reform Initiative is to eliminate
redundancy and delegate authorities and resources to the lowest
appropriate level of command. This allows for rapid actions and
decisions while simultaneously saving resources for higher priorities.
To improve fiscal discipline, we implemented the Command
Accountability & Execution Review (CAER) to optimize the purchasing
power of the Army's operating budget. This Army-wide program educates
Army leaders on fiscal stewardship, updates policies to increase
purchasing power, and creates a scorecard of key performance indicators
to measure progress. While still early, CAER has generated a marked
improvement in the efficient execution of the Army's budget for fiscal
year 2018 and we anticipate greater success in fiscal year 2019.
In 2018, contract management and contract services reform saved the
Army $1.6 billion across the FYDP by eliminating contract redundancies,
improving contract competition processes, and using data analytics for
contracting decisions. We continue to implement category management and
increased emphasis on the use of strategic sourcing contracts to
improve management of services acquisitions. This year, we found
service acquisition efficiencies in Army rotary-wing aircraft and
ground system maintenance programs, food services, and the use of
advanced data analytics. We saved over $400 million and are on pace to
reach over $1 billion in budget savings from improved contract
management in fiscal year 2019. These savings and their reinvestment
into modernization are crucial to the Army and our progress towards the
force of the future.
The Army completed its first full financial statements audit in
fiscal year 2018, and the audit findings are an important part of our
larger reform effort. We fully support these audits, which help the
Army identify ways to improve resource management and business
practices. We are aggressively implementing corrective action plans and
are on track to achieve auditable financial statements across all
accounts by fiscal year 2022.
Another major area of reform is the directed reorganization of our
medical capabilities across the Army. Readiness is the primary focus
throughout this effort because the Army will continue to be responsible
for a ready medical force trained in clinical skills that are critical
to wartime missions. As we transition medical treatment facilities to
the Defense Health Agency, we are working to ensure we retain the
necessary combat medical support at each echelon to maintain readiness
and deliver premier military healthcare on the battlefield and in
garrison. This reorganization provides us an opportunity to optimize
the Army medical structure and plan for future medical capabilities.
The Army will continue to pursue savings in time, money, and
manpower that we can reinvest into our top priorities. These aggressive
reform efforts, will sustain our momentum as we build readiness and
increase lethality to prepare for high-intensity conflict against great
power competitors.
allies & partners
America's network of allies and partners is an unrivaled strategic
advantage the Army is actively working to enhance. Every day, the Army
works to strengthen alliances and build new partnerships through
security cooperation and security assistance. A continued commitment to
our allies and partners helps us compete against great power
competitors and bolster deterrence. In support of our allies and
partners we established Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC), which
will consist of six subordinate Security Force Assistance Brigades
(SFABs)--five Regular Army and one Army National Guard. The SFABs are
specialized units whose core mission is to train, advise, assist,
enable and accompany allied and partner nations. SFABs reduce the
demand on conventional Brigade Combat Teams enabling them to focus on
high- intensity conflict against near-peer threats. The Army deployed
its first SFAB to Afghanistan in support of the Afghan National Army to
validate the proof of concept, and we will apply what we learned to the
second SFAB deployment this year.
The Army works with Combatant Commanders to ensure our security
cooperation efforts support their priorities as we work to increase
interoperability and build partner capability. Interoperability ensures
we can train and fight alongside our allies and partners more
effectively and efficiently so we are ready to face any threat
together. In fiscal year 2018, the Army executed $115 million on 58
multinational exercises with 95 allies and partners. In fiscal year
2019, we programmed $165 million for multinational training exercises
to increase interoperability.
In Europe, we are leading a multinational battlegroup in Poland as
part of NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence mission to deter Russian
aggression. Last summer, our Soldiers participated in Exercise Trident
Juncture alongside forces from every other NATO ally and two of our
closest partners, Sweden and Finland. This was the largest NATO
exercise conducted in recent years, and it demonstrated both the
Alliance's commitment and collective defense capability. We will
continue these efforts as we prepare for the division-level Defender
exercise in 2020, which will exercise the Army's force projection
capabilities. We also maintain close training and exercise
relationships with Ukraine and Georgia, key partners in the region for
promoting peace and security.
Likewise, in the Indo-Pacific region we are deepening cooperation
with our allies to protect our national and shared interests. The U.S.
Army presence in the Republic of Korea and Japan deters North Korean
aggression and protects U.S. interests. Assigned and rotational forces
participate in combined training exercises, such as Yama Sakura in
Japan and Yudh Abhyas with the Indian Army. These exercises strengthen
our relationships and build interoperability. Furthermore, we are
testing the Multi- Domain Task Force in exercises through our Pacific
Pathways program to determine the right capability mix to counter
Chinese A2AD capabilities. We will continue to use regional training
and exercises to work with new partners and leverage multi-component
and inter-service integration. This helps us to expand the competitive
space and counter Chinese influence throughout the region.
We are assisting our partners around the world in building military
capabilities to enhance security. The Army, through its security
assistance enterprise, supports Combatant Command theater security
cooperation plans. We will continue to prioritize security assistance
programs to counter key threats and achieve shared defense objectives
with our allies and partners.
people & values
The Army's greatest strength is our people--the intelligent,
adaptable, and professional Soldiers, Civilians, and Families who
sacrifice for our Nation. We take care of our people by ensuring our
Soldiers are ready for combat with modern doctrine, equipment, and
realistic training while simultaneously providing their families with
the resources they need to thrive at home. Furthermore, our continued
commitment to the Army Values ensures we foster strong and resilient
units built on a foundation of trust.
Comprehensive reform of the Army's personnel management system is a
top initiative for 2019. To remain the most lethal ground combat force
in the world, we must continue to attract, develop, and retain the best
people our Nation has to offer. A competitive labor market for
America's most highly skilled talent complicates this effort. We thank
Congress for the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA)
reforms and additional authorities in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, and we
will incorporate these into our new Talent Management Strategy. We are
moving the Army towards a market- based assignment process with more
flexible career models along with updates to our promotion system and
retention incentives.
The Army faced significant challenges in meeting our fiscal year
2018 recruiting goals, however, we remain committed to quality over
quantity. Despite these challenges, we recruited over 70,000 new
Soldiers into our ranks, the most in any single year since 2010. To
meet our fiscal year 2019 recruiting goals, we changed our approach to
increase the pool of qualified applicants so we can attract the best
talent and improve diversity in our ranks. We restructured our
accessions enterprise to ensure unity of effort across the Army, manned
our recruiter positions at 100 percent, realigned resources to increase
our recruiting capacity, and improved our use of technology.
Additionally, we centered this recruiting initiative in 22 major
metropolitan areas across the Nation to expand our reach using micro-
targeted web advertising and local marketing. This revised strategy
expands recruiting across the Total Army to increase awareness of the
opportunities for service and to better connect the Army to the
American people.
Taking care of Army families remains a top priority, and we are
taking steps to improve quality of life programs across our
installations. This year we increased staffing rates at Army child care
centers, and we are implementing new policies to improve spouse
employment opportunities. Given recent reports of deficient conditions
in some of our family housing, the Army has taken immediate action to
ensure we are providing safe, high quality family housing. We are
visiting all Army housing and inspecting all barracks to identify
health, life, and safety issues that exist. We will work with the
Residential Communities Initiatives (RCI) companies to remediate these
issues immediately, and over the long term, to improve work order
resolution, customer satisfaction, and communication with residents. We
are also reviewing and standardizing partnership agreements and
incentive structures to ensure we hold the RCI companies accountable
for providing quality housing. The Army is fully committed to providing
a safe and secure environment on all of our installations where our
Soldiers and Families can thrive.
The Army Values form the bedrock of our profession and guide us in
all that we do. The Army's Senior Leaders have asked everyone to
recommit themselves to these Values, and we demand that every member of
our Army team treat each other with dignity and respect. Across the
Total Army, we continue to focus on eradicating sexual harassment and
sexual assault from our ranks. Over the past several years, we have
placed a high priority on our prevention efforts, and the Army will
continue to improve the effectiveness of our prevention efforts moving
forward. This starts by ensuring that the perpetrators of sexual
assaults are held accountable and that the victims are protected
without fear of retribution. Additionally, we are reinforcing leader
responsibility for building a climate of trust and professionalism that
emphasizes the Army Values. We are taking a similar approach with other
essential programs including Equal Opportunity, Suicide Prevention,
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, and Resilience.
conclusion
The Army mission remains constant: to deploy, fight, and win our
Nation's wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance
by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the
Joint Force. Our Army is ready today to win in the unforgiving crucible
of combat. We are supporting the National Defense Strategy and
expanding the competitive space by increasing our lethality through our
modernization effort, strengthening American alliances through combined
operations and training, and reforming our business practices to be the
best stewards of the resources Congress has provided. The Army thanks
Congress and the American people for their continued strong support,
which enables our ability to accomplish our mission. By providing
predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding, Congress will
ensure America's Army remains the most capable and lethal ground combat
force in the world.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, General.
Secretary Esper, the 2020 budget request and the new Future
Years Defense Plan proposes to eliminate, as I understand it,
93 programs and to reduce or delay 93 more. It is my
understanding that the Army has realigned $33 billion to its
modernization priorities compared to the previous budget--
rather submission.
BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
Can you, here this morning, shed some light on the budget
review process and, specifically, sir, how the underlying
assumption and methods for choosing programs for truncation or
elimination has occurred?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. The process began about this
time last year in the few months prior to the submission we
have to make to OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) in
June, and it was driven by the National Defense Strategy. It
was driven by the guidance given to us by Secretary Mattis, and
it was driven by our own Army Vision, which I shared with you
earlier.
As the Chief and I began the process to review the budget
submission, we realized that there was insufficient money in
the budget, as it had been planned by the staff, in order to
fund all of our modernization priorities. At that point, we
decided that we were going to turn the table, if you will, and
begin with priority number one and work our way all the way
through to priority end.
And we basically began filling up programs in that manner.
As we looked at each existing program, we asked ourself, ``Is
this program more or less important than a future capability we
want to build?'' In other cases, we asked ourselves, ``Are we
building too much of a capability?''
We found also that in some cases we were having--we were
upgrading things that really did not justify the return on
investment. So we found a number of things throughout the
process that caused us to either eliminate, reduce, or delay
the builds, and that process is under way right now as we look
at next year's budget and beyond.
It took us over nearly 50 hours, session after session, and
it did not just involve the equipping budget, but we also
looked at the training, the manning, the installations budgets
as well to make sure we get every money, all the reform we
could out of our existing budgets.
Senator Shelby. Did any of this have an impact on readiness
at the moment?
Secretary Esper. On current readiness, Mr. Chairman? No,
sir. But will have a dramatic impact on future readiness.
Senator Shelby. In the future. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Dramatic.
Senator Shelby. General, does the fiscal year 2020 budget
fully fund the 31 CFT programs?
General Milley. I believe it does, and I believe we have
done a very, very good job in ensuring that.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary, the new Army Futures Command has assumed a
leadership role over research development in engineering,
fiscal control of the science and technology budget, as well as
oversight of the requirements development process. Some people
have raised concerns over the diminished role of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology under the new structure.
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT
How will the Army ensure, sir that the proper checks and
balances are in place so that appropriate civilian oversight is
exercised when it comes to resourcing, acquisition, and
technology development here? I know that is a mouthful.
Secretary Esper. No, sir. It is a very good question.
So, at the end of the day, I am responsible for
acquisition.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Esper. And I delegate those authorities to Dr.
Jette, the head of Army Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
We worked out a very clear directive in terms of the
responsibilities as we stood up Army Futures Command
collaboratively with General Murray, who runs Futures Command,
Dr. Jette, and their teams. Dr. Jette remains the chief
scientist, the chief technology officer. He remains responsible
for a number of things.
I think what you are finding, though, is a much better
connectivity now between our acquisitions side and our
requirements side, and that has always been a primary cause of
failed or failing programs in the past. But now we have much
greater alignment. There is an integration actually between the
organizations themselves and far, far fewer lines of
bureaucracy between those two organizations and me and chief.
We review programs every week, and we do them side by side
with General Murray and Dr. Jette.
DETER NEAR-PEER THREATS
Senator Shelby. General Milley, I propose this, my last
question, to you. Part of the Army's efforts to deter near-peer
threats is to focus on strengthening alliances and partnerships
in certain regions of the world as a counterweight to our
adversaries' increasing influence.
One way to do this is through more large-scale exercises,
as you know you have been doing, with the Army's budget. Can
you describe here in this setting today some of the planned
exercises--not all, I am sure--such as Pacific Pathways,
Defender Pacific, and why they are important?
General Milley. Thank you, Chairman.
Just briefly, the alliance structure that has been built up
over seven decades by the United States and our allies and
partners around the world is critical to maintaining the peace,
the stability of the world order, and preventing great power
war, and we are very fortunate that we have a lot of very good
friends and allies throughout the region.
Just the other night, we hosted a reception, and we had,
roughly speaking, 101 allied and partner nations come in to
that reception. That is over 50 percent of the United Nations.
That is a representative sample of the friends and allies we
have around the world.
I do not believe that neither Russia nor China nor many
other countries could hold a reception and have 101
representatives show up that are friends and allies throughout
the world.
So the alliance structure is important to the United
States, and we know that. And it is relative to both regions
and globally.
The exercise program, engagement programs that we have are
critical to that. In the Pacific, we have got about 19
exercises that are being funded in the fiscal year 2020 budget
request for I think--I want to say it is about 3 or $400
million for exercises in just the Pacific.
There is a series of exercises analogous to that in Europe.
The combined effect of those exercises demonstrate a resolve
and will. They represent assurance to our allies and partners
that will be there in a crisis, and it certainly deters our
opponents.
Senator Shelby. Also contributes to readiness and on a
large----
General Milley. It absolutely contributes to readiness.
That is correct, Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
MODERNIZATION
I would like to ask a question or two about modernization.
We talked about this in my office yesterday.
Back in 2011, the Army commissioned an internal acquisition
review, which made recommendations on changing the Army's
procurement process after the Army had canceled 22 programs
over the previous 10 years at a cost to American taxpayers of
$3 billion.
One particular program, which I have been following and
talking to both of you about for a long time, is the WIN-T
program. This was supposed to be a communications network for
our Army that would be modern, protect them, and make sure that
we conquered our enemy in battle.
We have had this program, the WIN program, under way for
more than 10 years, and now it is being terminated, at a cost
to taxpayers of $6 billion.
While we were drawing up specs and going through the Army
procurement process, America was changing every single day. The
communications that we all rely on in our pockets were keeping
up with these changes; the Army was not. Now we are going to
reinvent another communications network.
So I look at this with some skepticism. I started off by
asking why does it cost us so much more to protect this Nation
than other countries, and part of it, frankly, comes down to
waste, just our own inability to spend dollars effectively.
The Army record, which we saw reported on in 2011, is not
one that we want to repeat. What can you say about your
generation of leadership, Mr. Secretary and General Milley that
can give a guarantee to American taxpayers and to our soldiers
and our families that we will not continue to make these
expensive mistakes?
Secretary Esper. Senator, I will take first stab at this. I
think with regard to the program WIN-T--the Chief knows this
better than I do, but the WIN-T was developed at a point in
time when the Army was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan out of
stationary bases, with no--with an enemy without the capability
to do damage to the systems, if you will. I think after a
series of studies and the National Defense Strategy, the Army
decided on a move away from WIN-T into a more mobile, a more
reliable, and a more capable system that could deal with
Russian and Chinese threats.
All the funding that was invested in WIN-T did not go to
waste. We are still using and will use for many, many years all
the systems developed.
But what we are doing now is exactly what you said. Because
commercial technology in this world, in this environment, will
continue to develop at a pace faster than what we can develop
within the military, we had to procure much, much more from the
civilian sector.
And that is why the network, which is one of our top six
priorities, is aggressively working on that, as how do we get
smaller servers that we can fit in our vehicles and our command
posts, that is happening right now. How are we working to
develop more tactical radios, that is under way right now.
I see a future where we are constantly changing systems
more through software than hardware every couple years or so.
How are we doing that? We talked about the reorganization of
the Army enterprise underneath Futures Command, which is
removing layers of bureaucracy. We took lessons from the
Decker-Wagner report, which was profiled up here on the Hill
years ago. We have tried to take into consideration to make all
the reforms that you have heard about for years to make sure we
prototype instead of buy clean sheets of paper, that we test
things before we actually procure them. All the lessons learned
from the past is what we are trying to adopt as we go forward,
and we are doing that now with systems that we have under way.
Senator Durbin. If you find that there is just something
fundamentally flawed in our procurement process that makes this
harder, if not impossible, that is our job, is it not, to
change the law, if necessary, so that you can procure things on
a timely basis that bring the best technology and the best
ideas to the battlefield as quickly as possible?
Secretary Esper. Absolutely, Senator. And the Congress has
given us some great authorities in the past few years, like
Section 804, which allows us to do mid-tier prototyping, and
other authorities to kind of cut through the red tape. That is
the biggest thing you hear.
The Chief and I meet with CEOs all the time. It is red
tape. It is lack of speed, and for us culturally, what we are
trying to move away from is a culture of risk aversion. If we
are going to fail, we want fail early and fail cheaply, but we
want to experiment and get prototypes out there so we are not
spending billions of dollars in 10 or 15 years on, again,
PowerPoint designs.
BORDER ACTIVITIES
Senator Durbin. So let me ask this question. Last year, you
could not have anticipated that the President would ask for the
dispatching of National Guard and regular Army to the border.
We think the costs so far this year will be in the neighborhood
of $350 million. None of that was expected or anticipated in
last year's appropriation request.
The President has now taken away a billion dollars and
reprogramming funds from the Army for his wall. So how are you
going to pay for the $350 million for border activities that
were not anticipated?
Secretary Esper. The fiscal year 2019 funding that you
generously approved and on time was very, very helpful to our
readiness and modernization. So the money that came out for
that military-personnel wedge that will not affect our plans in
terms of readiness and modernization.
Going forward with regard to funding that we have--we have
to assess that and figure out how we are going to pay for that.
Our comptroller is working up those numbers, and we would have
to come back to Congress to do a programming into those
accounts.
Senator Durbin. But used to come to reprogramming requests
to us and ask for our consent. What I heard the Secretary of
Defense say the other day at a breakfast was now we are going
to get notice of reprogramming rather than congressional
consent for reprogramming. Is that your understanding?
Secretary Esper. Senator, I am not aware of what he said
the other day with regard to seeking--providing notification
rather than consent.
Senator Durbin. Do you still believe that we will be asked
as Congress to consent to reprogramming for this purpose?
Secretary Esper. I cannot speak for him on that.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and General.
Thank you for being here, and thank you for serving our
country.
MILITARY SPOUSES AND READINESS
Let us talk about military spouses. If spouses cannot get
jobs, it affects readiness. It affects a member's decision
about whether to stay in the Army, and one survey shows the
obvious, which is that two-thirds of spouses state that
frequent moving causes them to quit or change a job. Another
study showed that underemployment of military spouses is as
high as 35 or 40 percent.
Eight or 10 years ago, when General Petraeus was at Fort
Campbell, we worked with Holly Petraeus, when I was a new
Senator, on some of those issues.
One of the solutions was to get States to work together to
eliminate some of the barriers that frequently moving families
have when spouses apply for jobs. It does not help much if 3
months before you are about to transfer, the spouse gets the
job.
But, Mr. Secretary, Senator Blackburn and I met with you in
your office, and you expressed your concern about this issue
and said it is even hard for you when hiring spouses for
Federal jobs.
So my question is, Is there not some sort of fast track at
least for some jobs, like child care on a military base----
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Where a spouse could be
hired quickly, or is there not some initiative that you could
take with governors who may not be as aware of this as they
should be--governors frequently change jobs--and in their
States create some fast tracks for military spouses in there?
What can you do about this?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. This is a very personal issue
for me. During my time on active duty, my wife could not get a
job when we were at Fort Benning or in Italy because of,
frankly, discrimination against Army spouses at the time, and
so as I have traveled with the Army--and I have been to Fort
Campbell and JBLM and Schofield Barracks and talked to
spouses--two issues that come up over and over are spousal
hiring and child care. And they are related.
I think our spouses are highly qualified and underemployed,
and so the Army has taken about a dozen or two initiatives to
do this. I have now sent out directives that allow for--after
you get your FBI background check for a child care center, you
can do on-site supervision of children. We have worked with----
Senator Alexander. How long will that take?
Secretary Esper. That should take now less than 3 weeks for
hiring.
Senator Alexander. So I move to Fort Campbell. I apply to
work at the childcare center there, and within a month, I might
be able to start work?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. And even better, what we have
done is we have instituted a system where we have--it is called
the Child and Youth Services Employment Tool. So once you get
your background check, rather than every time you go to a new
assignment, a new installation, and going through the check
again, we have your name in a database. We will hold it for at
least 5 years, and you can seamlessly move from base to base to
base and get hired immediately. That is another thing we are
doing to make sure we address this problem because it is
happening out there.
There are other authorities I am working with DoD on. I
have talked to some of you about direct hiring authority for
our spouses.
Senator Alexander. What do you need for direct hiring
authority? Does that need to be a part of a piece of
legislation?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, it would need to be because it
is currently regulated, I think, under Title 5, and what it
would do is allow us to skip some processes where you have to
go do this worldwide competitive source selection.
Senator Alexander. If we were to give you that kind of
authority, would you be prepared to implement it?
Secretary Esper. Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And would it be wise to do it as a pilot
program, or should it just be blanket authority?
Secretary Esper. Well, we have direct hiring authority for
specialties now like engineers and doctors and nurses, where
they are very critical.
But, look, taking care of our families and our kids to me
is very critical as well.
Senator Alexander. Well, we could expand the kind of direct
hiring authority you now already have.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Is that what you are saying?
Secretary Esper. Absolutely. The authority I have for
direct hiring is extended to me by OSD for certain career
fields. To give it to the Army--actually to all of DoD because
Navy faces this, the Air Force faces this as well--would allow
us to quickly hire our spouses the instant----
Senator Alexander. Would it be appropriate to ask you to
give us some technical advice about language that would be most
effective----
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. In helping the Army deal
with this? Because I do not see any need for us to wait.
Secretary Esper. I would gladly do----
Senator Alexander. I know Senator Blackburn feels the same
way. She is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and I
think between this Committee and that Committee, that in this
year's appropriations bill or authorization bill that we should
take some steps to make it easier for the Army to hire spouses
before you get down to the last 2 months of a tour of duty. And
I think it is one simple thing we can do to improve readiness.
So I would welcome a letter from you to Chairman Shelby and
Ranking Member Durbin and a copy to me and other members----
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Explaining what our
options might be.
Secretary Esper. I will absolutely do that.
And the other part you mentioned that we are working on is
engaging with States. Tennessee, for example, as I recall when
I visited Fort Campbell last year, has a program whereby they
will recognize a spouse's teaching credential. So if you
arrive, you could go out and teach immediately either at Fort
Campbell or in Clarksville, and you do not have to wait for a
second set of credentials offered by the State.
Senator Alexander. Well, my time is up, but governors like
to compete with each other. I think if you went to the
Governor's Conference in February or in the summer and featured
a couple of governors doing that, the others would get jealous
and try to outdo them by the next year, and I would suggest you
do that.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Durbin, and I want to thank both you, Mr. Secretary and General
Milley, for being here today. Thank you for your good work and
the people-that-you-represents good work.
I kind of want to just kind of get some basic information
to begin with. Aviation training, what does that include?
Either one can answer.
AVIATION TRAINING
General Milley. Aviation training is flight hours for the
pilots and crew, gunnery, navigation, and then for the ground
crews, it would be things like maintenance.
Senator Tester. Okay. And what about mobilization? What
does that include?
MOBILIZATION
General Milley. Mobilization is the mobilization of the
reserve component, the National Guard----
Senator Tester. Strictly for reserve? Strictly for reserve?
General Milley. Yes. The term ``mobilization'' refers to
the reserve component, the National Guard, and the United
States Army Reserve and the specific laws that are required in
order to mobilize and activate under presidential authority.
Senator Tester. Okay. Right now, what do you have for
current end strength of active-duty Army?
END STRENGTH GOALS
General Milley. Right now, we are at, as of today--or I
guess last week--we are at 476, 477 for the regular Army.
Senator Tester. Okay.
General Milley. The Guard is less than that----
Senator Tester. That is fine.
General Milley [continuing]. And the Army Reserve is less
than that.
Senator Tester. That is okay. For fiscal year 2019, you had
originally requested 487,500.
General Milley. That is correct.
Senator Tester. This week, we received an end-strength
request of 478.
General Milley. That is correct.
Senator Tester. I listened to your opening statements, and
I agree with you. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. It is a
dangerous world. Tell me the justification for that reduction.
General Milley. A couple of things. One is that we missed
our recruiting goal last year----
Senator Tester. Yes.
General Milley [continuing]. By 6,500 in the regular Army
and another 3,000 in the Guard and Reserve.
Senator Tester. Yes.
General Milley. So we assessed ourselves. We did an After
Action Review. We recognized the recruiting environment that is
out there. We do not think recruiting at those numbers are
achievable this year.
Senator Tester. Okay.
General Milley. We will want to grow the Army with modest
growth, so we--through the analysis, we settled on about a
2,000-soldier increase and modest growth that would go to flesh
out the existing units in the infrastructure today. So we
settled on a 2,000-soldier increase as the request to Congress
in the 2020 budget.
Senator Tester. And help me out here. Is that traditionally
what has been done when goals have not been met? You lower your
goals?
General Milley. Let me point out also, yes, we missed the
recruiting goal, but we assessed into the regular Army, 70,000
soldiers, which is a 10-year high.
Senator Tester. Oh, sure.
General Milley. So that was--even though we missed it, we
set the bar very high is what we did.
And we were warned, in fairness. Secretary Mattis, then
Secretary Mattis, he told both me and Secretary Esper that
those numbers were very high and were going to be hard to
achieve, but we wanted to set that bar high. And we were not
willing to compromise any standards for soldiers. So 70,000,
though, is greater than the Canadian and Australian armies
combined, so it was a pretty good recruiting year.
Senator Tester. But we are better than they are.
General Milley. Roger that.
Senator Tester. 487,500 was the request.
General Milley. Yes.
Senator Tester. Now we are at 478.
General Milley. That is correct.
Senator Tester. Basically--and correct me if I am wrong--
about zero growth. I mean, you got people that are retiring and
people you brought in, but overall end strength is about zero
growth, correct?
General Milley. No.
Secretary Esper. No, sir.
General Milley. It should be 2,000 more.
Senator Tester. 2,000.
General Milley. Per year.
Senator Tester. That is fine.
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. The other thing that you do not see in
here is our organizational changes that we are making that will
push more soldiers out into the combat units.
Senator Tester. Okay. So what is the end strength? What
should the end strength be 5 years from now?
Secretary Esper. Our goal is to be above 500,000 by 2028.
We will have a more certain number in the next year or so once
we--our Multi-Domain Operations is war game through iterations.
I suspect it will be well above 500,000, but I cannot tell you
what that is right now. But we know we need to be above
500,000.
UNFUNDED PRIORITIES
Senator Tester. Okay. Very quickly, you talked about
initially what the aviation training was and what mobilization
was. These are unfunded priorities for the Army.
General Milley. No.
Secretary Esper. No, sir. They are funded.
Senator Tester. They are funded?
General Milley. They are not fully funded. They are funded.
So, ideally, for aviation flight hours, as an example, you want
14.5 hours per pilot per----
Senator Tester. Right. They underfunded by about--aviation
training, for example, is underfunded by about $161 million.
That is what my brain trust tells me.
General Milley. That is right in the range, yes.
Senator Tester. And mobilization is underfunded by about
$127 million, correct?
General Milley. Yes.
Senator Tester. Okay. So we are not funding to the level
that you think you need for aviation training and mobilization
of the Guard and Reserve.
So the question I have is, Do you have any ability to push
back when the President takes a billion dollars out of your
budget and you have unfunded priorities that are not fully
funded, or do you just have to do it?
General Milley. Well--go ahead.
Secretary Esper. Senator, at the time last fall when we
realized that we had this military-personnel wedge of a billion
dollars that we could not fill, we turned it back in, if you
will, came to the Congress, I think apprised the committees a
little bit later.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Esper. And at that point in time, we said,
``Look, our 2019 budget is sufficient for readiness and
modernization, but if we could keep some of that money, we
could improve readiness and modernization with this much money.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Secretary Esper. And then that goes to OSD, to the Acting
Secretary, for adjudication.
Senator Tester. I just want to make a real quick comment
because I am over time. First of all, thank you for what you
do. You guys do a hell of a job, okay? I think what we have got
right now is we have got a President who wants to build a
southern wall and wants to change the border of our southern
border and has taken our military readiness to do that.
We have got to stand up to this, folks, and I am saying as
Senators--not you, but us--if we do not stand up to this, we
are going to regret it.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Secretary, General, welcome, and thanks for being here.
First of all, General Milley, I want to extend my
congratulations to your Vice, General McConville, for his
nomination to become the next Army Chief of Staff. I know he is
a key part of your team, and I look forward to working with
him.
Secondly, to the Secretary and to you, I want to recognize
the significant accomplishment of our Army and its partners in
the anti-ISIS coalition. Four years ago, the Islamic state
controlled territory larger than the size of Great Britain, and
as of last week, that no longer exists. There is no territory
at all.
To our soldiers, to the Army, and our allies, thank you for
your efforts and your resiliency.
I want to make certain I have time to get to a couple of
topics. So I am just going to raise this I suppose with you,
General Milley. It is in regard to the Army's stake in what is
called the ATEAM of the Kansas National Guard, which restores
tank engines and transmissions. It is an asset to the big Army,
to the Army Guard and to foreign partners, and there are still
issues that need to be resolved with the Materials Command and
the Guard that I need your help to accomplish. And I assume if
I ask you if you would do that, the answer would be you would
help me?
General Milley. Of course, Senator.
Senator Moran. Thank you. I am glad I am able to predict
your answers.
[Laughter.]
MODERNIZATION AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Moran. General Milley, it is clear to me that the
Army is focused on modernization, divesting specific programs
to reinvest in the Army elsewhere. When we met in my office, we
talked extensively about how Congress can support those
endeavors to modernize.
One of the things that is evident to me is investment in
research and development, R&D. It is--I think the most cost-
effective and expedient partner in that effort would be
academia, and I understand that we are working with your staff
to have General Murray and the Army's Futures Command staff
visit universities in Kansas in applied research and
prototyping with that expertise, with applied research and
prototyping expertise. And I thank you for that cooperation in
getting General Murray and his team to see what is available,
to assist in modernization.
In addition to R&D side of universities, I am also eager to
learn about the testing of prototypes in the field. We have
previously discussed the Big Red One soldiers at Fort Riley--
and again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being there--their
ability to conduct complex training exercises right in their
back yard as well as in Europe alongside our NATO allies, which
helps us build interoperability.
Fort Riley is currently aligned with the Synthetic Training
Environment Cross-Functional Team. Can you explain your plans
for testing and developing capabilities in the field,
particularly as my example of the Big Red One soldiers at Fort
Riley? General Milley.
General Milley. Thanks, Senator, for that.
One comment I would make on Army Futures Command, its
headquarters is in Austin, Texas, but it has got tentacles
throughout the entire continent of the United States and
overseas, with organizations and units that are in hub
locations. And academic research is one of the key things. So,
on your first comment, absolutely, we are pursuing that
throughout a wide variety of universities throughout the United
States.
On the second one, with the Synthetic Training Environment,
we think that the Synthetic Training Environment--it is one of
the six-plus-two priorities of the Army, and we think that it
will fundamentally change the level of competence and skills
and knowledge of soldiers.
We already do this with astronauts; F-15, F-16, F-35
pilots. We invest a tremendous amount of money in virtual
training prior to any pilot ever touching an F-16, for example.
We do not do the same with infantry rifle squad. So we will
spend $10 million a year to train a pilot. We will spend
$10,000 a year to train an infantry squad. Those numbers might
not be exact, but that is about the weight of effort.
So we think that a Synthetic Training Environment, a
virtual training environment which takes soldiers and has an
experiential base of hitting the sled, not once or twice out on
a live-fire range, but hundreds, if not thousands of times, so
where they go through all the muscle memory as individuals, as
squads and fire teams, but also platoons and companies and
battalions and brigades.
If we can do that in a Synthetic Training Environment--we
believe the technology is there today to do that--then we think
that we can really raise our game across the board in terms of
our skills and capability and therefore the readiness of the
Army.
So we are putting a lot of investment in it. It is a
nationwide program. We are working with a variety of industry-
leading experts in developing this, and we think we will be
able to field it here very, very shortly.
Senator Moran. I again highlight Fort Riley's capabilities
along with the intellectual center of the Army, Fort
Leavenworth, and its proximity.
CYBERSECURITY
We had a report from the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluations within the Department of Defense in regard to red
teams, cybersecurity. It was the request of this Committee, and
it was filed recently. What it indicates is there is a
significant lack of capability within the Army, within the
Department of Defense to meet those cyber vulnerabilities.
I highlight that report for you, and I would ask you, to
either one or both of you, does the Army plan to grow a cyber
red team capability through joint partnerships with other
services?
Secretary Esper. Senator, we are investing a great deal of
money into cyber. As you know, we have a cyber MOS. We have a
cyber officer corps. We have a cyber center down in Georgia.
So, if anything, I think the Army is leading on cyber, and red
teaming is a big part of that.
It is clearly a vulnerability, and when we talk about
modernization, the capabilities that we are putting into our
brigades, divisions, and corps, our cyber teams, which is
unique. And so that is all part and parcel. We are certainly
going to do that.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Secretary Esper. And, Senator, I know you are out of time,
but if I can, I just wanted to publicly thank you and
congratulate you for supporting Senator Dole's promotion to
colonel. I know it just passed I think yesterday in the House.
And I had the privilege to know him and I think work with him,
and so it is just a wonderful gesture. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you for saying that,
and it is a great opportunity for all of Congress to honor the
military service of now Colonel Dole.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary and General, for your great work.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND THE WALL
I have a question following up on Senator Durbin's line of
questioning about military construction and the wall. I have
actually four or five questions, so let us do this as quick as
possible.
You have this list, which is really not a list. It is a
universe. It is basically anything that is not housing barracks
or something that is already under way. So it is anything
fiscal year 2020 and beyond.
Secretary Esper. That looks like the DoD list. Is that----
Senator Schatz. Right, right.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Schatz. So the question is, Do you have an internal
list? Have you started to refine that to prioritize what MilCon
projects will be cut that were appropriated?
Secretary Esper. Senator, I have directed the Army staff to
begin looking at the unobligated list of MilCon projects and to
start prioritizing them based on readiness and our power
projection.
Senator Schatz. Where are you in that process? Because we
are waiting as though we are not appropriators, as though we
did not already decide this, as though it is not our
constitutional obligation to do the prioritization.
So, at a minimum, it seems to me we should be involved in
this process, and that it should not be a black box that sort
of is dropped down on us. Worse than that, you have Senators
interacting with the Vice President of the United States who
are saying they are going to vote no on resolution to terminate
the emergency on the basis of reassurance that they have
received that their State will be held harmless.
So, at a minimum, I think this Committee deserves to know
what in the world is happening within each of the service
branches.
Secretary Esper. Yes. So, Senator, I instructed the staff
to expedite this because I do not know when OSD may call upon
the Army and the other services to forward their lists, and at
that time, of course, OSD is going to prioritize them based on
whatever methodology they use. I want to stay ahead of that
curve.
Senator Schatz. And you will inform the Committee and
consult with the Committee on----
Secretary Esper. On our prioritization list?
Senator Schatz. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Sir, Senator, if I am permitted to by OSD,
I certainly will.
Senator Schatz. If you are permitted to?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Schatz. And you think that is a legal determination
that they have to make or a political determination?
Secretary Esper. I do not know. I would have to come back
with you and find out what guidance I would get from
Assistant--from Acting Secretary Shanahan.
Senator Schatz. Okay. And you know that I know this is not
your--a problem if your making, but I will also tell you that
this frays our relationship. This makes it very difficult for
you to come to us and say, ``All of these needs are high
priority. They must be funded for readiness and other things
and for the good of the United States Army when, as it turns
out, there seems to be a billion dollars left over. I
understand not meeting ambitious recruiting goals, but then to
use that money for a wall as opposed to the U.S. Army's
Pacific's----
Secretary Esper. Right.
Senator Schatz [continuing]. Priorities that they just
submitted to big Army, right, during the midyear review, and
they are saying, ``We need something in Korea. We need
something for the Strykers in Alaska. We need a bunch of things
in Hawaii. We need stuff throughout the region,'' and instead,
that pot of money is going to be used for the wall.
I understand we like to play nicely with each other on this
Committee, and I think that is a good tradition. And I am not
trying to interfere with that tradition, but the reason that we
play nicely is because of mutual trust and transparency and an
understanding of our constitutional roles.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
Senator Schatz. And I do not feel that it is working right
now.
So the question I have is, Did you provide advice either to
the Secretary's office or anyone in the White House or anywhere
else contrary to what is happening right now? Did you say,
``Hey, look, this is actually going to harm the United States
Army, we recommend you not do that''?
Secretary Esper. Senator, the advice I provided early on
was that we should protect barracks, dormitories, and housing;
and then from there, we should prioritize based on readiness.
And I have, of course, expanded that in my own staff,
recognizing the installations involved. That we should also
prioritize the ability to project power.
Senator Schatz. Right. So then you get from the 20-odd
billion to the 10 billion based on that advice, but it sounds
like you are okay with some cuts to the MilCon schedule. I
guess that is the problem I have, which is to say that I think
as the Army Secretary, you have to say, ``I am not okay with
any cuts because I represented to this Committee that every
single thing that was funded was absolutely necessary,'' and I
do not think it is improper for you to stand up and say,
``Everything remains necessary, and there is nothing on this
list that is less important than the border wall.'' I would
like you to comment on that.
Secretary Esper. Well, Senator, my perspective is the Army.
Clearly, Acting Secretary Shanahan has a broader set of
perspectives and requirements he needs to make, and obviously,
the White House does too. Again, I will offer my
recommendations to the Acting Secretary.
But I also have to look at that list. There is a process,
and the process is the Army staff is going to provide, he and
I, a list of recommendations, and we will look at that list and
determine the prioritization and then make our advice to the
Acting Secretary from there.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciated you being in Texas at Red
River, and it is kind of crazy for the Arkansas guy to be
saying we appreciate you being in Texas. But, as you know,
about 20 percent of the workforce, it being right on the
border, comes from Arkansas. That facility does a tremendous
job, and I just think it is so important. And I congratulate
you on getting out, seeing things firsthand. The community was
very receptive to you being there, and again, those are just
important things to do. I think they were able to tell a great
story about the mission that they are doing and things like
that.
Secretary Esper. Thank you. I had a great trip. I both
enjoy and it is my duty to go around and see our arsenals and
our depots and understand what that great workforce does
wherever it is, and I have been able to visit a number of them
in the 18 months or so that I have been on the job.
Senator Boozman. We appreciate that, and I agree with you.
I think it is your duty, and yet sometimes things do not get
done. So the fact that you are modeling that is really
important.
General Milley, we appreciate you so, so very much. You are
always here to give very frank answers as to what is going on
to make the Army the most efficient fighting force as it is and
all of the things that go along.
Also, I want to congratulate you on your nomination to be
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is something that I
know that the average soldier is very, very excited about,
having somebody like you in that position.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
In regard to the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas, as you
know, it is the only active chemical defense arsenal in the
Department of Defense. Many of the items produced at the Pine
Bluff Arsenal are not available in the private sector.
In your fiscal year 2020 budget submission, you have
recommended eliminating 93 programs and reducing another 93
programs to help you focus on the six modernization priorities.
One of the programs that is being reduced is the Chemical
and Biological Protective Shelter that allows surgical teams
and medical companies to continue lifesaving work in
environments that have been contaminated by chemical or
biological weapons.
The National Security Strategy and the National Defense
Strategy indicated a growing threat from adversaries equipped
with chem-bio weapons. DoD has returned to the posture of
routinely exercising and training in chemical gear.
So, with all of that, I guess the question is, given the
absence of a commercial source for the chem-bio protective
shelters and the sole capability to produce them just at Pine
Bluff, can you talk about how you decided to make a reduction
in the program?
And then, also, is not the work done at the Pine Bluff
Arsenal precisely the kind of core capability we should be
intent in retaining?
General Milley. With respect to the----
Senator Boozman. I have got some more easy questions.
General Milley. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate easy
questions.
With respect to the specific chem-bio capabilities and the
93 programs that were cut, eliminated, and 93 others that were
reduced, a lot of due diligence, a lot of rigor went into every
one of those.
But we recognize that every single program in and of its
own self, it has its own merits, but everything is relative.
And it is relative to other programs and a set of priorities
that the Secretary and I determined that this program is more
important than that program, and we made some very, very
difficult and challenging decisions over some very intense--I
will not quite call it combative, but I will call it intense--
meetings amongst all kinds of people within the Army that
fought very, very hard for various programs.
But at the end of the day, we are asking for $182 billion,
which we think is a considerable amount of money to the
taxpayer, and we are determined to fund those priorities which
we think will lead to the greatest readiness of the force, both
now and in the future for modernization.
With respect to chem-bio, we did an estimate, and I advised
the Secretary that I think that--as best military advice, that
I think we have sufficient inventory of a variety of chem-bio
capabilities within the Army right this minute that we can
afford to take a little bit of risk there. We recognize it is a
risk, but is it acceptable or not? I think it is, given the
current situation globally.
Five, 10 years from now, as other technologies develop and
other chem-bio things come online, we may probably--we probably
will have to reassess that, but for right now, I think we have
sufficient inventory to handle the risk at hand and, hence,
made a recommendation that it be trimmed back or cut.
Senator Boozman. We appreciate that.
Again, I wish you would look at that in the sense that that
seems to be something that is talked about a lot right now in
various briefings and this and that and really is something
that certainly has to do with our capabilities in a variety of
different ways.
Another issue I would like to talk about--well, again, my
time is up, so----
Senator Shelby. You can go right ahead.
Senator Boozman. Well, as you know, fiscal year 2019, NDAA
(National Defense Authorization Act) directed the Army to field
two batteries of interim cruise missiles, defense capability in
2020, and two additional batteries in 2023. The Army recently
announced that it intends to purchase the Iron Dome as part of
that.
IRON DOME
Army's fiscal year 2020 budget includes $84 million for
Iron Dome. How does that fit into your acquisition strategy to
meet the fiscal year 2020 requirement? And if necessary funding
is provided, will the first two batteries be fully capable to
deploy and support combatant command air and missile defense
requirements in 2020 as required in the----
General Milley. We identified six major priorities, bins,
if you will, for different programs that fall underneath them.
One of those six is integrated air and missile defense. We
know that one of the gaps we have relative to potential great
powers is our ability to acquire, to see, and then to engage
and shoot down rotary wing, fixed wing, and missiles coming in
at our friendly forces. But we do have Patriot. We do have
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), but there are
significant gaps there which I do not want to necessarily
discuss in a public forum.
Congress recognized that as well, and Congress directed
that we go ahead and acquire two batteries of Iron Dome as an
interim fix. We are complying with that. We are coming back to
the Congress and asking for a reprogramming in order to fund
the acquisition of those two batteries of Iron Dome.
Iron Dome is a good system. I went over to Israel and
visited that, and I saw a demonstration of proof of principles.
It is a very, very good system. It has a very good combat
record as well as in a test and prototype version. So we are
moving out and buying that.
We have other programs that are in the prototyping, IFPC
and some other things that are going to provide us, the Army,
provide the Nation with an integrated air-missile defense for
ground formations probably by the mid-'20s, but we will have
Iron Dome online by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Senator Shelby. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary and General Milley, for your hard and diligent
work.
I am going to start with a line of questions relating to
the stability of the industrial base that supports our armed
services.
MODERNIZATION OF TACTICAL VEHICLES
General Milley, I appreciate that you are wrestling with
conflicting budget priorities. However, I am once again
concerned that the budget request underfunds the Army's
modernization strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles,
specifically for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, FMTV,
and for the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, or HEMTT,
RECAP programs.
The request undercuts the Army's plan to provide stability
to the industrial base by ignoring the Minimum Sustaining
Rates, MSR. By Department of Defense definition, the MSR is the
production rate for each budget year that is necessary to keep
production lines open, while maintaining a base of responsive
vendors and suppliers.
Both the medium and heavy industrial bases, largely within
the industrial Midwest, but also spanning across the United
States, they consist of fragile networks of small business
suppliers who are, I dare to suggest, weary from consecutive
years of Army risk-taking with tactical wheeled vehicles, the
threat of budget caps, sequestration, and continuing
resolutions.
Still, the budget request zeroes out funding for both HEMTT
and PLS RECAP programs beyond fiscal year 2020, and the CBT
program is zeroed out beyond fiscal year 2022.
So small businesses make up about 62 percent of the
suppliers that support the FMTV program and about 56 percent of
the suppliers supporting the heavy RECAP program.
So with known requirements across all three components for
the Army for upgraded FMTVs and HEMTTs, how does this funding
strategy support the critical modernization efforts and provide
stability to the medium and heavy RECAP industrial bases in the
form of Minimum Sustaining Rates?
Secretary Esper. Senator, I will go first. Again, this gets
down to tough choices. We have compared to, for example, the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle fleet. The wheeled vehicle fleet is
relatively young.
We also know that we--through our process of so-called
``night court,'' we found that we had more than enough numbers
of, I believe, both systems. We would have to get back to you
and give you a more detailed layout in terms of trucks that
could hold us over well into the future, at least for the next
few years, and so we made that decision.
As I have talked to some of the manufacturers--I have met
twice or so with Oshkosh--I have said what we really need to do
is think about how do we take the fleet we have and modernize
in the sense of how do we adapt the vehicles we have now to be
either semi-autonomous or fully autonomous because that is
where the Army is going.
But we are adjusting. What part of this process revealed
was that we were producing too many of many things, and what we
are changing now is how we actually equip the fleets, and not
just for trucks, but for everything we do so that we do not
procure too much of things. This is something that was told to
me, as I entered the job, by previous Chiefs of Staff, his
predecessors, is that the current Army templates tend to
produce too many of certain things.
And so we are trying to get back on the mark, and we are
trying to take programs that, while they have value, compare to
systems that are now 40 years old. I just cannot look a soldier
in the eye and say, ``I am going to not modernize your fighting
vehicle or your long-range artillery because I want to keep
buying this over here that is newer and in better shape.'' It
is about how do we make sure that the future readiness of the
Army is sustained.
Senator Baldwin. Where do you factor in this idea of having
an industrial base that is capable of producing in the United
States of America what the Army needs?
Secretary Esper. It is very important. We try to do--I try
to understand the impacts on defense industrial base as we went
through this process. I need a robust industrial base with
certainly competition so much as possible too. Again, Oshkosh
is a great example, where 75 percent of their work is actually
in the commercial sector. The view was that they will be able
to adapt and adapt their supply lines, but those are all
considerations that we have to look at.
And what we are trying to tell industry these days is there
is--we have shifted over the FY DP (Future Years Defense
Program) over $57 billion worth of money into these future
programs. That is what we are asking all of industry, to
include the small businesses, those long supply chains. Meet us
there. That is where the money will be. That is where the money
is. That is where the next few--several years, decades of the
future will be because otherwise I just cannot keep building
the legacy. I need to get to the future.
REPROGRAMMING FOR THE WALL
Senator Baldwin. Mr. Chairman, I note that I am out of
time. I just wanted to end by associating myself with the
comments of Senator Schatz regarding the reprogramming of
dollars for the wall. I am very concerned about the priorities
that this Subcommittee of Appropriations as well as the MilCon/
VA Subcommittee, on which I also sit, priorities that were
reflected in our work, being now reallocated.
We do have to have a trust relationship, and this is--this
is a challenge.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you both for your leadership in
so many different ways.
General Milley, I want to acknowledge and express my
appreciation to you particularly for your support of U.S. Army
in Alaska. You were key, truly integral to the decision to
protect our 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team of the 25th
Infantry Division when they were looking at force reduction
several years ago. Greatly appreciated.
I also appreciate the efforts in building the aviation
capacity there at Fort Wainwright with the Apache helicopter
and the Gray Eagle UAS to Alaska. It truly does speak, as you
know, to the strategic importance of Alaska. We have had many
opportunities to discuss that with both of you, and we thank
you for that.
ASSETS IN ALASKA AND THE ARCTIC
I want to talk a little bit, and not surprisingly, about
the assets in Alaska, the training opportunities that we have,
the great training opportunities that we host, particularly in
the cold weather high-altitude training, and just a little more
discussion about what you foresee as the potential for growth
of the Army in Alaska specifically.
I note in the posture statement, you are speaking to a
strategic environment in which Russia and China may seek to
advance their interest in places like Europe, the Middle East,
and Africa, but it does not specifically speak to the role in
the Arctic.
I raise this, as I do in many committees, the issue of the
Arctic more broadly, but when I ask this question, the threats
to the European facing Arctic, I think are readily apparent.
But I am more interested in the increase in Russian
military presence in the Far East and what that might mean for
defense of Alaska.
The other thing I would like you to address--and I will
just let you speak about the Arctic presence--the role of Army,
Alaska, as it relates to the Artic presence, but also when we
talk about modernizing the U.S. ability to fight in the Arctic,
whether it is the need for the new tracked SUSVs or protective
equipment, I would like you to speak to progress with regards
to that, whether it is better utilization of the training
facility at the Black Rapids, at the Northern Warfare Training
Center there at Black Rapids.
SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
I appreciated the conversation that you had with Senator
Moran about the Synthetic Training Environment and all that
that can demonstrate to us in terms of training and capacity
and that repetitive, but I am also reminded, we just finished
up this 1,100-mile sled dog race. Anyone can--well, not anyone.
It is challenging to do a sled dog race, but when you are
dealing with mind-numbing cold and just the monotony of
terrain, synthetic can be helpful. But if you cannot even pick
up a tool to communicate or write with because you are dealing
with a cold situation, that we have not developed the
protective gear that is adequate.
So a broad-ranging question about the Arctic, about
training, and really how we deal with that increased military
presence in the Far East side and the Alaska defense posture.
So I throw that to both of you.
Secretary Esper. So, Senator, if you do not mind, I will
take the second question, and then I will let the Chief put on
his Joint Chiefs hat and speak to the first one on strategy.
I was in Alaska for several days last summer and----
Senator Murkowski. Appreciated. Thank you.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. Had a great visit, and I
visited all the installations and had a chance to go to the
Cold Regions Test Center there and be put in the freezer. And
it is very clear that our soldiers need to know how to operate
in a cold weather environment.
It is just like you said. It is not just how do you
operate, but it is how do you survive. And it is the simple
things: how do you eat, how do you drink, how do you keep
yourself warm.
But I also got a good lesson about how you have to think
about the lubrication of your vehicles, the oils you use, and
all those things that are critical to fighting and winning in
an Arctic environment. So it is clearly something we need to
preserve. We also need--the Northern Warfare Training Center
does a great job in terms of operating in Arctic on glaciers,
et cetera, and so I am very pleased with what I saw up there
and the investments we have made with both the Airborne and the
Stryker Brigade that is up there.
So there is more we could talk about that, but I want to
kick it over to the Chief since we are tight on time.
Senator Murkowski. I do appreciate you going there and
seeing firsthand because I think that that really----
Secretary Esper. It is a great lesson. It absolutely is. It
is very, very different.
Senator Murkowski. General.
General Milley. Thanks, Senator.
Just very briefly, the Arctic is a key area, and if we left
it out of our statement, that was an oversight on my part.
I think I did mention in the opening oral statement, Arctic
is key. Both Russia and China are expanding their military
capabilities and commercial capabilities, by the way, in the
Arctic. And there is no question that the sea lines of
communications relative to the Arctic, that the natural
resources in the Arctic are important to the United States from
a national security standpoint.
The Department of Defense does have an Arctic strategy, and
we are part of that. U.S. Army Pacific and U.S. Army Alaska
specifically are all part of that, as you well know. We intend
to sustain that effort, and we consider it a very important
area for the national security of the United States.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate the joint training
exercises that have been conducted with other countries, the
Trident exercise. These, again, contribute to the readiness and
working with our allies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Esper, General Milley, I understand the Army is
planning to cut $33 million from Army childcare in fiscal year
2020 and that more cuts may be coming, even more than that, in
the following year.
ARMY CHILDCARE
These cuts are coming when childcare staff are dealing with
more and more behavioral problems, when some parents, even with
the dual military families who are on the top tier
prioritization, are waiting a year or more now on wait-lists.
I have heard from parents who spent thousands of dollars on
childcare in town because they could not get it or were just on
wait-lists for day cares close to them or where they worked.
I have heard from parents who could have been forced to--
who have been actually forced to even get out of the service
because they could not get off a waiting list and into
childcare. I have heard so many challenges.
So could you both please tell me, yes or no? Do you think
access to childcare is a readiness or retention issue?
Secretary Esper. Yes, ma'am, it is, and I would like to
give you a broader answer with regard to what you are referring
to, if I may.
Senator Murray. So maybe you could explain to me, then, why
we are making cuts to this program.
Secretary Esper. Sure. So no cuts have been made to the
childcare for our soldiers. In fact, you have hit the nail on
the head. It is access that we are wrestling with.
I am looking at a number of policy changes. First and
foremost is to institute the prioritization laid out by DoD----
Senator Murray. I heard you----
Secretary Esper [continuing]. So that military families go
to the top of the line. In many cases, that is not what has
been happening, and so there is a policy change that has to
happen there.
A big chunk of that cut was a reform measure where we saw
that parents were--we had a redundant management system in
place. So rather than going to the day care center, if you
will, to sign up, you went to a separate building with separate
people. We got rid of that, and so now to sign up for day care,
for example, you go just to the day care center. And that saved
about half of that money right there.
And then we are paying an exceptional amount of money, for
example, for DA civilians, many of whom are very high earners,
and I think that is--what I want to do is look at transitioning
more to hourly day care for our families. As I have traveled
around the Army in the past several months, I am hearing more
and more as we have improved the access to our military
families, now I am starting to hear more and more about the
need for hourly day care. So I want to look at moving money
within the account to provide our families with the hourly day
care that they need.
Senator Murray. My understanding is that many of these
facilities do not have the space, and that they need to expand
further. And I have done a lot of work looking at this, and we
have got to increase capacity.
Secretary Esper. Right.
Senator Murray. It is not just a matter of staffing, and we
need to upgrade and build. Some of these child care facilities
are in really horrendous shape.
So I really--I would actually just ask you to look at this,
and maybe if you could come in and brief my staff on it----
Secretary Esper. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray [continuing]. We could give you our examples
because I do think it is a military readiness issue.
And, General Milley, I would assume----
Secretary Esper. Before he answers, if I can just say, in
several of the cases I know, because we review this monthly, 30
percent of the day care centers are filled up with nonpriority
personnel, and so if I can work that list down, we can do that.
And I also want to expand what is called FCC, which is
Family Child Care provided by family members on base. It is a
great opportunity, but we need to incentivize that program
better to expand. And there are some places where we are
looking at building new capacity as well.
Senator Murray. General Milley, if you have any comments?
General Milley. Thanks, Senator. It absolutely is a
readiness issue. In World War II, about 10 percent of the
United States Army was married with children. Today, about 60
percent of the United States Army is married with children, and
on average, there are two children in a family. So a family of
four is the norm, the demographic of the United States Army.
And child care is a readiness issue because we want our
soldiers to focus on their job, whether it is overseas in a
combat operation or in a training mission overseas or in CONUS.
They need to focus on their job, and if they are worried about
the medical care, good housing, mold in the house, child care
for their children, education, a safe base, and so on and so
forth--if they are worried about all of that, then they are not
focusing on the jobs.
Senator Murray. Not doing their job.
General Milley. So it is absolutely a readiness issue.
There is a direct correlation between that and the readiness of
the force.
With respect to the cuts, we did go through the night court
rigor on all these cuts, and the Secretary and the Army staff
were absolutely--due diligence was absolutely applied to ensure
that there were no cuts that impacted soldiers and their
families. There are cuts that impact others but not soldiers
and families. That is sort of the bargain that we struck. That
is where we are at.
Senator Murray. I would just like to ask you--and if you
can brief my staff on this because it is counter to what we are
hearing, and I want to see it in----
General Milley. Sure.
Secretary Esper. Absolutely.
General Milley. Yes.
BORDER WALL FUNDING
Senator Murray. All right. Secretary Esper, earlier this
week, DoD notified Congress, it is raiding a billion dollars
intended for paying benefits for servicemembers in order to
fund the President's border wall.
We hear so frequently from the services about problems in
readiness and modernization, and you are right to be concerned.
And this Committee has worked very hard to help you address
those problems because at the end of the day, our
servicemembers are at risk.
So if this money is truly not needed where it is currently
budgeted, would this money not be better spent investing in our
soldiers and families, improving their training or modernizing
their equipment?
Secretary Esper. So, Senator, as I said earlier today, that
$1 billion or so came from the Army personnel account. That we
could not meet that end strength goal of 487,000. So that was
allocated to soldiers, frankly, that did not exist.
We turned that back in to OSD, if you will, and apprised
the committees that we were going to be doing that. And the
return of that money came with our recommendations that said
the fiscal year 2019 budget approved by Congress met our
readiness and modernization needs; however, we would like to
keep some of that money to further improve readiness and
modernization. And that is to your point, as you are just
saying. There is always more needs and wants than there are
means, and we could always use that money to do other things.
Senator Murray. Okay. But I do know you get very limited
military construction funding. So I expect the Army would not
have approved the new Confinement Facility at JBLM or the
Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility Yakima if they were not
truly important. So I am extremely concerned to see them on a
list of potential projects to be raided for this wall.
And we also finally secured funding for improvements to the
Yakima Training Center Fire Station, which I hope is no longer
on that list of cuts, because the current facility at Yakima is
not in compliance with National Fire Protection Association
Standards, and it is severely undersized. There is a very
serious danger in my State, which has suffered from wildfires,
as you know.
So I wanted to ask, are any of these projects less
important to military readiness than building a wall on our
southern border?
Secretary Esper. Senator, I have to assess all the projects
and assess their relative value amongst one another.
With regard to the question of their value relative to the
border wall, that is a decision beyond me. As I said earlier,
my responsibility, to prioritize projects and look at it from
an Army perspective. The Acting Secretary of Defense has a much
broader perspective, and the White House has a much broader
perspective from there. And it is those decisions where they
can make the tradeoffs, and as decisions are made, we follow
direction.
Senator Murray. Well, okay. I understand that.
I will just say for the record that we are sending a very
bad message to our military that these projects, which are
extremely important to their safety, to their readiness, to
their availability, are less important. And I think we should
all be standing up and speaking out, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. Senator Udall indicated he is on his way,
but he is not here yet. So we will leave the record open for
any questions.
Both of you, I want to thank you for appearing before the
Committee. There might be other questions. A lot of members
have other conflicts today. Thank you, both of you, very, very
much, and congratulations to you, General, again.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Mark T. Esper
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. On February 1, the U.S. Army awarded an Engineering and
Manufacturing Design (EMD) contract for the ITEP program to the General
Electric Company. On February 19, the Advanced Turbine Engine Company
(ATEC) filed a protest with the General Accountability Office (GAO) on
the award. Recognizing that DoD cannot comment on the award due to the
protest, I would ask that you provide for the Committee general
clarification on the Army's Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP).
Specifically, I ask that you answer the following questions:
What is the purpose of the ITEP?
Answer. The purpose of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP)
is to design, develop, integrate, test, qualify, and deliver the next
generation turbo-shaft engine for the Future Attack Reconnaissance
Aircraft, Black Hawk (H-60), and Apache (AH-64E) helicopters. The ITEP
is designed to develop an engine with increased power, increased fuel
efficiency, increased reliability, and that fits in the current engine
bays of the Black Hawk and Apache aircraft, at similar weight, while
increasing operational reach and lethality.
Question. How does ITEP factor into the Army's Future Vertical
Lift?
Answer. The ITEP is developing the designated engine for the Army's
Future Vertical Lift Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA)
Competitive Prototype.
Question. Were engine power, engine growth, specific fuel
consumption, reliability, and maintenance key elements for ITEP? If so,
how were these elements prioritized?
Answer. All technical requirements/key elements including engine
power, engine growth, fuel consumption, reliability and maintenance
were included in the ITEP System Requirements Document (SRD). The
System Requirements Document was attached to the ITEP Engineering and
Manufacturing Design Request for Proposal (RFP) and thoroughly
evaluated by the Army. All technical requirements/key elements in the
ITEP Engineering and Manufacturing Design SRD were equally weighted and
considered.
Question. What is the status of the Army's turbine engine-
manufacturing industrial base to meet future turbine engine
requirements?
Answer. The combat helicopter turbine engine industrial base was
examined in-depth in 2012, 2016, and twice in 2018 with focus on
support of the ITEP and the Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Based on these
examinations, the Army assesses the engine manufacturing industrial
bases as capable of meeting future turbine requirements.
Commercial and Military engines are usually very similar in
configuration, and this commonality typically leads to a stronger
industrial base since a manufacturer will be supporting both users at
the same time. These examinations consistently determined that this
industrial base segment is vital, healthy, and prepared to support
upcoming and emerging Army aircraft programs.
Question. Do we have a sufficiently robust industrial base to meet
future turbine engine?
Answer. Yes, as provided in the response to the immediate preceding
question.
Question. Would the Army consider there to be a long-term risk to
the warfighter if price is prioritized over performance or capabilities
during the ITEP program?
Answer. The Army's Engineering and Manufacturing Design competition
used the best value approach to manage long term risk to the
Warfighter, and appropriately weighted price and non-price evaluation
factors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
Question. Senator Comment concerning General Leonard Wood Army
Community Hospital: I want to take a quick moment to thank you for the
support of an initial $100 million in fiscal year 2018 for construction
funding for the hospital replacement at Fort Leonard Wood. Another $50
million has been requested in fiscal year 2020. And almost $250 million
more will be requested in future years. This project is absolutely
critical to the Fort and surrounding community. The hospital last
underwent a major renovation nearly 40 years ago. The hospital serves a
large population of active duty, retirees, and families, with few
alternatives military health system providers in the surrounding area.
Despite the outdated nature of the structure, the care at the hospital
has remained among the best in the country. It has ranked # 1 in
outpatient efficiency by the U.S. Army Medical Command. The project has
repeatedly been deferred year after year so it is a positive
development to see real funding appropriated in fiscal year 2018 and
further funding included in the budget request this year. Connected to
the construction of the hospital is the concern over a potential
shortage of physicians at hospitals like Fort Leonard Wood.
For instance, the Fort Leonard Wood hospital has seen a decrease of
23 percent in authorizations for primary care providers in the last 5
years. Fort Leonard Wood has on hand 29 of 43 authorized primary care
providers. The 29 on hand includes those that are currently deployed.
Fort Leonard Wood is currently being manned at 50 percent in Family
Medicine Physicians, Physician Assistants, and Family Nurse
Practitioners.
These shortages and reductions could have a serious detrimental
impact on the Fort's training mission and readiness of the Army. This
could also have a negative impact on the availability and quality of
care provided to a very significant part of the regional population
with thousands of members of the military, their families, and military
retirees.
Is there anything you would like to add about the efforts and
challenges associated with ensuring the proper manning of Army
hospitals?
Answer. Army hospitals are manned by a mixture of active duty
military, civilians, and contract manpower. The manpower requirements
for the military population are determined by operational mission
priorities. To mitigate gaps in military manpower, we rely on hiring
civilian providers and contractors to support healthcare delivery, and
send patients to the TRICARE network when military treatment facility
(MTF) services are not available.
Title 5 USC Section 3326 provisions limit our ability to bring on
qualified civilian providers as the Code restricts the appointment of
retired members of the armed forces to positions in the Department of
Defense during the period of 180 days immediately after retirement.
Although the Surgeon General of the Army (TSG) has waiver authority,
the requirement to obtain waiver approval adds approximately 52 days to
an already lengthy civilian hiring process for critical hard-to-fill
healthcare occupations. The U.S. Army Medical Department (AMEDD) has
lost a number of highly qualified candidates due to this additional
delay in the hiring process.
Question. Do you want to add or discuss anything on the status of
efforts to construct a new hospital at Fort Leonard Wood?
Answer. The replacement project is proceeding as scheduled. The
design-build contract should be awarded by the end of the fiscal year.
There are no issues or concerns at this time.
Question. Are there any readiness shortfalls associated with the
current medical facility and if so, how are they being mitigated in the
interim?
Answer. Not at this time. The Army continues to review medical
readiness requirements at all of our installations in preparation for
DHA transition.
Question. Secretary Esper, a few weeks back, Secretary of the Air
Force Wilson was testifying in front of this subcommittee. We discussed
military families and what we can do to ensure we are doing everything
possible to make them more appreciated. One area that was mentioned was
reciprocity of licensure for military spouses to ensure that as
military families move from one State to another that their
certifications transfer from State to State.
Can you talk a little about the value of that for military
families, what the Army has done to be supportive of those efforts, and
anything Congress or the States can do to further help make that
easier?
Answer. One employment barrier spouses face is State occupational
licensure transfer. With each move, spouses with State licenses/
certifications may be required to take additional classes, pass State-
specific exams, and/or become re-certified. Re-licensure delays and
expenses may cause spouses not to practice certain professions.
The Services coordinate with the OSD Defense State Liaison Office
who works with every State to help military spouses get licensed
faster. In 2018, Service Secretaries wrote to the National Governors
Association to emphasize licensure transferability as a readiness issue
and one that could be a factor in deciding future stationing
requirements.
State legislatures are critical in addressing this challenge. We
need their help in passing legislation to not only expedite receipt of
a license through endorsement, temporary licensing, and expedited
license applications, but to also consider polices that can drastically
limit licensing requirements or even eliminate the need for relicensing
as a result of military moves. Notable among these alternatives are
interstate compacts for occupations that allow all licensees to
establish a home State for a license and privilege to practice in all
other member States. These measures would help us maintain spouse
employment and individual Family financial readiness.
Additionally, we appreciate the support of The Congress in this
critically important area; the NDAA for 2018 gave the Services the
authority to reimburse our spouses for licensure and certification
costs pursuant to a permanent change of station to a different State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
Question. In the fiscal year 2019 DoD Appropriations Act, Congress
added $5 million to Army Aviation Ground Support Equipment (RDT&E, line
145) specifically for a next generation health monitoring system
(NGHMS). Both House and Senate bills had included this funding,
signaling clear congressional support for a NGHMS data collection and
validation demonstration on Army rotary-wing aircraft. However, I
understand that to date, Army officials have failed to execute these
funds.
I would like to know what circumstances have caused this delay and
a firm timeline for when the Army will meet congressional intent for
this $5 million program increase?
Answer. Airbus helicopters tested and evaluated the NGHMS system
and concluded that, based on the maturity level of the current
technology, designs and data analysis, any benefits or savings of a
NGHMS system on the UH-72 could not be identified. Based on that
conclusion, the Army does not plan to procure or integrate NGHMS into
the UH-72 fleet. On 3 January 2019, the Army sent a proposal to the
Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense to instead use
the $5 million added to support the Next Generation Aviation Ground
Power Unit (NGAGPU). That request remains with the Committee for
decision.
Question. Section 1647 of the 2016 National Defense Authorization
Act requires assessments of cyber vulnerabilities in major weapon
systems. Yet, the Department has only nine NSA-certified Cyber Red
Teams across the Armed Forces capable of conducting cyber Adversarial
Assessments of defense weapons systems. Further, these NSA-certified
Cyber Red Teams lack programmatic funding, which forces these teams to
`fend for themselves' through either reimbursable funding models, or
modest operations and maintenance budgets that do not adequately staff,
train, and equip the teams to emulate continually advancing threat
capabilities.
It is my understanding that the Army is specifically looking to
build upon its existing cyber red teaming capabilities, the Threat
Systems Management Office (TSMO), which has been nominated by the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to be the
headquarters for a Persistent Cyber Opposing Force (PCO) construct, to
ensure programmatic funding for NSA-certified Cyber Red Teams to
preempt, discover, and verify potential cyber vulnerabilities, and
develop proactive approaches to mitigate the risks of cyber-attacks.
With Army Futures Command focused on modernization and the Speed of
Innovation to build a more lethal and capable force, I want to make
certain the Army can rely on and utilize NSA-certified Cyber Red Teams
to meet requirements to assess Army weapons systems and mitigate cyber
vulnerabilities.
Do you support programmatic funding for NSA-certified Cyber Red
Teams to meet current and increasing DoD demands for cyber red teaming
of weapons systems?
Answer. Yes. The Army's fiscal year 2020 budget request supporting
Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) Cyber Red Teams is $3.8M under
Program Element 0604256A. TSMO is the Army acquisition NSA-certified
Red Team.
Question. Given the lack of sufficient personnel, training, and
tools toward NSA-certified Cyber Red Teams, do you support additional
funding to increase manpower of the current NSA-certified cyber red
teaming force to meet the increasing demand for cyber red teaming of
weapons systems?
Answer. The Army continuously monitors and assesses the ever-
changing threat environment faced by our Soldiers. Near-peer
adversarial cyber capabilities continue to emerge and grow. As such,
the Army will continue to adjust future-year budget requests to ensure
weapon systems and readiness to counter the adversary are properly
maintained across and in the context of the Army's broad range of
modernization needs.
Question. Do you support and/or see benefit in DOT&E's concept to
utilize the Army's TSMO as a headquarters for a Persistent Cyber
Opposing Force (PCO) to avoid the high cost of developing a new program
and to allow other NSA-certified Cyber Red Teams to improve information
sharing and enhance cyber red teaming, mitigation and operational
capabilities?
Answer. TSMO currently leads the Persistent Cyber Opposing Force
(PCO) effort in support of DOT&E. DOT&E is the lead for the
Department's Combatant Command Cyber Assessment Program and is
proposing a joint project for execution of required Red Team
assessments by the Service elements. As I understand it, the joint PCO
project would be a collaborative effort with other DoD Red Teams such
as AFNG 177th Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron and the NSA. The
Army will review this proposal to determine the best path forward.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. I was recently in Grand Forks, North Dakota to mark the
return of the Army Flight Training program at the University of North
Dakota (UND). The program provides scholarships to 15 Army ROTC cadets
per year to cover the cost of their flight training. This is an
excellent incentive for young pilots to embrace a career in Army
aviation.
Given the pilot shortage facing the Army and other military
services, would the Army consider budgeting for ROTC pilot scholarships
in future budget requests so that this program can be sustainable each
year?
Answer. The Army did not request the funding added for Army Reserve
Officers' Training Corps rotary wing training in the last
appropriations bill. Congress, however, provided funds in the fiscal
year 2019 Defense Appropriations Act, and based on that funding the
Army entered into an agreement for flight training program at the
University of North Dakota. The number of Reserve Officers' Training
Corps graduates each year who seek Aviation as one of their top three
branch choices typically exceeds the Army's requirements for new
officer pilots. Accordingly, the Army is not seeking to replace funding
for the general Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship program
with specialized funding for aviation or any program at a particular
college or university.
In addition, the pilot shortage within the Army is focused on
Aviation Warrant Officers (AWOs) and not commissioned officers. The
predominance of pilots within the U.S. Army are AWOs, with the Army
requiring 50 percent more new AWOs than commissioned officers annually
to meet the manning requirements for all COMPOs and airframes. The Army
is currently short 647 AWOs, but is healthy on commissioned officers.
Increasing scholarship opportunities for specialized pilot training
through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps will not improve our pilot
shortage challenges.
The issue is a matter of prioritizing to make the best use of
resources with focus on the highest Army priorities of readiness and
modernization.
Question. What else should we do to ensure we have enough pilots to
meet Army needs?
Answer. The Army is addressing the pilot shortage by increasing the
number of new pilots we produce each year (both commissioned and
warrant), while retaining our more experienced warrant officers. We
have taken steps to increase the capacity of Fort Rucker to produce new
pilots by increasing: (1) the number of aircraft on hand; (2)
instructor pilots; and, (3) required funding, while simultaneously
improving the maintenance capacity. We are retaining our experienced
warrant officers by offering targeted retention bonuses to specific
aviators, longer assignment stability incentives to provide more
predictability for families, and increasing Aviation Incentive Pay to
maximum Department of Defense authorized levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Earlier this year, the Army announced a ``partial
divestment'' of Army Watercraft Systems (AWS), to include a divestment
of over half the Army's watercraft vessels and many of the reserve
units that support this mission. This is a logistics capability that is
essential in disaster response where ports are degraded, or in the
event of a conflict in the Asia-Pacific. This decision was made while
the Army itself has been vocal about the shortfall in the Navy's
sealift capacity. Did the Army conduct a thorough risk assessment to
estimate how the Army will accomplish these essential logistics tasks
during a conflict or disaster response without this capability (to
include consultation with the Navy?
Answer. The Army conducted a review of Army Watercraft Systems
(AWS) and directed a partial divestment in support of the overall Army
modernization/transformation strategy. The resultant AWS strategy is
structured to meet the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the
requirements of the most demanding approved Combatant Commanders'
operational plans. The NDS does not require resourcing support of
Humanitarian Relief/Disaster Assistance (HR/DA) operations above
operational requirements. The Army is conducting a follow-on review of
AWS requirements with the Navy, United States Indo-Pacific Command
(USINDOPACOM), Joint Staff, OSD and United States Transportation
Command to ensure the Army continues to meet NDS needs.
Question. If the Army did a risk assessment prior to making this
decision, please provide that assessment to the committee.
Answer. A classified risk assessment is being updated as part of
the ongoing analysis and requirements review being conducted with OSD,
USINDOPACOM and others. It is not available for release at this time.
Question. In addition, please provide the committee an anticipated
timeline of when this divestment will occur and a specific enumeration
of the vessels and units that will be affected?
Answer. Transformation of AWS capabilities begins in fiscal year
2019, impacting Regular Army (RA), Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS),
non-doctrinal or Table of Distribution and Allowance (TDA), Army
National Guard (ARNG), and United States Army Reserves (USAR) units,
resulting in a smaller, more ready fleet positioned to meet the NDS.
The Army will initiate divestiture of AWS and inactivation of USAR
units, up to the quantity identified by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's Program Directive
Memorandum (PDM), no later than September 16, 2019.
[See timeline]
The Army reorganizes Army Watercraft Systems (AWS) capabilities in
the Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserves (USAR) to the following
structure:
Retain: 5ea Logistical Support Vessels (LSV), 10ea Landing Craft
Utility 2000 (LCU), 13ea Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM--8) (replaced by
Maneuver Support Vessel--Light), 2ea Small Tugs (ST), 2ea Barge Derrick
Cranes (BD) and 3ea Modular Causeway Systems.
Divest: 3ea LSV, 25ea LCU, 31ea LCM8, 6ea Large Tugs (LT), 14ea ST,
and 2ea BD.
Regular Army
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT LOCATION DIVESTS TIMELINE (NLT) COMPONENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73rd Transportation Company (Floating Joint Base 1ea LT Inactivation RA
Craft) Langley-Eustis, 2ea ST 15SEPT2020
VA
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
97th Transportation Company (Heavy Joint Base 3ea LCU Not Inactivation RA
Boat) Langley-Eustis,
VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT LOCATION CAPABILITY TIMELINE (NLT) COMPONENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
709th Transportation Company Tacoma, WA 2ea ST Inactivation USAR
(Floating Craft) 15AUG2019
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
949th Transportation Company Baltimore, MD 1ea LT Inactivation USAR
(Floating Craft) 2ea ST, 1ea 15AUG2019
BD--XFER to RA
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
467th Transportation Company Tacoma, WA 1ea LT, 2ea ST, Inactivation USAR
(Floating Craft) 1ea BD 15AUG2019
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
464th Transportation Company (Medium Fort Belvoir, 9ea LCM-8 15AUG2019 USAR
Boat) VA
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
203rd Transportation Detachment Curtis Bay, MD 1ea LSV Inactivation USAR
(Logistical Support Vessel) 15SEPT2019
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
548th Transportation Detachment JB Pearl Harbor- 1ea LSV Inactivation USAR
(Logistical Support Vessel) Hickam, HI 15SEPT2019
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
175th Transportation Company Tacoma, WA No Vessels Inactivation USAR
(Maintenance Company) Assigned 15AUG2019
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
824th Transportation Company (Heavy Morehead City, 2ea LCU XFER to Inactivation USAR
Boat) NC & RA 15AUG2019
Tampa, FL
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
481 Transportation Company (Heavy Port Hueneme, 4ea LCU XFER to Inactivation USAR
Boat) CA RA 15SEPT2020
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Army Preposition Stock 5 Kuwait 10ea LCU, 1ea LT, Inactivation APS
6ea ST, 1ea BD, 15SEPT2019
9ea LCM8
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Army Preposition Stock Japan 2ea LCU, 1ea LT, Inactivation APS
6ea ST, 5ea LCM8 15SEPT2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. The Army, the New Mexico delegation, and the
Appropriations committee worked hard to get a MILCON project to build
an information systems facility at White Sands Missile Range. This
MILCON project is important for continuing the important R&D, missile
defense, and hypersonic testing the Department of Defense is planning.
This project at White Sands Missile Range is essential to the success
of the modernization efforts of the Army and every other service
represented in the Pentagon.
Will you ensure that projects like this one--that are vital to
national security and have already been approved by Congress--will not
be sacrificed for the President's ill-advised wall? What is your
recommendation to OSD?
Answer. The Army will continue to work with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) to ensure that Army requirements, including
our modernization projects, are clearly understood.
Question. Right now we don't have a budget deal. Without one, DoD
will face sequestration. Given that situation, can you or anyone else
truly guarantee that any Milcon project that gets raided will actually
get restored?
Answer. In the event the Acting Secretary decides to undertake or
authorize military construction under section 2808 to fund border
barrier construction in support of the President's national emergency
declaration, DoD has no plans to cancel any MilCon projects.
Question. As Russia and China aggressively pursue hypersonic
weapons capabilities, it is important that advance our own hypersonic
technology. To develop this technology, inland tests will need to be
conducted. What is the role White Sands Missile Range will play in
conducting the needed tests?
Answer. The current range boundaries of White Sands Missile Range
(WSMR) are inadequate for achieving the ranges required for the
scheduled Hypersonic All Up Round flight tests. As the Hypersonic
Program continues to evolve, there is potential for WSMR to play a role
in achieving Army, Navy, and Air Force hypersonic component-level test
objectives. However, WSMR could play a role in testing Hypersonic
command and control systems, missile components, seekers, and new glide
body capabilities as component-level items mature out of Science and
Technology development efforts in the future.
Question. White Sands Missile Range continues to be the largest
Army installation without soldiers--that is a tenant Army unit. Will
you work to utilize the $170 million dollars' worth of modern,
battalion sized facilities that are vacant at White Sands Missile Range
with permanent tenants?
Answer. The Army does not currently plan to grow force structure at
White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Much of our Program Objective
Memorandum 2021-2025 Force is focused on modernization, improving
lethality within existing formations, and increasing capacity of our
training base and recruiting. That said, we will continue to give
consideration to WSMR's facilities when considering the restationing of
units.
Question. Will the Army be developing an urban training area to
allow for better training in today's technologically advanced urban and
hybrid warfare environment? And will you look at White Sands Missile
Range as a possible location for developing this capability?
Answer. The Army is programming to develop urban training areas to
allow for better training in today's technologically advanced urban and
hybrid warfare environment. Dense Urban Terrain (DUT) facilities will
be built on existing urban warfare training sites at the National
Training Center (NTC), Ft. Irwin, CA, and the Joint Readiness Training
Center (JRTC), Ft. Polk, LA. Both facilities will be integrated into a
full suite of multi-domain assets for world-class, realistic training.
The Army has no plans to build an urban training capability at White
Sands Missile Range.
Question. For the last 18 years, Overseas Contingency Operation
funding has greatly expanded and is now being used to circumvent
legislatively defined budget caps. What is the Army's contingency plan
if Congress does not approve such broad use of OCO funding or if
sequestration returns?
Answer. The funding level for the Army's fiscal year 2020 budget
request is necessary to meet current requirements, improve readiness,
and invest in modernization, among other things. Sequestration level
funding would be catastrophic to current and future Army readiness and
modernization efforts and priorities.
Question. It was reported that the Commandant of the U.S. Marine
Corps, General Robert Neller, warned acting Secretary of Defense
Patrick Shanahan that a series of QUOTE ``unplanned and unbudgeted''
tasks that included the deployment to the border--where there is no
emergency--constituted a QUOTE ``unacceptable risk to Marine Corps
combat readiness and solvency.''
The deployment of Army units to the Southwest Border has generally
had a negligible affect on Army readiness. In fact, some units have
improved their readiness as a consequence of their deployment.
Do you agree with the Commandant? And how are you addressing these
issues among your ranks?
Answer. Thus far in fiscal year 2019, the Army managed several
unplanned and unbudgeted tasks from an Army-wide perspective, the
readiness impact of these events have been manageable. Based on the
limited scope of these tasks when compared to the size and scale of the
Army's capacity and capabilities, these do not constitute an
unacceptable risk.
______
Questions Submitted to General Mark A. Milley
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. Your written statement identified six Army modernization
priorities, including Air and Missile Defense capabilities. I'm
particularly interested in the threats we face from enemy drones and
how to counter those threats. Can you briefly touch on the future
threats we face from adversary unmanned aircraft and the Army's
strategy for dealing with those threats, either from terrorist groups
or from near-peer competitors?
Answer. Currently, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are a rapidly
proliferating threat to U.S. forces primarily as an Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platform enabling more effective
adversary operations. To a lesser extent, UAS have been used as lethal
targeting platforms, and electronic warfare employment is possible.
This threat poses risks to Army missions and forces now and in the
future, both at home and abroad, as a low cost, high reward opportunity
for adversaries. Current trends, driven by commercial industry and the
military-industrial complex, point to greater capability for UAS in the
future such as: 1) increased speed, payload, distance and flight
duration/battery life; 2) miniaturization with improved optics and
survivability; 3) improved guidance and control systems (e.g. GPS and
multi-system navigation); and 4) improvements in UAS facial and object
recognition. Technological advances in artificial intelligence and
automation allow state and non-state actors to employ multiple UAS from
a single operator now, or UAS to operate autonomously as a swarm in the
future. The intelligence community assesses the majority of unmanned
aircraft systems will originate primarily from China, either as
commercial-off-the-shelf or military-grade hardware. These technologies
are increasingly available to state and non-state actors, and are a
growing concern. Russia and China continue to improve its integration
of UAS into its ground forces. The integration of UAS with traditional
military capabilities provides a significant force multiplier to
improve the speed and efficiency of threat kill chains.
The Army incorporates lessons learned and best practices from the
assessment, development, and employment of urgent response capabilities
provided to Combatant Commanders, in order to develop appropriate
materiel and non-materiel requirements for Counter-Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (C-UAS). Current and future Short Range Air Defense integrates
many of these capabilities for C-UAS, focused on low, slow, and small
UAS. Notwithstanding Air Defense capability, the Army has identified
capability gaps across the operational framework. Army modernization
will ultimately deliver a comprehensive set of C-UAS capabilities at-
echelon for Commanders to detect, identify, track and defeat threat UAS
in support of large scale contingency operations and to protect Army
critical infrastructure from UAS threats. The Army continues to develop
C-UAS requirements and solutions through analysis of doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,
facilities, and policy (DOTMLPF-P).
Question. I know that the Army does not carry out nuclear missions,
but Congress is having an important debate about the role nuclear
weapons play in our `Nation's defense. In particular, Russia possess a
massive arsenal of so-called ``tactical'' nuclear weapons that it would
consider using early in a conventional conflict, daring the U.S. to
respond.
How important is the U.S. nuclear deterrent in allowing Army to
carry out its mission in a very dangerous global security environment?
Answer. The Army strategy relies upon a modern, flexible and
resilient nuclear deterrent to convince our adversaries that any use of
nuclear weapons will be more costly than they can tolerate. Nuclear
weapons, in concert with space, cyber, and conventional joint force
capabilities, are required to provide strategic deterrence in the 21st
Century. Should deterrence fail, the United States must maintain a
credible capability to inflict harm at a level proportional to an
adversary's nuclear use.
Question. Would the Army take on additional risk if, as some people
have called for, we scaled back our nuclear deterrent?
Answer. The size and posture of U.S. nuclear forces should be
commensurate with existing and emerging threats. The 2018 Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR) process assessed the global security environment
and endorsed the need for a strategic nuclear triad and modernization
of our nuclear forces and enterprise infrastructure. The Army
contributed to and supports the 2018 NPR, as well as the scope and
scale of nuclear modernization programs of record, to address the risks
posed by global strategic threats.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The Committee is adjourned.
We will next--excuse me. Let me--before we adjourn, I just
want to announce that we will next meet on Wednesday, April the
3rd, at 9:30 in the morning to receive testimony on the Defense
Health Program.
The Committee is in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., Wednesday, March 27, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 3.]