[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8783-S8785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAINTAINING AMERICA'S DEFENSE
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a man who
has dutifully served our Nation as a public servant for more than 30
years--Mr. John B. Johns. John will retire from his role as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Maintenance Policy and Programs at
the end of this year. We will miss his leadership, his tenacity in
tackling the impossible, and his courage in the face of adversity.
I have had the privilege of knowing John for several years and have
always been amazed at his commitment to our country and his devotion to
our military. In his current role, he is responsible for the oversight
of the Department of Defense's maintenance program that exceeds an
annual budget of $80 billion. During his distinguished career, John has
been deployed twice--first to Iraq in 2010, where he served as the
director of the training and advisory mission and the director of
logistics for the Iraqi Security Forces; and second to Afghanistan in
2013, where he served as the executive director of Afghan National
Security Forces Sustainment for the International Security Assistance
Force.
One of John's primary duties in his current position is to host the
annual Department of Defense Maintenance Symposium that recognizes
excellence in maintenance activities within the Armed Services and the
Coast Guard. During this event, the Department recognizes leaders and
organizations for the superior service they render to promote the
readiness of the U.S. military. I wanted to read the remarks that John
offered at this year's symposium last week. The title of John's address
is ``Maintaining America's Defense.'' His words are as follows:
``For seven years this community has been very kind to me; you have
been gracious and patient as I spoke from this stage. I now ask you to
indulge me one last time as I speak of maintaining America's defense.
Brave warriors have fought and died, and their brothers and sisters
stand watch today, in harm's way, to both secure and maintain peace, to
deter and defeat forces that are committed to a future fundamentally
different than the one you and I envision. The world is a complex,
dangerous, and unstable place with evolving threats, both new and old.
The reality is we are facing skilled, determined enemies that would
just as soon strike at us as they would take a breath. They clearly do
not share the same view on humanity, nor the value of life, as we do.
This environment demands the flexibility, agility and lethality that
only our United States Military can provide.
From the first shots that signaled the birth of our country, men at
arms have served as an instrument of state, and their strength, as
individuals and as a force, have enabled and secured both victory and
peace. Today, the presence of United States Forces, controlling the
battle space, conducting strike operations with the ability to see but
remain unseen, to dominate the land, sea, and air, to rain fire and
destruction, provide clarity to all those that contemplate harm to us
or our interests. That aggression will not be tolerated. But, as you
know, we have not always acted properly, nor responded with appropriate
speed, to events in the world that have demanded our attention. We make
many mistakes, and it is true we are slow to anger. But, once our limit
has been breached and restraint abandoned, there is nothing on this
planet, nor has there ever been, like the hell unleashed from coiled
fury of the United States Military.
You should all be proud of the role you play in maintaining that
capability--most recently, maintaining readiness of our forces over a
decade of continuous combat, in two complex theaters, in unforgiving
environments, while maintaining a credible presence throughout the rest
of the world. You enabled this, and for that, you should be proud. All
of you in this room know a ship not ready to sail, or an aircraft not
ready to fly, has no value. And, since we have had the need for
weapons, we have had the need for those that maintain them. This
eternal bond is a covenant, a sacred promise, between those that
generate readiness and those that apply it, and we seal this covenant
with a commitment to excellence. All of you in this room, and those you
represent, should be rightfully proud, an embodiment of this covenant
and commitment, reminding any who mistakenly underestimate the power
and will of our United States Military that we are capable of striking
with speed and violence.
So where, then, should we expect the approach of danger; what will be
its origin? I suggest our greatest enemy, our greatest threat, is not
Russia; our greatest enemy is not ISIS, ISIL, DEASH, or whatever we are
calling them now; it's not China, it's not North Korea, and it's
certainly not climate change. Yes, of course, they are all threats; I
would never say they're not. But they are born of something much more
fundamental. I suggest our greatest threat is the dangerous mix of
mediocrity, poor judgment, and tolerance--here, on our ground.
In his Lyceum address, Lincoln said, `Shall we expect some
transatlantic
[[Page S8784]]
military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the
armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of
the earth in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander,
could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the
Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the
approach of danger to be expected? I answer--If it ever reach us, it
must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction
be our lot, we must ourselves be its author, and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.'
Our greatest enemy is the dangerous mix of tolerance and mediocrity--
mediocrity fueled by those lacking honor, judgment, courage and
determination, and the tyranny of tolerance characterized by slumbering
apathy, a comfortable denial of reality, and paralyzing bureaucracy.
This toxic mix, this deadly combination, creates or fuels all other
threats, allowing what would be a simple challenge to evolve into
danger. Our enemies demand greatness of us; our partners in the world,
to which we have made commitments, demand greatness of us; our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsmen demand greatness of
us; those that have made the ultimate sacrifice demand greatness of us.
And we should demand it from ourselves. But, absent clear and present
danger, we approach greatness hesitantly and inefficiently, only when
compelled, operating at the edge of greatness, at risk of losing it.
We have many examples of those who have achieved greatness. Some we
will recognize tonight just as we have in the past. And we should
continue to recognize those that rise above and achieve truly uncommon
things, but contemplate that word ``uncommon.'' It means some stand on
the pinnacle of true greatness and others do not. As hard as that is to
accept, we all know it to be true, and the slope to that pinnacle of
greatness is steep. Many never make it to the top, and many can't find
a way to stay there. It takes much to climb and takes even more to
remain there. Those that stand at the top, however, are those that
change the world. They set an uncommon path to achieve uncommon things,
and we see this greatness through their achievements and their
character.
But let's be careful because they are not the only ones with claims
on the future. Those at the bottom, and even those that occupy the
middle ground, can also claim this power to change the world but,
clearly, not in the same way as we desire. So what differentiates those
that carry the banner of greatness? What allows those to scale that
slope to the peak of performance? What robs those at the bottom from
the ability to climb? What defines the middle ground of mediocrity?
What do we need to know about standing on the pinnacle? And how do we
avoid a fall from greatness?
For this I refer to four words used so well by John F. Kennedy in a
speech to the Massachusetts State Legislature one month before he was
inaugurated as President of the United States. He said, `When the High
Court of History sits in judgment of us all, no matter our station, our
success or failure, will be measured by the answer to four questions.
Were we truly men of honor? Were we truly men of judgment? Were we
truly men of courage? And, were we truly men of determination?'
Honor--to do the right thing and treat others with respect.
Judgment--to see the future and the path to get there. Courage--to take
action and speak the truth. Determination--to produce required results
and finish what we start. These are the words that define greatness;
words that serve as our test that guide our every thought, our every
decision, our every action; words that should determine who we consider
friends with whom we surround ourselves and how we choose leaders;
words that should fill both our minds and our hearts. And where we fall
on the scale defined by these words will determine not only our success
or failure as individuals but also our contribution to our
organizations, our country, and the world. Where we fall on this scale
will determine our legacy.
There is much at stake and we cannot afford to aspire to anything
less than greatness. And we should remember our actions, or inaction,
affect the strength of our military, the posture of our country, and
the security of the world. I would not be speaking to you this way if
they did not, if somehow the world spun on, immune to our words and
behavior, but that is not the case. Every day we send soldiers,
marines, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen into harm's way. We send
them to defeat an enemy that tests the will of our United States
Military. We send them to provide aid and comfort to those in need, and
we send them to mature foreign security forces and governments
struggling to shape their own destiny. In executing these missions they
not only secure our liberty but also serve as the single greatest
symbol of liberty in the world. Collectively, they are the most capable
force that has ever existed. Every day they signal to a world at war
that both the hand of compassion and the sword of justice extend across
the world.
There is great honor in this, and many have worn that badge. Many of
those are still with us, but too many are not, having paid the ultimate
price, made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. But,
after all we have done and the price we have paid, the world remains a
chaotic, complex, and dangerous place. To see this all you have to do
is pay even a little attention to the situations in Iraq, Syria, Iran,
Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, Western Pacific, Nigeria, Libya, in our
board rooms, on our production floors, in our class rooms, on our
televisions, and in our governments.
Now, I could say, let's just all work it out. Let's bring everybody
together on any infinite number of problems, conflicts, disagreements,
and just work through them. How simple that sounds. Surely that would
work. But haven't we tried that before? How many times have we tried
that before? And, yet, here we are still facing some of the most vexing
problems we have ever faced. In fact, at times it seems that we are
reliving some things we thought we had solved, only to see them re-
emerge. Among many questions we must ask--why has it taken over a
decade to develop the sustainment strategy for our new strike fighter,
figure out the basic rules that govern a global spares pool, and
appropriately budget to stand up supporting depot maintenance
capability? Why, after diligent collaboration and full transparency,
could the Department, Industry, and Congress, with all our might, find
ourselves incapable of passing common-sense revisions to the depot
maintenance-related statutes that would have benefited all of us? Why,
after over half a decade and endless debate, could we not implement an
enterprise, performance-based approach integrating a collection of
individually executed contracts across the Military Departments that
would have offered greatly improved supply availability and reduced
cost? Why have we seen nearly a decade-long decline in naval aviation
readiness with misleading and confusing explanations for root causes
and corrective actions, from denial that there even is a problem to the
use of false narratives underlying recovery strategies? Why, after a
completely integrated, multi-service team approach, taking nearly half
a decade, can we not make a much-needed unmanned air system software
depot source of repair assignment? And why, after a decade long effort
to develop the capability and capacity of the Iraqi and Afghan Security
Forces, have we seen the near complete disintegration of those forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan, defying all comprehension, a failed supply
system, and a dysfunctional maintenance strategy that violates all
reasonable logic?
How is this possible? Why do we tolerate this? Some may think my
thoughts lack sophistication or I simply don't understand. I'll
acknowledge that we face complex situations, but I assure you, I
understand all too well.
The fact is we tolerate too much. We tolerate mediocrity or even
incompetence. We tolerate lies and half-truths. We tolerate
irresponsible self-interest. We tolerate political expediency. We
tolerate any other innumerable demonstrations of misbehavior. But let's
not confuse tolerance with much needed compassion, empathy, and
flexibility. Certainly, we need to see other perspectives and accept
alternative paths. And we know empathy and flexibility are key
ingredients in collaboration, but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate
things that are fundamentally wrong, things that will
[[Page S8785]]
lead us down the path to ruin. I see no honor in this, no judgment, no
courage.
In these cases, we must have absolutely no tolerance--no tolerance
for incompetence, no tolerance for those without integrity, and no
tolerance for self-interest that overrides the greater good. And, just
to be clear, this is purely and simply an issue of leadership. Some may
not see it. And some may be misled, burdened with the inability to
differentiate between true leadership and those impersonating leaders.
But those that are tired of political correctness, the endless pursuit
of consensus, unprofessional behavior, and paralyzing bureaucracy, they
understand.
And those that expect vision, those that expect strategy, those that
expect executable plans, those that expect fairness, honor, judgment,
courage, determination from our leaders, they understand. And we should
certainly not tolerate the behaviors of the few with cavalier disregard
of the facts, the few that masquerade as leaders, and those that can't
recognize it or lack the will to deal with it as they should, those
that are threatened by honesty and candor that send the signal that
this is ok and that even reward it. Tolerance here is insidious and
dangerous. It doesn't take many examples to poison a culture and affect
generations. We cannot afford to let this happen. We cannot afford
anything less than greatness. This is why I am speaking this way.
We must have the courage to recognize good performance, regardless of
whether it is politically correct, and deal appropriately with bad
performance. We must have the courage to speak truth to those below us,
around us, and above us. Ambiguity, half-truths, misleading messages,
and lies demonstrate poor judgment and lack of courage. Tolerance of
this, at best, creates inefficiency and weakness, and at its worst,
danger. We all should have the judgment and courage to recognize this,
call it for what it is, and dedicate ourselves to eliminating it.
In this moment we require leaders. We require leaders that are
capable of seeing new patterns in complexity and conflict and applying
new methods to achieve unconventional and uncommon outcomes. We need
leaders at all levels that have no tolerance for status quo and
mediocrity. We need leaders with competence and courage, with the
ability to learn and adapt quickly. We need leaders that are
comfortable making decisions and taking action in the face of
significant ambiguity, unclear guidance, and near impossible timelines.
We need leaders that know how to generate both unity of command and
unity of effort. It remains all our duty to recognize and contribute to
the greater good. We must be able to understand the interests of others
and exercise the flexibility and skill in accommodating those interests
while protecting our own.
And just because we can see the need for collaboration doesn't mean
we can just wish it into being. There is a science to collaboration and
we must be well practiced at it. In fact, we should all be experts
because we must accept the simple fact that no truly great thing is
achievable without others. No great accomplishment was, or ever will
be, possible without collaborative effort. In fact, the more complex a
thing, the more challenges we face, the more disciplines are involved,
the more integration is required, and the more collaboration is
demanded. It is time for collaboration based on respect--respect for
well-argued positions, respect for expertise, respect for remarkable
performance. It is time for collaboration rooted in both art and
science. It is time to put in place principles that bind us by
covenants and not just contracts or legal documents. It is time to
evolve from practitioners to experts and evangelists.
There is clearly science in this, but science is not enough. We need
the `artist.' We need the artist to apply the principals of this
science. Like any great piece of art, it is not simply a collection of
canvas and paint applied in the correct order. There is an ingredient
that only the artist can provide, an ingredient that differentiates a
common work from one that is uncommon. And what makes relationships so
difficult is that more than one person is painting on the canvas at the
same time and, still, the result must look as though only one artist
held the brush. We need the artists; we need the leaders that know this
and have the skill to execute it.
It is time, it is always the time, to carefully and ruthlessly choose
these leaders--leaders that understand what I have just said; leaders
that demonstrate extraordinary courage, honor, determination, and
judgment; leaders that understand how to nurture and protect
innovation; leaders that understand and can enable collaboration. For
it will be only those leaders that will take us to new heights of
performance and to deeper connections between all parties necessary to
solve the most complex problems of our time. It will be only those
leaders that will move us aggressively forward in the right direction,
intolerant of misbehavior and relentless in the pursuit of excellence.
For us, we see this as our duty. We are determined to the produce
results that are required by our military and our country--to fight and
win on any battlefield, of any kind, at any time. The future is ours to
shape. And make no mistake, the high court of history will hold each of
us accountable with the lives of those we send to stand on future
battlefields. I ask you to consider what I have just said.
In this job I have had the honor to see the work of patriots, those
that generate readiness for those that apply it, to support and serve
beside those that stand in harm's way, and to place coins in the hands
of thousands that embody the words honor, judgment, courage, and
determination. And what is left for me to do now is simply say thank
you. Thank you to those that secure our freedom, no matter their
position. Thank you to those for which I have great admiration and to
which I will always be in debt.''
John's speech is a lesson to us all. I personally will strive to
answer the call and live up to the virtues he praises: honor, judgment,
courage, and determination. As I stated in a video message to this
year's symposium attendees, I count myself fortunate and blessed to
call John a friend and wish him continued success in his future
endeavors.
Thank you.
____________________