Chairman Ike Skelton
Opening Statement
Full Committee Hearing on organizing the roles, missions, and requirements of the Department of Defense
June 20, 2007
"Welcome to today's hearing on organizing the roles, missions, and requirements of the Department of Defense. We have two very distinguished witnesses today. Dr. John Hamre, the President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and officer, US Army (retired). You two gentlemen were called to testify because you have given deep study to some of the most important issues facing the Department of Defense. Today's topic is among those issues.
"It has been a topic of intense debate, at least since the Key West Agreement of 1948, but today's definition of, and division of, roles and missions is largely the same as the agreement reached back then. While the operational part of the military has been made fully joint, thanks to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the training and equipping side of the military remains fragmented and stove-piped.
"This committee adopted significant and far reaching legislative recommendations on roles, missions, and requirements in our recently passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. These recommendations were developed on a bipartisan basis, and reflect a deep commitment on the part of this committee to reform and modernize the Department of Defense to prepare it to face a rapidly evolving security environment.
"We require that the Secretary of Defense review the roles and mission of the Department every four years in the down time between quadrennial defense reviews. We recommend that the Secretary determine the core competencies that each of the military services and defense agencies currently offer in fulfilling these missions; ensure that they develop the core competencies that are currently lacking; and jettison capabilities that are not related to core competencies.
"The committee's recommendations would also reform the requirements process to organize it according to core mission areas identified by the Secretary of Defense; require that the requirements process be informed by realistic estimates of the resources available to satisfy those requirements; and include explicit assignment of priorities. The bill requires the Department to present its budget by mission area, in addition to the traditional presentation by appropriation, and it requires combatant commanders to engage directly in planning for future capabilities.
"I have reviewed the written statements you both submitted. I'm struck by the fact that both of you indicate that there are serious and significant deficiencies in the way that the Department of Defense determines its missions, and organizes and equips itself. Both of you suggest that the Department is not adequately preparing itself for the non-traditional missions that are likely to be increasingly relevant in today's security environment. Both of you also suggest in your statements that the requirements process is dominated by service interests, sometimes to the detriment of the warfighter. In these judgments I believe that we are all in consensus. I note, however, that you propose some additions and alternatives to the recommendations in our bill, and have a few constructive criticisms for us as well. We welcome any recommendations for improvements that you can provide us today.
"With that introduction, I'd like to recognize my friend and partner Duncan Hunter for his opening remarks."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
