[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-25]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 11, 2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-754 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff Member
Michael Casey, Professional Staff Member
Aaron Falk, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, April 11, 2013, Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense.... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, April 11, 2013......................................... 63
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
WITNESSES
Dempsey, GEN Martin E., USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff..... 10
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Dempsey, GEN Martin E............................................ 85
Hagel, Hon. Chuck................................................ 71
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''.................................. 67
Smith, Hon. Adam................................................. 69
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Letter from Secretary Hagel to Mr. Bishop.................... 99
Letter from Secretary Hagel to Mr. Turner.................... 101
Summary on TMA Demonstration Program Implementation since
January 2013............................................... 102
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Bishop................................................... 107
Mr. Larsen................................................... 107
Mr. Turner................................................... 107
Mr. Wittman.................................................. 107
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Barber................................................... 123
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 118
Mr. Bridenstine.............................................. 128
Mr. Carson................................................... 125
Mr. Forbes................................................... 113
Mr. Johnson.................................................. 122
Mr. Kline.................................................... 116
Mr. Langevin................................................. 114
Mr. McKeon................................................... 111
Mr. Miller................................................... 114
Mr. Nugent................................................... 127
Mr. Rogers................................................... 118
Ms. Sanchez.................................................. 113
Mr. Turner................................................... 115
Mrs. Walorski................................................ 129
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 11, 2013.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. Committee will come to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The House Armed
Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the
fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of Defense.
I want to welcome Secretary Hagel to his first appearance with
us.
We are happy to have you here, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Hagel. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. General Dempsey, thank you for being here,
and Secretary Hale. We appreciate all of you and the great work
that you do for our Nation.
Our job on this committee is to weigh inputs from senior
military leaders so that we may fulfill our constitutional
obligation to provide for the common defense. Two months ago,
General Dempsey told this committee that the military could not
absorb any further cuts without jeopardizing the missions that
we ask of them. Today I hope to hear how the President's
budget, which asks for another $120 billion out of defense,
will impact our military posture and readiness.
Specifically, I would like to hear which missions we must
now abandon, reduce, or cancel outright to comply with the
President's budget, because I don't see the world getting
safer, in fact, as recent events in North Korea, Iran, Syria,
Africa attest. In fact, even as our forces draw down in
Afghanistan, we are negotiating an agreement to maintain an
enduring presence in that nation, which I strongly support.
I am also curious why, after three rounds of cuts to our
Armed Forces in as many years, our troops are again being asked
to pay the bill for out-of-control spending in Washington.
Carl Vinson, for whom this room is named, said a country
does not need a navy of one strength when she is prosperous and
a navy of another size when there is an economic depression. I
believe that sentiment applies to all of our Armed Forces. It
was true when Vinson said it during the Great Depression, and
it is true today during the great recession.
With that in mind, the budget we received asks us to take
another $120 billion from the military and offers no solutions
to repair the damage being done by sequestration this year.
This is not simply a 2017 problem. I hope to hear how we can
resolve the stark differences between the President's budget
request and the President's national security strategy.
Margaret Thatcher, who we lost this week, said during her
time as prime minister the defense budget is one of the very
few elements of public expenditure that can truly be described
as essential. Our charge is to provide that essential security
to the American people and by doing so assure our allies. I
look forward to our witnesses' insights as we move forward
through this hearing.
Mr. Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the
Appendix on page 67.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this
hearing. And also thank you for your great leadership on the
question of our budget and national security. It has been a
very challenging time, and I think you have done an excellent
job of bringing attention to those challenges and to what it is
doing to our defense budget and to our ability to provide
national security. I appreciate the hearings and your
leadership, and I certainly thank our witnesses today.
Secretary Hagel, welcome to your first House committee
hearing. We appreciate you taking the job. Not an easy time to
do it.
General Dempsey, you have been here many times before, I
appreciate your leadership.
Under Secretary Hale is the guy who has to try to figure
out the money. You have had a fascinating job the last couple
of years.
Because as is obvious, we have many national security
challenges. Certainly we have been out of Iraq for a couple of
years now, we are drawing down in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan
remains, the challenges of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region
remain. We have all heard what North Korea is up to, what Iran
is up to. Al Qaeda is still out there in many places, in Yemen,
in Somalia, growing in Mali. It is not like we have reached the
point where you can think about anything approaching a peace
dividend, where our national security challenges have somehow
lessened in the last couple of years. They have changed in some
ways, but they are still great and still require a very
thoughtful and comprehensive response to protect the national
security interests of this country.
At the same time, our budget is a mess. You have to meet
all of what I just described without even knowing within tens
of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars how much
money you are going to have from year to year.
Now I will disagree slightly with the chairman on the fact
that somehow the President's budget is what is reflective of
that challenge. It is really all of us, it is Congress.
Congress passed sequestration, allowed it to happen. The
President, yes, signed it. All three, House, Senate, President,
have got to come together to address our long-term budget
challenges so that at a minimum we can give not just the
Department of Defense, but our entire government some stability
so they have some idea from month to month how much money they
are going to have. Your ability to plan is just destroyed when
in January we say, well, we are delaying sequestration for 2
months, we hope we will fix it, in March it hits, and now we
sit here in April trying to absorb it and wondering if it is
going to continue into 2014.
So let me just close by saying, I don't think it is any one
party's fault, President, House, Senate, but all three pieces
of the puzzle have got to come together and recognize that
absent a clear, long-term decision we are having a devastating
impact on many aspects of the government, but certainly on our
national security, which is supposed to be paramount. We cannot
plan any strategy when we do not know how much money we are
going to have from month to month.
So, again, I applaud the chairman for urging that same
reconciliation to come together, and I look forward to working
with him to find a solution to that. And today I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses about how they are going to deal
with those challenges. Because make no mistake about it, as
challenging as that all is, we will deal with it. We will make
the decisions, we will protect this country. We have certainly
faced tougher times in the past and came through it. It is a
challenge, but we will meet it, and I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today about their plans to do just that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 69.]
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Hagel. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith,
members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the
Department of Defense.
Allow me to express my appreciation also to this committee
for its continued support for our men and women in uniform and
our entire civilian workforce. These people are doing
tremendous work, and they are making great sacrifices, along
with their families, as they have for more than 11 years.
Eleven years our Nation has been at war. Whether fighting in
Afghanistan, patrolling the world's sea lanes, standing
vigilant on the Korean Peninsula, supplying our troops around
the world or supporting civil authorities when natural
disasters strike, they are advancing America's interests at
home and abroad. Their dedication and professionalism are the
foundation of our military strength. As we discuss numbers,
budgets, and strategic priorities, we will not lose sight of
these men and women serving across the globe.
As you all know so very well, their well-being depends on
the decisions that we all make here in Washington. Today, the
Department of Defense faces the significant challenge of
conducting long-term planning and budgeting at a time of
considerable uncertainty, both in terms of the security
challenges we face around the world and the levels of defense
spending we can expect here at home.
Even as the military emerges and recovers from more than a
decade of sustained conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
confronts an array of complex threats of varying vintage and
degrees of risk to the United States. These include the
persistence of violent extremism throughout weak states and
ungoverned spaces in the Middle East and North Africa; the
proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials; the rise of
new powers competing for influence; the risk of regional
conflicts which could draw in the United States; faceless,
nameless, silent, and destructive cyber attacks; the
debilitating and dangerous curse of human despair and poverty,
as well as the uncertain implications of environmental
degradation.
Meanwhile, the frenetic pace of technological change and
the spread of advanced military technology to state and
nonstate actors pose an increasing challenge to America's
military.
This is the strategic environment facing the Defense
Department as it enters a third year of flat or declining
budgets. The onset of these resource constraints has already
led to significant and ongoing belt tightening in the military.
That is military modernization, our force structure, personnel
costs and overhead expenditures. It has also given us an
opportunity to reshape the military and reform defense
institutions to better reflect 21st century realities, as I
outlined in the speech last week at the National Defense
University.
The process began under the leadership of Secretary Gates,
who canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs
and trimmed overhead costs within the military services and
across the defense enterprise. These efforts reduced the
Department's topline by $78 billion over a 5-year period, as
detailed in the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget plan.
The realignment continued under Secretary Panetta, who
worked closely with the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to craft new defense strategic guidance and a fiscal year 2013
defense budget plan which reduced the Department's topline by
$487 billion over the course of a decade.
The President's request of $526.6 billion for the
Department of Defense's base budget for fiscal year 2014
continues to implement the President's defense strategic
guidance and enhances the Department's efforts at institutional
reform. Most critically, it sustains the quality of the All-
Volunteer Force and the care we provide our service members and
their families, which again, as you all know, underpins
everything we do in this organization.
Before discussing the particulars of this budget request,
however, allow me to address the profound budget problems
facing the Department in fiscal year 2013 and beyond as a
result of sequester. These challenges have significantly
disrupted operations for the current fiscal year and greatly
complicated efforts to plan for the future. The Congress and
the Department of Defense have a responsibility, an absolute
obligation, to work together to find these answers because we
have, all of us, a shared responsibility, as the chairman and
the ranking member have noted, to protect our national
security. DOD [Department of Defense] is going to need the help
of this committee and Congress to help manage through this
uncertainty.
The fiscal year 2013 DOD appropriations bill enacted by the
Congress last month addressed many of these urgent problems by
allocating DOD funding more closely in line with the
President's budget request, giving the Department authorities
to start new programs and allowing us to proceed with important
military construction projects. Nonetheless, the bill still
left in place the deep and abrupt cuts associated with
sequester, as much as $41 billion in spending reductions over
the next 6 months.
Military pay and benefits are exempt from sequester, and we
made a decision to shift the impact of sequester away from
those serving in harm's way. That means the cuts fall heavily
on DOD's operations, maintenance, and modernization accounts
that we use to train and equip those who will deploy in the
future. Furthermore, the military is experiencing higher
operating tempos and higher transportation costs than expected
when the budget request was formulated more than a year ago.
As a result of all these factors, the Department is now
facing a shortfall in our operation and maintenance accounts
for fiscal year 2013 of at least $22 billion in our base budget
for Active forces. In response, the Department has reduced
official travel, cut back sharply on facilities maintenance,
imposed hiring freezes, and halted many other important but
lower priority activities. However, we will have to do more.
Large, abrupt, and steep across-the-board reductions of this
size will require that we continue to consider furloughing
civilian personnel in the months ahead.
The cuts will fall heavily on maintenance and training,
which further erodes the readiness of the force and will be
costly to regain in the future. And I know General Dempsey will
address some of this in particular.
As the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our
readiness. Meanwhile, our investment accounts in the defense
industrial base are not spared damage as we also take
indiscriminate cuts across the areas of this budget.
We will continue to need the strong partnership of this
committee to help us address these shortfalls. If the
sequester-related provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011
are not changed, fiscal year 2014 funding for national defense
programs will be subject to a steeply reduced cap, which would
further cut DOD funding by roughly $52 billion. And if there is
no action by the Congress and the President, roughly $500
billion in reductions to defense spending would be required
over the next 9 years.
As an alternative, the President's budget proposes some
$150 billion in additional defense savings over the next
decade. These cuts are part of a balanced package of deficit
reduction. Unlike sequester, these cuts are largely backloaded,
occurring mainly in the years beyond fiscal year 2018, which
gives the Department time to plan and implement the reductions
wisely and responsibly, anchored by the President's defense
strategic guidance.
The President's $526.6 billion fiscal year 2014 request
continues to balance the compelling demands of supporting
troops still very much at war in Afghanistan, protecting
readiness, modernizing the military's aging weapons inventory
and keeping with the President's strategic guidance, and
sustaining the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. Today's
budget request also contains a placeholder request for overseas
contingency operations, OCO, at the fiscal year 2013 level,
which is $88.5 billion. This submission does not include a
formal OCO request because Afghanistan force level and
deployment decisions for this year were delayed in order to
provide commanders enough time to fully assess requirements. We
will soon be submitting an OCO budget amendment with a revised
spending level and account level detail.
The following are the major components of the fiscal year
2014 $526.6 billion base budget request. Military pay and
benefits, including TRICARE and retirement costs, $170.2
billion; that represents 32 percent of the total base budget.
Operating costs, including $77.3 billion for civilian pay,
total $180.1 billion, representing 34 percent of the total
budget. Acquisitions and other investments, procurement,
research, development, tests and evaluation, and new facilities
construction, which represents 33 percent of the budget at
$176.3 billion.
The budget presented today at its most basic level consists
of a series of choices that reinforce each of the following
complementary goals. Making more disciplined use of defense
resources. This budget continues the Department's approach of
the last several years to first target growing costs in areas
of support, acquisition, and pay and benefits before cutting
capabilities and force structure. In order to maintain balance
and readiness, the Department of Defense must be able to
eliminate excess infrastructure as it reduces force structure.
DOD has been shedding infrastructure in Europe for several
years, and we are undertaking a review of our European
footprint this year.
But we also need to look at our domestic footprint.
Therefore, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget requests
authorization for one round of base realignment closure, BRAC,
in 2015. BRAC is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows
communities a role in reuse decisions for the property and
provides redevelopment assistance.
BRAC is imperfect. It is an imperfect process. And there
are upfront costs for BRAC. The future year defense program
adds $2.4 billion to pay for those costs. But in the long term,
there are significant savings. The previous five rounds of BRAC
are saving $12 billion annually, and those savings will
continue.
We are also taking other important steps to cut back on
support costs. We will institute a study of our military
treatment facilities, including many hospitals and clinics that
are currently underutilized. By the end of the year, we will
have a plan in place that suggests how to reduce that
underutilization while still providing high quality medical
care for all of our forces and their families. This
restructuring, coupled with a BRAC round and other changes,
would permit us to plan on a cut in our civilian workforce that
will comply with congressional direction.
We are also continuing our successful efforts to hold down
military health costs. With the Department's proposed TRICARE
benefit changes, our projected costs for fiscal year 2014 are
about 4 percent lower than those costs in fiscal year 2012.
That is a significant turnaround compared to healthcare trends
over the past decade.
Another important initiative is our effort to improve the
Department's financial management and achieve auditable
financial statements. I strongly support this initiative and
will do everything I can to fulfill this commitment and the
promises we have made to the Congress and the American
taxpayer.
These and many other changes led to total savings of about
$34 billion in fiscal year 2014 to 2018, including $5.5 billion
in fiscal year 2014. However, we are concerned that these
savings for more disciplined use of resources could be eroded
by sequester as we are forced to make inefficient choices and
drive up costs. Today, for example, we are being forced to
engage in shorter and less efficient contracts and sharp cuts
in units' buy sizes that will increase the unit costs of
weapons.
In this budget, the Department has achieved $8.2 billion in
savings from weapons program terminations and restructuring.
For example, by revising the acquisition strategy for the
Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, the GCV, the Department will save
over $2 billion in development costs. In other cases, the
Department used evolutionary approaches to develop new
capabilities instead of relying on leap-ahead gains in
technology.
To lessen the potential impact on local communities from
the reductions in defense procurement, the Department is
requesting an additional $36 million in support of the Defense
Industry Adjustment Program.
The Department is continuing to take steps to tighten the
contract terms and reduce risk in our largest acquisition
program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The fiscal year 2014
budget request includes $8.4 billion for the Joint Strike
Fighter program.
The cost of military pay and benefits are another
significant driver of spending growth that must be addressed in
the current fiscal environment. In this budget, the Department
is submitting a new package of military compensation proposals
that take into consideration congressional concerns associated
with those from fiscal year 2013. These changes save about $1.4
billion in fiscal year 2014 and a total of $12.8 billion in
fiscal year 2014 through 2018.
This package includes a modest slowing of the growth of
military pay by implementing a 1 percent pay raise for service
members in 2014. The Department is also seeking additional
changes to the TRICARE program in fiscal year 2014 to bring the
beneficiary's cost share closer to the levels envisioned when
the program was implemented, particularly for working age
retirees.
Today, military retirees contribute less than 11 percent of
their total healthcare costs compared to an average of 27
percent when TRICARE was first fully implemented in 1996.
Survivors of military members who died on Active Duty or
medically retired members would be excluded from all TRICARE
increases. Even after the proposed changes in fees, TRICARE
will remain still a substantial benefit.
These adjustments to pay and benefits were among the most
carefully considered and difficult choices in this budget. They
were made with the strong support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and senior enlisted leadership in recognition that in order to
sustain these important benefits over the long term without
dramatically reducing the size or readiness of the force, these
rising costs need to be brought under control. Spending
reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be
implemented through just improving efficiency and reducing
overhead. Cuts and changes to capabilities--force structure and
modernization programs--will also be required. The strategic
guidance issued in January 2012 set the priorities and the
parameters that informed those choices, and the fiscal year
2014 budget submission further implements and deepens program
alignment to this strategic guidance.
The new strategy calls for a smaller and leaner force. Last
year we proposed reductions of about 100,000 in military end
strength between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2017. Most of
those reductions occur in the ground forces and are consistent
with the decision not to size U.S. ground forces to accomplish
prolonged stability operations, while maintaining adequate
capability should such activities again be required. By the end
of fiscal year 2014, we will have completed almost two-thirds
of the drawdown of our ground forces, and the drawdown should
be fully complete by fiscal year 2017.
Increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East
represents another key tenet of the new defense strategic
guidance. This budget continues to put a premium on rapidly
deployable, self-sustaining forces--such as submarines, long-
range bombers, and carrier strike groups--that can project
power, project power over great distance, and carry out a
variety of missions. As part of the rebalance to the Asia-
Pacific, the Department is expanding the Marine Corps presence
in the region, including rotational deployments of Marine units
to Australia. We continue to develop Guam as a strategic hub
where we maintain a rotational bomber presence, among other
capabilities.
The Department will stage its most capable forces in the
region, including an F-22 squadron at Kadena Air Force Base in
Japan. The Navy has deployed a Littoral Combat Ship to
Singapore and is increasing and more widely distributing port
visits in the Western Pacific. This new strategy not only
recognizes the changing character of the conflicts in which the
U.S. must prevail, but also leverages new concepts of operation
enabled by advances in space, cyberspace, special operations,
global mobility, precision strike, missile defense, and other
capabilities. By making difficult tradeoffs in lower priority
areas, the fiscal year 2014 budget protects or increases key
investments in these critical capabilities.
The high quality of our All-Volunteer Force continues to be
the foundation of our military strength, and the fiscal year
2014 budget request includes $137.1 billion for military
personnel, as well as $49.4 billion for military medical care.
Together, these make up roughly one-third of our base budget.
This budget seeks to ensure that our troops receive the
training and equipment they need for military readiness and the
world class support programs they and their families have
earned.
However, as in other areas of the budget, the steep and
abrupt cuts of sequester would harm these programs. Even with
flat and declining defense budgets, this budget seeks to press
ahead with the transition from a counterinsurgency-focused
force to a force ready and capable and agile of operating
across a full range of operations across the globe.
The service budgets all fund initiatives that seek to
return to full-spectrum training and preparation for missions
beyond current operations in Afghanistan. The Department
continues its work to understand and quantify readiness
activities as we seek to maximize our preparedness for real
world missions. We do not yet know the costs of fixing the
readiness of the force following the 6 months of sequester cuts
to training in this fiscal year. Therefore these costs are not
included in the fiscal year 2014 budget.
The Department's budget submission makes clear that people
are central to everything we do. While sequester cuts would,
unfortunately, counter many of these initiatives, especially
for our civilian workforce, the initiatives remain important
statements of the intent in this budget.
The Department continues to support key programs in fiscal
year 2014 that support service members and their families,
spending $8.5 billion on initiatives that include transition
assistance and veteran's employment assurance, behavioral
health, family readiness, suicide prevention, and sexual
assault prevention and response.
The fiscal year 2014 budget is a reflection of DOD's best
efforts to match ends, ways, and means during a period of
intense fiscal uncertainty. It is a balanced plan that would
address some of the Department's structural costs and internal
budget imbalances while implementing the President's defense
strategic guidance and keeping faith with our men and women in
uniform and their families. It is obvious that significant
changes to the Department's topline spending would require
changes to this budget plan. The Department must plan for any
additional reductions to the defense budget that might result
from Congress and the administration agreeing on a deficit
reduction plan. It must be prepared in the event that sequester
level cuts persist for another year or over the long term.
As a result, I directed a Strategic Choices and Management
Review in order to assess the potential impact of further
reductions up to the level of full sequester. The purpose of
this review is to reassess the basic assumptions that drive the
Department's investment and force structure decisions. The
review will identify the strategic choices and further
institutional reforms that may be required, including those
reforms which should be pursued regardless of fiscal pressures.
It is designed to help understand the challenges, articulate
the risks, and look for opportunities for reform and
efficiencies presented by resource constraints.
Everything will be on the table during this review: roles
and missions, planning, business practices, force structure,
personnel and compensation, acquisition and modernization
investments, and how we operate, and how we measure and
maintain readiness. We have no choice. This review is being
conducted by Deputy Secretary Carter, working with General
Dempsey.
The service secretaries and service chiefs, Office of the
Secretary of Defense principals, and combatant commanders are
all serving as essential participants in this review. Our aim
is to conclude this review, which is underway now, by May 31st.
The results will inform our fiscal year 2015 budget request and
will be the foundation for the Quadrennial Defense Review due
to Congress in February of next year. It is already clear to me
that achieving significant and additional budget savings
without unacceptable risk to national security will require not
just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and
practices, but, if necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that
better reflect 21st century realities. That will require the
partnership of Congress.
The fiscal year 2014 budget and the ones before it have
made hard choices. In many cases, modest reforms to personnel
and benefits, along with efforts to reduce infrastructure and
restructure acquisition programs, met fierce political
resistance and were not implemented. We are now in a different
fiscal environment, dealing with new realities that will force
us to more fully confront these tough, painful choices and to
make the reforms we need to put this Department on a path to
sustain our military strength for the 21st century. But in
order to do that, we will need flexibility, time, and some
budget certainty. We will also need to fund the military
capabilities that are necessary for the complex security
threats of the 21st century.
I believe the President's budget does that. With the
partnership of Congress, the Defense Department could continue
to find new ways to operate more affordably, efficiently, and
effectively. However, multiple reviews and analysis show that
additional major cuts, especially those on the scale and
timeline of sequestration, would require dramatic reductions in
core military capabilities or the scope of our activities
around the world. As the executive and legislative branches of
government, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that we
protect our national security and America's strategic
interests. Doing so requires that we make every decision on the
basis of enduring national interests and make sure every policy
is worthy of the service and sacrifice of our service members
and their families.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Hagel can be found in
the Appendix on page 71.]
The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
General Dempsey.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, USA, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
General Dempsey. Thank you, sir.
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished
members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to update
you on the United States Armed Forces and to comment on the
budget proposal for fiscal year 2014.
Obviously, this hearing comes at a time of extraordinary
uncertainty. As resources decline, risks to our national
security rise. It is in this context that I offer my
perspective on how we can work together to sustain a balanced
and peerless joint force.
One thing is certain: Our men and women in uniform are
steadfast in their courage and in their devotion to duty. I saw
it recently in their eyes in Afghanistan and when I had the
honor of reenlisting 10 of them this past Sunday at Bagram
Airfield.
In Afghanistan, our forces are simultaneously fighting,
transitioning, and redeploying. The Afghan military will soon
take operational lead for security across the country. As they
gain confidence, so, too, do the Afghan people. The coalition
will remain in support as we transition to a sustainable
presence beyond 2014. At every point along the way we must make
sure that our force levels match the mission.
Our joint force has been vigilant elsewhere as well. We are
deterring aggression and assuring our allies in the face of
provocation by both North Korea and Iran. We are working with
our interagency partners to defend against cyber attack. We are
acting directly and with partners to defeat Al Qaeda. We are
rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific and adapting our force posture
to a new normal of combustible violence in North Africa and the
Middle East. We are also working with others to keep Syria's
complex conflict from destabilizing the region. We are ready
with options if military force is called for, and can, and if
military force can be used effectively, to secure our interests
without making the situation worse.
We must also be ready with options for an uncertain and
dangerous future. This budget was purpose built to keep our
Nation immune from coercion. It aims to restore versatility to
a more affordable joint force in support of our defense
strategy. However, let me be clear about what it does not do.
This budget does not reflect full sequestration. It does impose
less reduction, and it gives us more time. However, uncertainty
persists about what the topline will be for this or any other
future budget. Nor does this budget include funds to restore
lost readiness. We don't yet know the full impact or the cost
to recover from the readiness shortfalls that we are
experiencing this year.
As expected, we have already curtailed or canceled training
for many units across all of the services for those not
preparing to deploy. And we know that, from experience, that it
is more expensive to restore readiness than to keep it.
Recovery costs will compete now with the costs of building the
joint force in the future.
This budget does, however, invest in our priorities. It
keeps the force in balance. It supports our forward-deployed
operations. It upholds funding for emerging capabilities, such
as cyber. It funds those conventional and nuclear capabilities
that are so critical and have proven so essential to our
defense. It also lowers manpower costs, reduces excess
infrastructure, and it makes health care more sustainable.
Most importantly, it protects investment in our real
decisive advantage--in our people. It treats being the best
led, the best trained, and the best equipped force as the non-
negotiable imperative.
Never has our Nation sustained such a lengthy war solely
through the service of an All-Volunteer Force. We must honor
our commitments to them and to their families. For many
veterans, returning home is a new frontline in the struggle
with wounds seen and unseen. We must continue to invest in
world-class treatments for mental health issues, traumatic
brain injury, and combat stress. We also have a shared
responsibility to address the urgent issue of suicide with the
same devotion we have shown to protecting our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines in combat.
The risks inherent to military service must not include
sexual assault. Sexual assault betrays the trust--the very
trust--on which our profession is founded. We will pursue every
option to drive this crime from our ranks.
This is a defining moment for our military. Our warriors'
will to win is undaunted. But the means to prepare to win are
becoming uncertain. We have an opportunity, actually an
obligation with this and any future budget to restore
confidence. We have it within us to stay strong as a global
leader and as a reliable partner.
The joint force is looking to us to lead through this
period of historical fiscal correction. But we can't do it
alone. As I have said before and as the Secretary just said, we
need budget certainty, we need time, and we need flexibility.
And this means a predictable funding stream. It means the time
to deliberately evaluate tradeoffs in force structure,
modernization, compensation, and readiness. And it means the
full flexibility to keep the force in balance.
Thank you for all you have done to support our men and
women in uniform. I only ask that you continue to support a
responsible investment in our Nation's defense. And I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Dempsey can be found in
the Appendix on page 85.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I think we won't have any votes on the floor before 1
o'clock. It is my intention to get in as many questions as we
can, but to take a brief break at around noon.
Among the critical aspects of the transition in Afghanistan
is the negotiation of the Bilateral Security Agreement [BSA]
with the Government of Afghanistan. I am concerned with the
progress in these negotiations and the failure to reach an
agreement will put at risk U.S. vital national security
interests in Afghanistan and the region by creating a vacuum
that regional state and non-state actors would exploit.
Clearly, we need a willing partner, and President Karzai's
public statements have been erratic at best. A bad agreement is
worse than no agreement at all. Yet I am convinced that not
only is the agreement imperative, but we need to secure it this
spring to allow our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]
allies time to negotiate similar agreements and to send the
strongest signal possible that we will not abandon Afghanistan.
I know when I was there not too long ago--Secretary, you
were there same time, General Dempsey, you have been there
since--everyone in Afghanistan is asking, when are you leaving?
Because the Taliban is telling them we are leaving. And we need
to counter the Taliban's narrative and reverse the crisis of
confidence that I saw in our Afghan partners resulting from our
accelerated redeployment and ambiguity about the residual
force.
To that end, I strongly believe that an announcement about
our residual force or at least an announcement of a narrow
range of U.S. troop levels is a necessary prerequisite for
securing a BSA. I think this is one of the problems we had with
Iraq. We didn't come up with a number sufficient that the Iraqi
leadership would expend the political capital to do what is
necessary to make an agreement possible.
By sitting on the announcement, all parties with a stake in
the outcome of the BSA--Afghanistan, its neighbors, our allies,
and Members of Congress--will be reluctant to expend the
political capital necessary to secure a good agreement. The
politics become significantly more complicated as the BSA gets
caught up in the Afghan Presidential election and campaigns for
the midterm congressional elections. Karzai will only become
more challenging to deal with as his term comes to an end.
Silence and speculation will become self-fulfilling prophecies,
just as we saw in Iraq. Repeating such an outcome is not
acceptable given the sacrifices that we have made.
Nevertheless, Chairman Dempsey, you stated this week that
pinning down post-2014 troop levels is not a matter of urgency.
Why do you believe we can secure a Bilateral Security Agreement
in a timely manner without a decision on residual force levels?
General Dempsey. Thanks, Chairman. First, let me align
myself with your assessment that it is really the confidence of
the Afghan people, and I would say a subset of that, the
confidence of the Afghan security forces, that really are the
center of gravity now, that which will allow this mission to
succeed and endure. Secondly, let me align myself with your
suggestion that the Bilateral Security Agreement should be
achieved as soon as possible.
The reason I said it wasn't important to nail down the
exact number is that we already have--you know, this is a NATO
mission in which we are the lead nation, clearly, but we are
part of the NATO mission, and NATO has declared that the range
of trainers, advisers, and assisters post-2014 will be between
8,000 and 12,000, and I find that to be a reasonable target
toward which to aim. And so I think we can move ahead with the
Bilateral Support Agreement on that basis because that should
inform the number of bases we might need to retain and what
authorities we might need.
There is also some physics involved. We are going to be at
34,000 in the middle of February, and to get from 34,000 to
8,000-12,000 between then and the end of 2014, we can actually,
we can do the math. So tactically I don't need the exact number
because I have a range available to me, and I know what it
takes to retrograde from 34 K [thousand] down to something
between 8,000 and 12,000.
The Chairman. I know when I spoke to General Allen and when
I spoke to General Dunford they both had talked about the
number 13,600, and then an additional 6,000 NATO troops, which
would give about 20,000, which would allow advisers down to
the, I think battalion level is the way they had it laid out.
So even if we could come out with that range that they could
feel comfortable with in the negotiations, I think that would
be helpful.
General, in February, you testified before this committee,
and I am going to quote, what do you want your military to do?
If you want it to be doing what it is doing today then we can't
give you another dollar out of our--I am adding--out of our
budget.
A year ago you testified, if we have to absorb more cuts we
have got to go back to the drawing board and adjust our
strategy. And that is what the Secretary asked for, I believe,
a couple of weeks ago, commented we are going to have to adjust
the strategy.
What I am saying to you today, and back to your quote, is
that the strategy that we would have had to adjust to would in
my view not meet the needs of the Nation in 2020 because the
world is not getting any more stable. Nevertheless, in the
budget request, the President has proposed taking an additional
$120 billion to $150 billion from the military depending on how
you measure the cut. He also offers no proposal to rectify the
$53 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2013.
General, did the DOD conduct any analysis that offers a
strategic rationale for these cuts? If not, who proposed the
number, and did OMB [Office of Management and Budget] or the
White House ask for this analysis? In light of your previous
testimony, what missions have you recommended that we
eliminate, and what changes to last year's strategy will you
endorse?
General Dempsey. So, sir, the reality of budgets, and I
think you probably know this as painfully as anyone, is they
take about a year to prepare. And so we have been working on
the FY [fiscal year] 2014 budget for a year. Sequestration
kicked in on 1 March. The President's budget backloads in years
beyond the 5-year defense plan, backloads most of the
reductions he proposes. So they don't have an effect--they
don't have a significant effect on this 5-year defense plan
that we have submitted.
Now, that said, this is precisely why the Secretary of
Defense has taken us on the path toward a strategic review,
because as we look at not only the President's budget proposal
but also full sequestration, we have got to understand what
that will do to the force. But the reason that I still stand by
what I said but it doesn't affect this FY 2014 submission is
that most of those cuts are backloaded, I think $6 billion or
so in FY 2014. But that is the reason I can still state with
confidence what I said before.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to drill down on that budget question a little bit
because I think we frequently in this committee act like, you
know, if you cut one penny from defense, you know, it is
unsustainable, unworkable, national security falls completely
apart, and that is obviously ridiculous. Anywhere in government
there is places to cut and there is places to cut. It kind of
depends on where you are cutting and what you are doing. And
the problem we have right now is sequestration. It is across
the board, mindless, deep, done right in the middle of a fiscal
year. So the problems that you have described in your testimony
are being caused by sequestration and by that just snap change
you have to make to existing budgets.
So again I will emphasize for this committee if we want to
help you the best thing we can do is stop sequestration as soon
as possible because it is the classic gift that keeps on
giving, 2014, 2015, 2016. It is going to keep happening unless
we stop it. That is first.
Second, when you look out, as you pointed out, the cuts
that are in the President's budget beyond that are 2017 and
beyond of roughly $119 billion depending on how you calculate
it. But the other problem that we have is there are places
where we can cut in the defense budget that will not affect our
national security that Congress rather consistently stops you
from doing. And I want to just explore two of those: base
closure and personnel costs on the TRICARE fees. As Secretary
Hagel mentioned in his opening remarks, when TRICARE was put in
place, your average service member I think was paying 27
percent of healthcare costs; it is now down to 11. There is
plenty of room, certainly, over the course of the next 10 years
in both of those areas to find savings.
And I guess my question is, if we find savings in those
areas, isn't it true that that doesn't really affect the plans?
And, General Dempsey, you have been very good about saying, if
you are going to give us less money, tell us what less you want
us to do. Here is the strategy, we are going to match to it,
but there are cuts and savings. We have seen dramatic
improvements--and, Mr. Hale, maybe you can comment on this--in
some of our acquisition programs as a result of some of your
initiatives.
So I personally think that to look at our budget over the
course of the next 10 years and say not one more penny can come
out of defense is dead wrong, just as a matter of efficiency. I
mean, forget for the moment the fact that we have got a deficit
that is eating us alive, that we have a massive deficit in
infrastructure in this country, that the implications for taxes
and on and on. You know, clearly money can be cut out of the
defense budget over the course of the next 10 years that won't
impact our national security and that will help our budget
picture.
So just talk a little bit about BRAC and some of those
TRICARE fees and where we might be able to save money in a way
that doesn't impact national security, for whichever one of you
wants to take a stab at it.
Secretary Hagel. Well, thank you, Congressman. I will
respond and then I will ask General Dempsey, and you mentioned
the Comptroller, Mr. Hale. He may want to respond, as well. Let
me address your larger question in the context of that
question.
If, in fact, we are facing the reality that we are facing,
then we are going to have to plan, adjust, review, and take a
pretty hard look at everything. And I think the chairman's
comments in his testimony, matching the resources with the
mission, is a particularly important comment because we can't
put our military and all those who support our military in a
position where they are under-resourced and then there is an
expectation by the people of this country that they are secure
and that we are guaranteeing their security. That is, as the
chairman and Mr. Smith, as you noted in your comments, the
highest order, it is the highest responsibility of a
government, the security of the nation. So it is going to
require some tough choices across the board. And I generally
hit some of those choices in my testimony.
BRAC is an area that we do have to look at, I believe,
because there is not one answer to this. It is everything, it
is every component of our budget, including TRICARE, including
compensation, including benefits. I don't have to engage this
body, this Congress, on the issue of Social Security, our
current entitlement systems. I doubt if there are many people
in this country who don't understand that unless we do
something then actuarially it is not sustainable, the current
programs we have. The same as in the military.
So we have to manage this, but we have to also project as
well as we can with our strategic priorities and our national
interests how do we do this, how are we going to do this? And
with, as you noted, the reality of sequestration, it is not
some theory, it is law, the Congress passed, the President
signed the Budget Act.
Mr. Smith. And as long as we are talking about the budget I
would be remiss if I didn't point out that over the course of
the last 12 to 14 years we have cut taxes by nearly $7 trillion
right into the face of the baby boom generation retiring and
two wars. So revenue is part of this discussion as well, which
I know we have fought about before but I just want to put that
out there for the record.
But can you answer just a straightforward question: Can
money be cut from the defense budget over the course of the
next 10 years that will not negatively impact our ability to
protect national security?
Secretary Hagel. Well, my answer is it is going to be cut.
Mr. Smith. Right, but I am getting at the larger point
here, because when you make those cuts you hear, mostly from
that side, oh, my goodness, we had a strategy, you cut money,
there goes the strategy. But that is, forgive me, ridiculous.
Clearly we can cut money from the defense budget that does not
jeopardize our national security. I am just wondering if you
gentlemen agree with that.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I will respond and ask General
Dempsey. But as you said in your opening comments, I don't know
of an institution that can't find some efficiencies somewhere.
I don't think the Defense Department is any different. But back
to an important point I think that General Dempsey made, you
all deal with every day as the authorizing committee for the
Department of Defense: What are our priorities? What do you
expect? What do the American people expect the Defense
Department to do? What are those missions? How are we going to
resource those missions? Those capabilities are going to be
required to secure our Nation.
There is where you have to start. I think you can find
savings. They have done a very good job over the last few years
of finding those savings in acquisitions and other areas. So,
yes, it is possible, but we don't have any choice.
Mr. Smith. And I am sorry, I want to give other members a
chance to ask questions, we have had a chance, but that more or
less answers my question. If you have something quick that
would be great. If not, I would like to give other members a
chance to get in.
General Dempsey. We are still trying to figure out where to
find the $487 billion. So this process doesn't start from a
stable platform, frankly. Secondly, even with sequestration,
this wouldn't be the deepest cut the military has ever
suffered, but it is by far the steepest.
And so the answer to your question really has to be taken
in the context of what we are faced with now. And we really do
need time to figure out what these cuts would do before they
are imposed.
Mr. Smith. And make no mistake about it, I understand that
sequestration, the way it is done, and like you said, the
dropoff, that is ridiculous. But when you put together a 10-
year plan, you know, you can find savings, I do believe, and I
think you guys have done an admirable job of that in a number
of areas.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think we can find savings all across
government. The point is that we have taken 50 percent of the
savings out of defense when they only account for 18 percent of
the savings. I just think we need to be more rational in the
whole approach.
Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in your speech at NDU [National Defense
University] last week, in talking about your Strategic Choices
and Management Review, you said the goal is not to assume or
tacitly accept that deep cuts, such as those imposed by
sequester, will endure. And then in the next paragraph, though,
you said this exercise is also about matching missions with
resources, which we have had a longstanding discussion on this
committee about what comes first. Do you have a dollar amount
and then you figure out what you can do with it, or do you
figure out what it takes to defend the country and then talk
about what resources are required to do that mission?
And as you know, there is a widespread view that you were
brought into the Pentagon to cut defense. And some of the
people who were concerned about that are pointing to the fact
that the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation folks are
playing a key role in this strategic review, and CAPE doesn't
do strategy. They are more of the green eyeshade people.
So I guess kind of at a broader level, it seems to me that
more than anyone else in the government, the Secretary of
Defense has got to be the one who says this is what it takes to
defend the country, and to fight for that publicly, but also
internally within the administration. And I guess I would just
be interested in how you see your role. Is it to manage the
decline or is it to be explicit about the dangers in the world
and what it takes, and then the more political part of the
government, Congress and the President, have to accept the
consequences of the decisions?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you.
First, I have been in this job 6 weeks. The cuts that we
are talking about occurred long before I ever got here, so I
don't think I had a lot to do with any of the decisions to cut
defense spending.
As to my responsibilities, you have listed accurately some,
and that is I lead, preside over the one institution in this
country that is charged with only one mission, and that is the
security of this country. I have no other job. I report to the
Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. I work
with the Congress as an agent of the executive.
Yes, part of my job is to manage, to see that the
Department of Defense is managed efficiently, effectively,
within the laws that the Congress passes and the directives
that Congress gives us. Yes, also my role is to be an advocate
for our men and women in uniform and the job we do, and I have
done that, I intend to do that, and I don't think I take a back
seat to anyone. Look at my entire life, my career. Now, I have
not done as much as most of you in the Congress here or
certainly as General Dempsey has done, but I have been devoted
my entire life to veterans and military, and I think my record
is pretty clear on that.
So, yes, I am an advocate for this Department. I am an
advocate in the National Security Council, my advice that I
give to the President of the United States. But I also have to
be realistic, Congressman, in that what we are dealing with in
sequestration, as I noted to Mr. Smith, is the law. It is not
debatable for me. This is what is on the books now. This is
what the Congress, last month, the House and Senate budget
resolutions, you passed a budget resolution for 2014 that
essentially is pretty close to what the President's budget is
for 2014. Now, I have to deal with that reality, and I have to
manage and lead with that reality.
Now, your last point about accepting these kinds of things.
As I said, as you noted, in the NDU, whether I accept it or not
is one thing. No, we don't want to accept it. No, we are up
here explaining in our testimony and in interviews, I think
clearly, what sequestration, in some specificity, is doing and
will continue to do to our capabilities and to our readiness
and the hard choices we are going to make, but I can't lead my
institution into a swamp of knife-fighting over protesting what
is already in place.
We will respond honestly and directly. I think the General
has made it pretty clear in his testimony. I think I did. If
you want to go deeper into any programs with the Comptroller,
he will, on how difficult this is going to be.
So I think it is a combination, Congressman, of all the
things that you said, as at least the way I see my job. And I
will also say the President did not instruct me, when he asked
me to consider doing this job and when he asked me to do this
job, to go over and cut the heart out of the Pentagon. That
wasn't his instruction to me, nor in any implication in any
way.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today. I
think there were many of us in the room when Secretary Gates
was before us and he spoke about how the U.S. debt and deficit
was one of his biggest concerns with respect to national
security, and so we are really trying to do what so many across
America believe is correct to do, and that is to get our fiscal
house in order. And I have been one of those people who have
said that everybody has to put something on the table--
entitlements, defense, and so many of the other discretionary
programs that some people like to cut all the time.
And I also remind you that this Congress, you know, because
the supercommittee was not able to come up with a list of cuts,
this is where we are. We actually voted on this. So, Secretary
Hagel, I don't think you were brought in to cut defense. I
think you were brought in to follow the law and to try to best
advise us, if we need to change course of action, how to do
that and why we need to do that.
And I might add that in the 17 years that I have been on
this committee, when I first came to Congress our defense
budget was about a little bit under $300 billion a year, and
that as we went into two wars over a decade, our budget, when
you really looked at all the spending, rose to about $800
billion a year. I don't think there has been a single
department that can say that it has seen that. So now we are
getting out of the second war, we are coming back, and so I
think that there are cuts to be made.
But, Secretary, over the next 5 years, when I look at this
budget, there is a transfer of billions of dollars going to
support nuclear weapon sustainment, to cover the cost of
escalation of existing programs and increased requirements. And
as you know, I sat as the ranking member on Strategic Forces
Subcommittee, so we have looked at this quite a bit, and I
support the increased oversight the Department of Defense is
doing with respect to NNSA's [National Nuclear Security
Administration] costs. But I wonder why I only see the
increases in the nuclear weapons program and I see nothing with
respect to nuclear nonproliferation programs. So that would be
my first question to you.
And the second one is about the 14 add Ground-Based
Interceptors at Alaska. And as we move to do this, as the
Department of Defense moves to do this, what is the
Department's commitment to ensure that the interceptors are
successfully operational and realistically tested before we
deploy them since GBIs [Ground-Based Interceptors] have not
been successfully flight tested since 2008?
Secretary Hagel. Congresswoman, thank you. Let me respond
to the Ground-Based Interceptors question. When I made the
announcement regarding increasing our 30, present 30 GBI
inventory to 44--and as you know, they are located and the new
ones will be located at Fort Greely and Vandenberg--I noted
that we did have a problem in one of the last tests with the
guidance system, the gyro system. And when I was asked the
question, would you put those new interceptors in, still with
some uncertainty until that problem was resolved, I said no.
So we are testing, we will continue to test, and would
certainly not employ any new interceptors anywhere until we
were completely satisfied that they are operational and we have
complete confidence in their ability.
As to the nonproliferation question in the budget, as you
know, DOD does not have responsibility for funding
nonproliferation programs. Our responsibility is funding and
maintaining, securing the stockpile, the nuclear stockpile, and
we will continue to do that. The nonproliferation programs,
which we work with State on specifically, also Energy, and we
participate in that process, but the funding doesn't come from
DOD. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Dempsey. I wonder, Congresswoman, if I could----
Ms. Sanchez. General.
General Dempsey. I don't want to miss the opportunity to
point out that although Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down,
as you say, the world that we are inheriting here is far less
stable than the one that existed when you entered the Congress
of the United States. So I would just ask you not to make any
direct correlation between the end of the conflict in
Afghanistan and where you think our budget should end up.
The Chairman. And also to clarify the record, so that
people don't think that we have had a budget of over $800
billion a year for the last 10 years, we had one budget over
$700 billion.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again, General
Dempsey.
Mr. Secretary, you were saying in your comments what the
American people want. What they want is a smart, efficient
foreign policy. I do not think we have had a foreign policy
that made a hell of a lot of sense, truthfully, going back to
George Bush. I am not being critical of the President, but,
General Dempsey, I talked to John Sopko recently, who is the
Inspector General for Reconstruction, I spoke to Stuart Bowen
two days ago, and yet we continue to spend money in those
countries.
Today I had General Gardner, Jake Gardner was in my office
for an hour and a half. He is of the firm belief that in the
next year to three years there will be a civil war in Iraq. And
I don't know and I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you and General
Dempsey, for goodness sakes, how can America continue to police
the world, keep all these bases overseas open, and then I hear
you, in your testimony, and General Dempsey, and I agree with
you, we are in a financial collapse.
And I saw an Army corporal on Tuesday of this week from my
district who has lost a leg, three fingers, and brain injury.
He has got a wife and four children. He lives in Moyock, North
Carolina. And I don't know, somebody has got to wake up this
country. Yes, we have got to have a strong military. We have
got to have a strong defense. But they deserve better than what
they get from an administration and a Congress that wants to
send them around the world and change the culture of countries
that could care less about freedom.
Now, if they are a threat to us, I will vote every time to
make sure we defend the American people. But I hope, Mr.
Secretary, that you will be a leader with this administration
and say, walk carefully, let's make sure it is justified.
Because we failed in Iraq. It was never justified. And so I
hope that you will bring, as you work through these problems,
and my friends on both sides have certainly articulated and
have agreed, but it is just like how in the world can we
continue to play the game.
I gave this analogy recently in my hometown of Farmville,
North Carolina. Everybody in my neighborhood knows I am broke.
I still drive a fancy car. I call up my neighbors and say, let
me take you to dinner. You know what they are saying? What a
fool. He can't even pay his bills and he wants to take me to
dinner?
Somebody has got to bring some sanity to this program and
rebuild the military, and I will support you, sir, and your
leadership to make it more efficient and streamlined. But
again, we need to change the way that we get involved in these
foreign wars with no end to it. So if you want to comment on
that, you don't really have to, but if you want to, I would
appreciate it
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you, and good to see
you again. You and I have had, over the years, many
conversations about this issue, and I am grateful that you,
over many years, in difficult situations, have spoken up and
made clear your thoughts on what you just talked about and on
other issues.
I would respond this way very briefly. If you recall the
last sentence of my testimony, the last sentence of my
testimony was any decision we make should always be worthy of
the service and sacrifices of our men and women and their
families. I believe that. And I will do that as Secretary of
Defense. The day I think that that is not being done, I will do
everything I can to make sure it is done. But if that day would
ever come, I would have to resign, because it is the essence of
who we are, first of all, as Americans.
To your bigger point, I think we are all in this country,
certainly those responsible for foreign policy and our national
security and all the connecting dynamics that flow into that,
our economics and everything, energy, are now defining, as they
analyze what we went through the last 12 years, and I am not
here to debate that, but it is important we review what we did,
why we did it, where we are. And we have some new opportunities
here to restructure and take that review and hopefully put
America maybe on a path here where we can do more, certainly,
with allies, and it is central to everything we do
Last point I will make is, the comment I made in my
testimony, and General Dempsey noted it, it isn't all bad
sometimes to have these situations when each of us in our
personal lives or government lives are confronted with the
uncontrollables coming down on us, because it forces us to take
inventory and stock. What are we doing? Why are we doing it?
How are we doing it? And that is essentially what is going on.
So there is an opportunity here. I wish it would come in a
different way, but it is what it is. So we have got to be smart
how we use this opportunity to restructure and rethink, and
foreign policy guides everything because it is our national
interest. And I know that is not the purview of this committee,
but you are not disconnected from it. Nor are we, by the way. I
serve on the President's national security team, and there is
no discussion that General Dempsey has or I have with the
President or Secretary of State that does not include all of
these parts. So I understand what you are saying, Congressman,
and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to each of you for your service to our country.
Secretary Hagel, I have three questions, I will just go
straight to them. If you can answer them yes or no and then if
you need an explanation.
First of all, with possible delays in the F-35 procurement,
do you believe that the Navy and the Air Force have budgeted
sufficient funds to maintain the necessary strike fighter
inventory to meet the national military requirements, the
National Military Strategy requirements?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, I do.
Mr. McIntyre. With regard to the National Guard, in your
opinion, given the current restrained budget atmosphere we know
we are in, can we continue to adequately resource and equip the
National Guard and Reserve Component as an operational force or
do you feel like you are going to be in a position that you
have to revert back to the Strategic Reserve model?
Secretary Hagel. Well, the way I would answer it, I think
the National Guard and Reserves are key components of our
military force structure and will continue to be, and I think
that has become quite obvious the last few years. And without
going into a long oration of this, and Marty Dempsey can handle
it in a lot more depth than I can, I don't think we could have
the projected force structure that we now have counting on the
assets we have and adequately managing those assets without a
strong National Guard and Reserves, if for no other reason than
the professionalization that has occurred in our Reserve and
National Guard Components over the last 12 years, I think, has
been probably historic. We now have a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff who sits there who is a National Guard
representative. I think that tells you something. So I am a
strong supporter of our National Guard and Reserves.
Mr. McIntyre. And my third question is, it is two-part, but
to the extent you can clarify if you need to, do North Korea
and Iran currently possess the capability to reach the United
States with long-range missiles? One, in general, perhaps a
conventional warhead; secondly, with a WMD [weapon of mass
destruction] warhead?
Secretary Hagel. I want to be careful with this answer
because it might imply some intelligence here. But I don't
believe that neither of those countries has that capacity right
now. Now, does that mean that they won't have it or they can't
have it or they are not working on it? No. And that is why this
is a very dangerous situation.
I would also add, and I will ask General Dempsey for his
thoughts, but this country is capable of dealing with any
threat and any action by any country, including Iran or North
Korea.
I don't know, General Dempsey?
General Dempsey. I have nothing to add.
Mr. McIntyre. So your answer is no to both questions, they
do not possess the capability to reach the U.S. with long-range
missiles even in a conventional warhead as well as a WMD
warhead?
Secretary Hagel. Yes. But again, we have to always be
mindful of uncertainty of anything, and you can't accept what
you are never, ever, ever sure of. Right now I don't think we
believe they have that capacity, but I have qualified that
answer as I did.
Mr. McIntyre. In preparation, just in case. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am going to duplicate the request of my
good friend from North Carolina and ask that you as be succinct
as possible in your answers because, like him, I only have 5
minutes.
I believe the impact of this administration's fiscal cuts
to our national security are unwise and will have long-lasting
repercussions, but I also believe this administration's attacks
on faith, religious freedom, and religious liberty in our
military are also unwise and will have long-lasting
repercussions. From the Pentagon we had an order issued that
you don't have a copy of, but I am sure you are probably
familiar with, that our commanders can no longer even inform
those under his or her command of approved programs in the
chaplain's office.
In addition, we have from the Pentagon an order where a
patch from the Air Force had to be removed, and we were told
from the liaison's office that it was because the legal
department had said you couldn't use ``God'' even if it was in
a nonreligious context.
We have here, of course, approval that was given by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense to allow individuals to march in
uniform in a San Diego gay pride parade, which was a political
parade, using their uniforms. And then we have an order by the
Department of the Navy prohibiting Bibles from being used in
Walter Reed hospital. And in addition to that--and these are
just a few of the items because I only have 5 minutes, and as I
am sure you are familiar, recently we have had a training
program, which I have given you a copy of, where we list
evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Mormons in the same
category of religious extremism as we do Al Qaeda.
Now, because of those kind of things, and I don't expect
you to know all of those things or keep your hands on all of
them, but because of those, we had a provision that was put in
the National Defense Authorization Act last year that was
Section 533 for the protection of rights of conscience of
members of the Armed Forces and chaplains. Particularly it said
that our servicepeople couldn't have their beliefs on the basis
of adverse--they couldn't have any adverse personal action,
discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or
assignment based on their religious beliefs, and also it said
that our chaplains, that no member of the Armed Forces could
require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony
that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or
religious beliefs of the chaplain or discriminate or take any
adverse personnel action against the chaplain, including denial
of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment on the basis
of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with the requirement
prohibited by paragraph 1.
And my question to you, Mr. Secretary, because this is a
big issue as we get statement after statement sent to us almost
on a weekly basis about these issues, we had 75 percent of the
Members of the House, 85 percent of the Senate, 350 Members of
the House, 81 members of the Senate who voted for that
authorization bill with that provision in it because they
thought it was necessary, that it was well advised. Do you
believe that those rights and the provisions of Section 533 are
necessary and well advised?
Secretary Hagel. Well, first, Congressman, I don't know
about all the specifics of the information that you presented.
I will get it and I will find out about it and I will get back
to you on it, first.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 113.]
Secretary Hagel. Second, obviously we will comply with all
the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] directives.
Protection of religious rights is pretty fundamental to this
country.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Secretary, my time is running out. My only
question is, do you think that provision is a necessary
provision and well advised? Just yes or no.
Secretary Hagel. Well, it is in the NDAA, right?
Mr. Forbes. But I am asking you if you feel it was
necessary and well advised.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I haven't seen it, so if you can
give me a sentence of it again.
Mr. Forbes. Well, I will try to follow up. So then I take
it, let me just ask you also to come back to me and let me know
the status of the regulations that are supposed to be passed to
ensure that that is done, and I take it you are not aware of
those today or that status?
Secretary Hagel. Well, no. And unless I had it in front of
me, I don't know. I am well aware of the NDAA directives and
all the different directives----
Mr. Forbes. Then the final thing I would ask in the last 20
seconds I have is, I just can't understand why the Department
is issuing orders prohibiting people in the chain of command
from talking about chaplains' programs supporting faith but
they are not prohibiting people in the chain of command from
making anti-faith statements and doing anti-faith training. And
I hope you will just take that into consideration and get back
to us because this seems to be a growing problem, not one that
is heading in the right curve direction.
Secretary Hagel. Well, that should not be happening, and I
could say that without seeing anything, and I will get back to
you and I will find out about it. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 113.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, General, Mr. Hale, thank you for your
service to our country and please convey to the men and women
you represent how proud we are of them and the great job that
they do for our country every day.
It is my understanding, Mr. Secretary, that because of
sequestration, that nine fighter squadrons and three bomber
squadrons have been grounded. Is that correct?
Secretary Hagel. I think nine is the accurate number, but--
--
General Dempsey. It is.
Secretary Hagel. It is? It is the accurate number.
Mr. Andrews. And if the Congress were able to reach an
agreement where we could swap out these sequester cuts for some
other cuts in various parts of the budget and perhaps have some
revenue in there as well, if the sequester were not in effect
today, would those planes be flying?
Secretary Hagel. I assume that they would be, yes.
Mr. Andrews. General, what are the consequences, both in
terms of readiness and in terms of our technical capability, of
those airplanes not flying?
General Dempsey. Well, fundamentally, Congressman, what we
are doing is we are meeting near-term requirements at the
expense of downstream readiness. I think this is March, or it
is April. Basketball season just ended. You got 12 players on a
team. You teach them individual skills. Then you bring them
together as a team and you run team drills, then you scrimmage,
and eventually you get into the season. What we are doing right
now is we are not scrimmaging and we are limiting the number of
collective drills and focusing on individual skills because
that is where the budget situation has taken us.
Mr. Andrews. If the Congress doesn't----
General Dempsey. They won't be ready to play.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. If the Congress doesn't reach the
kind of agreement that I just talked about and we have year two
or the first full year of sequestration, which it would be,
what kind of other changes would you have to make in the
defense posture of the country?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we will have to continue to
effectively cut into our readiness, and the grounding of wings
is a good example of that. We are doing the same thing in the
Navy, not sailing, and some of our ships remain docked. Our
training of our soldiers. So it is across the board. It isn't
just one service.
Mr. Andrews. I noticed that in the President's budget
proposal that he does propose the replacement of sequestration.
He also suggests that there still would be $150 billion in cuts
in defense, not the $550 billion or so that we have otherwise.
What kinds of things would you do in the defense budget to hit
the $150 billion target that is in the President's budget?
Secretary Hagel. Well, first, that is why, one of the
reasons I directed the strategic priorities and management
review, to ask those kind of questions of our Chiefs and of our
combatant commanders and other leaders in the Defense
Department. What are those options? That is first. But, if you
just look at the numbers, $550 billion over 10 years versus
$150 billion over 10 years, I know what side I will on that if
I am looking for resources for our Department.
The other part of that is the President's $150 billion in
savings through Department of Defense comes mostly at the back
end of that 10 years.
Mr. Andrews. So there will be time to transition into
those----
Secretary Hagel. That is exactly right. It gives us time,
as the General noted in his comments, time, flexibility, and
certainty.
Mr. Andrews. I do not mean this as a rhetorical question. I
mean it as a real question, that my assumption is we will have
significantly fewer troops in Afghanistan on September 30th of
2014 than we will on September 30th of 2013. Is that right?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, we are continuing to draw down and--
--
Mr. Andrews. Then why is the OCO account, the overseas
account, the request, $87.2 billion for the present fiscal year
and $88.5 for the 2014 fiscal year? If we are having that size
drawdown, why is that not reflected in the reduction in an OCO
request?
Secretary Hagel. Well, first, it is a placeholder. As I
said in my testimony, we have not sent the OCO budget up yet.
We will be doing that shortly. So the $88 billion that you
refer to is placeholder in the budget, knowing that we will be
coming back with something probably in that range, I don't
know. Mr. Hale may want to----
Mr. Andrews. But why wouldn't it be lower if the number of
troops is significantly lower?
Secretary Hagel. Well, because we have to now bring them
out in large numbers. That means equipment. We have got
billions of dollars of equipment in Afghanistan that we have to
get out. It is very dangerous. We have only got two ways out,
other than fly everything out. That is prohibitive. We are
flying things out now. You know the southern route is down
through Pakistan, out through Karachi port. You know what is
happening in Pakistan.
Mr. Andrews. We do
Secretary Hagel. Up through the north, bad roads,
variables, different countries. So that expense of just getting
our troops out on a timely basis and the materiel that goes
with it is costing us a lot of money.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Also we have been chewing up equipment for 10
years. There is no reset, which we are going to have to be
facing.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
Secretary Hagel, I was happy to join with nearly 50 of my
colleagues, bipartisan, a unique situation of bipartisan
concern, and that is in regards to the Department of Defense
creating a Distinguished Warfare Medal, DWM, which we
appreciate, to recognize extraordinary service of our
personnel. But unfortunately there is an issue of precedence in
that the DWM was placed above the Bronze Star and Purple Heart
in order of precedence. Have you made a determination of how to
address this? And this is a great concern to veterans and
military families.
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. It is a concern to
me. It is a concern to any veteran, anybody in the military.
But to just get straight to the answer to your question, you
know I asked the Chiefs and the Secretaries to go back and take
another look. I will make a decision on this early next week
and I will make that announcement on where I think we should go
next on this.
Mr. Wilson. As a fellow veteran, I appreciate you looking
into that, and it is important.
Additionally, in regard to the military healthcare system,
there is a proposal to increase TRICARE fees again, in light of
the fact that in the defense health programs there has been, in
the last two years, a surplus of $500 million to $709 million,
and so that there has been a surplus. Additionally, it has been
claimed that the healthcare costs are eating the budget alive,
when in fact it is an increase of less than 1 percent in fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, and then there has actually
been a decrease of $650 million in private sector costs.
And my concern is that we know this is a great program,
TRICARE, people are very satisfied, military families
appreciate this benefit. Commitments have been made to our
veterans and to military families. Why would we be increasing
the fees when in fact the program is working well?
Secretary Hagel. Thank you. The program is working well,
and as I noted in my testimony, and Mr. Hale is obviously quite
conversant on this, but we have seen those costs go down, and I
mentioned this in my testimony, but as more and more people
come onto that system and more demand and the sustainability,
which we have to look at, how are we going to continue to
commit and pay for those and fulfill those commitments, as we
have analyzed this in some detail, we think it would be wise,
and these are not significant increases, by the way, but be
wise to propose these increases in fees.
Now, recognizing this is the beginning of debate, this is
the beginning, as it should be, laid out and let's look at
everything on it, on this issue. But these are not significant
increases. We are looking at the long-term sustainability. It
is a good program, it has worked, and that is not an issue. But
the issue of the affordability of the program, I don't know,
let me ask, if you want, the Comptroller to add.
Secretary Hale. May I just briefly. Mr. Wilson, there is
about a billion dollars of savings associated with TRICARE fees
and the copays in the fiscal 2014 budget. If we don't do it, we
will have to take that out of readiness or modernization. I
think it was the strong feeling of the Secretary and the Joint
Chiefs that the balance should be----
Voice. Mr. Chairman, could he speak more in the microphone,
please?
Secretary Hale. I am sorry. We save about a billion dollars
from the TRICARE fees and copays. If we don't do that, we will
have to take that money out of readiness or modernization, and
I think it is the strong feeling of the Secretary and the
Chiefs and the Chairman that the right thing to do is a
balanced approach to meeting our defense needs with some modest
increases in fees.
Mr. Wilson. But the experience is very clear that there are
not increases of any significant amount, less than 1 percent.
And, Mr. Secretary, the fee increases have been, I am not sure
what the new ones are, were an increase of 365 percent. And so
it was significant to the persons who are in the program.
And I hope we look at the experience because I know it was
not projected that the healthcare costs would go down. That was
a pleasant surprise. And so I would rather that we look at it,
the pleasant surprise, and be positive. And I just hope that
you all look at that. The fee increases do impact military
families. Thank you, and I appreciate your time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you. And
General Dempsey and Secretary Hale, thank you for being with us
as well.
Secretary Hale, I understand that the Department of Defense
has directed the services to restart tuition assistance to
service members as of April 9th, obviously of this year, and I
certainly support the tuition assistance, very, very much
support education for our troops' continuing education, and yet
I understand that this is really going to put some pressure on
our services to try and go along with this essentially because
it means, in many cases, they have spent some of those dollars,
so they are going to have to look for other areas in which to
backfill, essentially, those dollars as well. And so I wonder
if you could comment on that, number one, is that correct?
And also, I think it is a lesson for all of us because we
certainly, I think, go on record supporting a change when it
comes about. Certainly when we look at the budgets, often the
Pentagon requests one thing and we come back and do something
different. You understand that, certainly, Mr. Secretary. How
are we doing with that right now and is this not a problem for
the services because they have to find the dollars in order to
fund not just an unlimited amount of tuition assistance going
forward from this point?
Secretary Hagel. Congresswoman, thank you. Let me respond,
and then I am going to ask the Chairman for a specific response
because you noted in your question some of the services are
struggling with this more than others, and that is right.
First, we are going to follow, we are following the
directive of the NDAA and what the appropriations bill
instructed us to do. You are correct that prior to that we had
to make some tough choices, each of the services, on where they
were going to prioritize their funds. As I noted in my opening
comments, readiness, protecting the warfighter, where our most
important assignments are. Obviously, when you are at war in a
nation, those are priorities, and other priorities. So we had
to balance those priorities with those resources. And so the
services were in a tough spot on this. Each service, as you
know, has a little different standard on this.
Mrs. Davis. Right.
Secretary Hagel. So, we are going to fulfill that
commitment, but let me now ask the Chairman because he will
talk now more directly----
Mrs. Davis. I think it is important to know where those
dollars are coming from for each of the services.
General Dempsey. Yeah, thanks, Congresswoman. It actually
goes back to actually what Congressman Wilson talked about. You
know, I find myself often in the difficult position of standing
in front of soldiers and sailors, airmen, marines, and their
families and explaining why, as we look to absorb cuts of
whatever magnitude, we have to include all of the various
factors of this giant enterprise in order to keep the force in
balance. So some 1 individual, 2, 10, 25, 25,000 might be on my
blog complaining about the fact that we have had to suspend
tuition assistance or, you know, revise the program. But the
answer is, unless we look across the board at all the levers we
have to pull, whether it is infrastructure, healthcare, paid
compensation, tuition assistance, we will have an
extraordinarily well compensated force that will be sitting at
Fort Hood, Texas, or at Camp Lejeune unable to train and
therefore we will be putting them at risk. I tell the young men
and women, you know, if this is an inconvenience to you, what
would really be dangerous to you is if we don't keep this thing
in equilibrium. We have got to look at everything.
Mrs. Davis. Yeah. I think my concern is whether or not we
are actually cutting into that, whether we are cutting into
readiness by virtue of having an unlimited stream of money in
order to do this, something that we all would support but
nevertheless in this situation----
General Dempsey. Sure. The answer is yes, but it is not
uniquely because of tuition assistance. Frankly, tuition
assistance was about $200 million for the rest of this fiscal
year, which may sound like an inconsequential amount of money
in the context of a $525 billion budget. The problem is that is
probably three or four brigade training exercises at Fort
Irwin, California.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Mr. Hale, did you want to comment on that
at all? Because I am----
Secretary Hale. No, I think the Secretary and Chairman said
it right. We are complying with the law, what we felt was the
intent of the law on the appropriations bill, and it is causing
some difficult decisions.
Mrs. Davis. All right. Thank you. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After Congressman
Forbes' question, as one of the extremists in this body, Mr.
Secretary, I would like to welcome you here, and it is good to
have you finally on the correct side of Capitol Hill.
I have got about five questions. I am going to get them all
through come hell or high water. So the first one deals with a
request that was in your budget. It appears that in the Air
Force budget, that roughly $1.4 million is put in there to
conduct an environmental impact study regarding the ICBM
[inter-continental ballistic missile] missile wing. I
understand this was inserted in the budget proposal by your
office and not by that of Air Force leadership. So I guess
three questions dealing with it. Is that a correct statement?
Number two, what is the object of this EIS [Environmental
Impact Statement] effort? And number three, if it is to
eventually close down an ICBM wing or squadron, which one is
being studied for potential closure?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I just asked the Comptroller, first
of all, Congressman, if it is a correct statement and what that
was about. I am going to ask him to answer the question because
it is correct.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Secretary Hagel. And what he just reminded me of is a
missile wing is a component of the larger context here. So let
me ask Mr. Hale to respond.
Secretary Hale. I honestly don't remember who put it in. I
will find out for you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 107.]
Secretary Hale. We are studying all three wings,
environmental impact statement on all three of them.
Mr. Bishop. And what is the purpose for that EIS effort?
Secretary Hale. It is part of the all missions and all
activities are on the table. We need to understand what the
environmental impacts would be of any decisions that we make
with regard to ICBMs.
Mr. Bishop. And you are dealing with all ICBM wings and
squadrons?
Secretary Hale. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let me ask the second phase of the
questions, and it goes to the FAA's [Federal Aviation
Administration] action recently. The FAA closed a number of
contract towers around the country far in excess of what they
needed to meet their sequestration goal. A few of those
contract towers, though, are very near to Air Force bases. I
have one at Ogden-Hinckley Air Force, which is less than three
miles from Hill. Congressman Fleming has one at Barksdale, same
situation.
So I guess the two questions I have is, number one, did FAA
contact the Defense Department in any way to coordinate what
they were doing when they made this decision to close these
towers down? And since it also--go ahead and answer that one if
you want to.
Secretary Hagel. It is a quick answer. I don't know.
Mr. Bishop. All right. If you could find out, I would be
appreciative.
Secretary Hagel. We will find out and get back to you. So
thank you.
Mr. Bishop. It is just that in past, for example, when NASA
[National Aeronautics and Space Administration] decided to
change their program constellation, it had a negative impact on
what it cost the military to do missile defense and there had
been no coordination between those two agencies. They had not
talked. So I don't know if there is--I would like to know if
there has been any contact.
But since these areas now overlap as far as the airspace,
to go to Hill, you have to go over the Ogden airport airspace,
potential of collision, potential of pilot safety, potential of
impact on mission readiness or training, testing activity. Do
you consider this to be a problem in these few situations, and
if so, what are you doing about it?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I understand exactly your point, and
for the reasons you mentioned, and I, as I said, will find out
and get better acquainted with it. It seems to me, based on
what you said, it could be a potential problem. So beyond that
I just would have to find out enough information, starting with
your questions, did they contact us, what did we say, what are
the vulnerabilities, and I will get back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 107.]
Mr. Bishop. So on both that, this is potential and not a
whole lot of towers and bases are in--but there are a couple of
which I know, there may be a few others. That, as well as the
efforts for the EIS statement purpose, I would appreciate that
kind of return.
And I will give you back a minute. This is one of the few
times I haven't used it all.
Secretary Hagel. I just mentioned----
Mr. Bishop. I have just used it all.
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you for your comments
welcoming me on the right side of the Capitol. I actually
started a career after Vietnam on this side of the Capitol in
1971 as chief of staff to a Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. So, why did you go over to the dark side?
Secretary Hagel. I am still going to confession.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
The Chairman. You have time, you could ask a question about
why we don't do an environmental impact on the result of
somebody hitting us with a missile?
Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey and Secretary Hale, I
want to thank you all for appearing today and for your
testimony. And in particular, Secretary Hagel, I want to
congratulate you on your confirmation. I certainly look forward
to working with you as we navigate some very challenging times.
I would like to try to get in two questions, one primarily
on cyber and the other one on directed energy. Let me start,
first of all, with Secretary Hagel. In your first formal policy
address at the National Defense University on April 3, 2013,
you asserted that the cyber threat that our Nation faces today
is a security challenge with potential adversaries seeking the
ability to strike at America's security, energy, and economic
and critical infrastructure.
As you may know, I spend quite a bit of time on this. It is
a particular interest of mine, dealing with cyberspace and how
we better protect the Nation in cyberspace. Looking at the
fiscal year 2014 budget, are we resourcing adequately in order
to operate within the cyber domain and ensure our natural
interests in cyberspace are protected? And does the Department
require additional authorities in order to educate, attract,
and retain the very best cyber operators?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you, and I appreciate
your comments.
Cyber is one of the areas that we have actually proposed
increases in the budget, so I think that begins with some
understanding, at least on our side, of the threats and
responsibilities we have in this domain, and I think they are
going to continue to multiply. I do know of your longstanding
involvement in this area, and I look forward to working with
you.
We continue to enhance our role in this effort, DOD's. As
you know, we are not the only agency that has some
responsibility here. The Department of Homeland Security has a
lot of authority, as you know, on this. We are working very
closely on interagency groups as we connect better, and we need
more of that connection on lines of authority, definitions of
responsibility.
As you know, our two primary resources at NSA [National
Security Agency] and Cyber Command are both critical components
of our security enterprise. We spend a lot of time on this and
we are going to continue to spend a lot of time on it. It is I
think overall as a big a threat to this country, cyber attacks,
as any one threat.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. Let me also turn to the issue of
directed energy, and if we have time, maybe I will come to some
other cyber. But first of all, I want to congratulate the Navy,
just recently very successful test of a laser, shipboard laser
shot down a drone. I see this directed energy as a game-
changing technology, both for standoff as well as for ship
defense, operating the littorals, if necessary, ballistic
missile defense.
About a year and a half ago, the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessment came out with a report that said that
directed energy is maturing at a faster pace than what many had
realized. Can you tell me where the Department stands right now
on getting this stuff out of the labs and where practicable
deploying this type of technology?
Secretary Hagel. Yes. As you have noted, we have a high
priority on this, and you have just recited a couple of
examples. We have a platform ship that is involved in some of
this testing right now. So we will continue to be very focused,
very engaged, and we will assure the prioritization of the
resources we need to continue to carry it out.
Mr. Langevin. And let me also, maybe expanding on it a
little bit, touching on a couple of operational aspects of
anti-access and area denial environments, such battlespace
limitations are likely to place a premium again on particular
assets, technologies and competencies, particularly in the
Asia-Pacific region where there is a significant proliferation
of submarines, advanced tactical fighters and ballistic
missiles, as well as many electronic warfare challenges.
General Dempsey, perhaps can you speak to how the
Department is resourcing, training, and investing in research
and development in order to meet those challenges, particularly
with regards to directed energy, undersea warfare, and advanced
tactics, technique and procedures?
The Chairman. General.
General Dempsey. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I would ask
if you could please handle that one for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 114.]
The Chairman. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, thank you for
being here. I greatly appreciate your dedication, and we really
appreciate this dialogue today. I want to start by thanking
both of you for your dedication on the issue of sexual assault
in the military. General Dempsey, you have had exemplary
dedication to this issue, and we appreciate your voice as we
have looked to both try to change the culture of the military
and look at the rules and regulations that need change.
Secretary Hagel, thank you for your position on addressing
Article 60 after we had the incident of General Franklin
overturning a conviction of sexual assault.
My co-chair of the Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, Niki
Tsongas, and myself recently received a presentation from the
Air Force, and we appreciate their dedication on this issue.
We look forward to working with you on the language for
that because there are a number of considerations, which I know
you referenced in your letter. We have some additional issues
that we think that should be addressed. So my co-chair, Niki
Tsongas, and I will be working with both of you on that as we
proceed to the NDAA.
On sequestration, I wanted to relate that General
Wolfenbarger, the commander of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
related her concern that so many times in our discussion of the
effects of sequestration we miss the personal effects that this
is having on the workforce, both our men and women in uniform
and our civilian workforce. In my community, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, 13,000 people are facing furloughs, which, you
know, those are the people who get up every day to protect our
national security. So I want you to please pass on that Members
of Congress are very concerned about the personal effects of
people who have kids in college, vacations that are going to be
postponed, other expenses, and real life hardships that this is
going to result in.
I have a question for Secretary Hagel and a question for
General Dempsey. My first to Secretary Hagel is about our
ability to maintain responding to two conflicts, and my
question to General Dempsey will be about missile defense and
our ability to do look-shoot-look as we look to Iran.
Secretary Hagel, Secretary Panetta, just as he was about
ready to leave, was at the 2012 Munich Security Conference and
made this statement: ``We will ensure that we can quickly
confront and defeat aggression from any adversary any time, any
place. It is essential that we have the capability to deal with
more than one adversary at a time, and I believe we have shaped
a force that will give us that capability.''
We have, coming up in NATO, a joint training exercise that
is currently scheduled in Poland. That is obviously very
important to Members of Congress because we know how sensitive
our relationship is with Poland, as the administration has
walked away from its commitment to missile defense. We are
going to be watching and certainly hoping that this has the
full support of the Department of Defense that this joint
exercise in NATO and Poland take place.
But my concern is, obviously, our ability, as we look at
sequestration and defense cuts, to give our allies the
assurance that we can do two conflicts. With the tilt to the
Pacific, NATO is obviously nervous. And I would like, Mr.
Secretary, your comments on that.
And then, General Dempsey, General Kehler has said of his
concern of our ability to do look-shoot-look: I think we are
well behind the ball as we look to North Korea and the missile
defense presence that we should have there. As we look to the
rise of Iran, this committee has placed in the last NDAA
language for an East Coast site that would augment our missiles
in Alaska and give us that shoot-look-shoot. I would like your
thoughts, General Dempsey, on the--you know, we look at
Commander Jacoby, and he said, you know, an East Coast site
would give us that increased battlespace--on your thoughts on
the shoot-look-shoot doctrine and opportunity.
Secretary Hagel.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you, Congressman. On NATO and those
exercises, and our complete full support of our continued
alliance and relationships, absolutely we are committed and
will stay committed to those exercises, to our allies, to the
entire framework, the objective, the purpose of NATO. I don't
know if you are aware, but last 4 years I have been chairman of
the Atlantic Council, and I have given many speeches on this
specific issue all over the country, all over the world. The
critical relationship that we have with NATO, I don't believe
there certainly not a collective security arrangement in the
world like it, hasn't been. But it is bigger than just a
security arrangement. It is the one anchor that secures
interests based on human rights, based on the same values of
each of the 28 members, and that is a pretty significant
starting point. And it can't fix every problem and it shouldn't
be expected to. But to maintain and to build and strengthen
that alliance is absolutely critical to our interest, and it
will certainly be reflected and is reflected in current and
forward relationships.
On your comment about walking away from the relationship
with the Poland missile defense issue, let me just comment on
that. We talked to the Poles and our NATO allies about the
decisions we made on the ground-based initiative, and I think
you know and we are continuing to stay committed, they know
this, the President said this, to that relationship on the
European Phased Adaptive Approach. One through three, we are
looking at four for a lot of reasons. There is some of that
phase four that we think is too expensive and probably doesn't
do the job. We are looking at that. The Poles are in compliance
with that, with us, they agree. We are not taking anything out
of there. We are continuing to fulfill the commitments in
Poland with the Poles, as well as to NATO. So I just wanted to
give you my take on that, Congressman.
The Chairman. If you have anything further on that, if you
can take it for the record.
Mr. Turner. If you could let me provide for the record your
responses on the East Coast site, because you know that,
obviously, since you have taken out phase four, which was the
only portion that would protect the----
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 107.]
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Turner. That could be important.
The Chairman. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, I want to thank the Secretary and the Department
for putting in the budget request an investment at NAS [Naval
Air Station] Whidbey Island for the P-8A hangar and hangar
modernization as we are moving P-8As there to replace the P3s.
The second point I would want to make is that as we are
looking at the budget, near term and long term, something that
tends to be a feast or famine proposition is the investment we
make in electronic warfare. And if history is a guide, we are
headed into famine on electronic warfare, and I hope that we
can break that cycle in the near term and long term.
But to a few questions here for the Secretary. The
President has made clear that securing and removing vulnerable
fissile material worldwide is a top priority. I know
Representative Sanchez asked a related question. But the DOD in
a memorandum of understanding with NNSA agreed to transfer
dollars over to NNSA over several years to support nuclear
weapons programs, and these funds are not available to support
nonproliferation programs and securing and removing vulnerable
fissile material.
So why is that the case? We have one priority, it has been
clear from the President, and DOD signed an MOU [Memorandum of
Understanding] with NNSA to do something the opposite.
Secretary Hagel. As I addressed part of that question
previously, as you noted----
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Secretary Hagel [continuing]. Our specific responsibility,
DOD's, with nuclear weapons is deterrence. The nonproliferation
piece, as you know, has always resided in other agencies,
specifically State. Now, we are part of that, we cooperate with
that, START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] treaty issues and
so on. We participate in that, but we don't have responsibility
for that.
As we are looking at all these relationships, and in
particular the agency relationship you are talking about, it is
not in the budget because that is not our budget line
responsibility.
Mr. Larsen. I guess I would just note that--and we are
looking at nonproliferation and nuclear weapons--that we not
revert to stovepiping how we approach those issues when it
comes to nonproliferation writ large, which includes our
nuclear weapons program, but also includes investment in actual
specific nonproliferation programs. And I would just caution us
not to revert to stovepipes like we used to have many years
before I got here.
Secretary Hagel. Well, thank you. The Comptroller wanted to
also add something.
Mr. Larsen. If he can be very quick.
Secretary Hale. I will. This is a national program, as you
said. We don't have primary funding responsibility. We do
provide some funding through the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Agency, which would be about $500 million. Some of that goes
for nuclear nonproliferation in support of other agency
efforts.
Mr. Larsen. Okay. Second question is, last year we had your
predecessor, Mr. Panetta, and General Shinseki here for the
first time ever to testify jointly on DOD and VA [Department of
Veterans Affairs] cooperation. Have you made a commitment yet
that you are going to continue the efforts that Mr. Panetta put
forward to continue that cooperation with the VA, especially
when it comes to electronic healthcare records and the transfer
of those records and tracking these folks from the time they
enter your service to the time they get to the VA and well
beyond?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, we are committed to continue to work
with the VA. I just spoke with Secretary Shinseki yesterday. We
have met a couple of times since I have been at DOD. We have
talked many times on the phone, at a number of meetings. We
have the responsibility in DOD. We produce the veterans. And we
are not near where we should be. But yes, absolutely, we will
stay committed and we will work as a partner and do everything
we can to fulfill a seamless network.
Mr. Larsen. Good. We need a seamless network, and I think
the Department really needs to be sure that the folks working
underneath you are stepping up to that commitment as well.
Secretary Hagel. One of the first things I did when I got
over there was to get into this. I was deputy administrator of
the Veterans Administration in 1981 and 1982. Had a little
something to do with getting their system on track.
Mr. Larsen. I have got to launch one more question at you.
Secretary Hagel. Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Larsen. Are you in favor of closing Gitmo [Guantanamo]?
And do you believe that you have any authority to transfer any
detainee for any reason, whether that is judicial, medical, or
military?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I support the President's position
on Gitmo. The reality is that we have responsibility for Gitmo
now. There are 166 prisoners there now. That is where we are.
So, as Secretary of Defense, I have to assure the security of
that facility and all of the responsibilities that go with that
detention facility, including the people that we have down
there. And so that is my responsibility.
Mr. Larsen. Just for the record, the answer to the second
question, if he believes he has any authority to transfer for
any reason, judicial, medical, or military?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 107.]
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will hear now, Mr. Kline, we will turn to
you, and then at the end of your questioning we will take a 5-
minute recess. Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentlemen for being here. I have got a question
that is a little bit off of the budget and so I don't want to
be guilty of ambushing any of you with this, but I just want to
talk for just a minute and then ask a question about the
Medical Evaluation Board backlog. And I don't know if this is
something that you are on top of, and so of course I will be
happy to take the answer for the record.
But we have just got an awful problem out there that is
affecting our soldiers. The Minnesota National Guard, for
example, now has 168 of these Medical Evaluation Board cases
pending. The National Guard Bureau Surgeon's Office reports
5,269 open cases, and the average adjudication time--the
average adjudication time for Minnesota cases is currently 4\1/
2\ years from the date of injury, and that is about the
national average. It is an awful situation. And for the Reserve
Component, for the Guard these soldiers have to travel to a
base where there is an Active Duty surgeon, doctor, medical
doctor, that can make the determination. It is a blow to
morale, it is incredible that we have allowed this system to
deteriorate in this way.
And so my question is, what are you doing about it, and
what can we do to help if you need legislation? And again I
will be happy to take it for the record, but I don't want to
let it slip by. It is something that we have to address. And I
am astonished that it could have gotten to this point where you
have these soldiers who are being almost literally jerked
around as they have to travel sometimes halfway across the
country to go and be evaluated and then come back and then have
to turn around and go back again and take years to get the
question answered. And this affects, of course, their ability
to be retained, and it is an important part of the process.
On another subject, because we are in an awful budget
pinch, which we have talked about and we have seen the
President's budget and your comments about it, I wonder if you,
that the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] or the Joint
Chiefs, so either one of you have taken a serious look at the
possibility of consolidating any part or all of the 16 DOD
agencies or looked at the possibility of combining combatant
commands like NORTHCOM [Northern Command], SOUTHCOM [Southern
Command], EUCOM [European Command], AFRICOM [Africa Command].
These commands, I understand, were important. We created
AFRICOM at a time of a lot of money and a lot of troops, the
bizarre position of not even having a headquarters in Africa.
And these headquarters take not only four-star generals, but
then the appropriate number of lesser generals and SESes
[Senior Executive Service] and staff, and then everybody has to
have their own intelligence center. And it just seems to me
that now is the time to look at that, and I would be interested
in any thoughts that either of you have about that possibility.
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. On your first
question, that is intolerable, that is unacceptable. I was not
aware of the specifics that you mentioned. I will become aware
of them, we will get back to you, we will give you a complete
answer and what we are doing about it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 116.]
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
Secretary Hagel. So on the second question, I am not aware
of any serious consideration of consolidation of commands or
any of those structures. Now, I am going to ask General Dempsey
to respond.
But I would say that as we get deeper into the strategic
priorities and management review, I don't know whether your
specific questions would be addressed exactly the way you
addressed them, merging some of the combatant commands, and
nine combatant commands we have now. But certainly pieces of
those will be reviewed in this review.
So, let me now not use any more of your time with me on
this because the Chairman will have a better answer.
General Dempsey. We are looking at the fourth estate, which
is the defense support agencies, and we are also looking at the
combatant commands, and not only them but the component
commands that reside under them. We are looking at the
architecture in its entirety.
Mr. Kline. Thank you. And we would, of course, appreciate
you sharing how you are doing on that with the committee as we
go forward. I just think now is the time to do it. And so I
appreciate the answer from both of you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And, Mr. Secretary, when you respond to the gentleman,
could you also give that to the committee? Because I think all
of us are having that same problem in our districts. It would
be good for us to see that.
Secretary Hagel. I will.
The Chairman. The committee will now stand in recess. We
will reconvene at 12:15.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I
would like to welcome Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and, of
course, Under Secretary Hale.
Gentlemen, in the 11 years that I have been in Congress, I
have always wanted Guam to be better known. But I certainly
didn't think it would be under these circumstances. And, Mr.
Secretary, I want to thank you for your leadership and
proactive approach with respect to the current North Korean
threats, and your willingness to reposition a THAAD [Terminal
High-Altitude Air Defense] missile defense system on Guam is
certainly very reassuring news to my constituents and to the
military on Guam.
I also appreciate the Department's continued commitment of
significant funding for the realignment of Marines from Okinawa
to Guam. We have made some positive progress this past year,
and I think the fiscal year 2014 budget builds off this
progress.
Mr. Secretary, I read in your statement that the fiscal
year 2014 budget protects or increases key investments in
missile defense at a cost of $9.2 billion. One aspect of this
missile defense is to protect against ballistic missile
threats, and the Department is procuring additional THAAD
interceptors and Patriot missiles.
Now, the EIS for the Guam realignment called for a
permanent THAAD and Patriot missile defense system on Guam.
Given the unpredictability of the various actors in our region,
can we expect the recently deployed THAAD to remain on Guam
permanently, which would be consistent with the EIS?
Secretary Hagel. Congresswoman, thank you. And I appreciate
very much your comments. I am going to make a brief comment in
response and then ask General Dempsey to be more specific.
You ended your statement with the observation, which is
correct, of the uncertainty and the unpredictability in your
part of the world right now, and that is what we have to factor
in, in all our decisions as we prioritize where are the
threats, where are they coming from, where they may continue to
come from. So our decisions on THAAD, on all our platforms, are
always evaluated on that basis, and it specifically addresses
your area in Guam.
Now, with that, let me ask General Dempsey to be more
specific to answer your question.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
General Dempsey. When we deployed THAAD we did so with the
idea that we would review the decision in about 90 days, and
that is because we only have one right now. We have another one
in training and another one that will come on the year after
that. And it would be prudent for us to wait to decide whether
to leave it there permanently until we see how the rest of the
world evolves in terms of ballistic missile threats. Right now
Guam is protected from the sea by an Aegis system.
So our commitment to you is we are not going to leave Guam
unprotected. This particular capability may or may not stay
there permanently.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, General and Secretary, I would
respectfully request that we have something there permanently.
My second question is, as the ranking member of HASC [House
Armed Services Committee] Readiness Subcommittee, the
reductions already made to military forces and those requested
of DOD in the coming years simply do not draw a parallel to the
current threats facing our Nation. So, Mr. Secretary, I would
like you to describe your level of confidence in the readiness
of our force and your ability to meet existing commitments in
the next 5 years. How will you know when we have reached a
readiness crisis and how will you know that the force is not
ready? What are the triggers or the metrics that make such a
situation evident?
Secretary Hagel. Thank you. First, as you know so well,
readiness is our first priority. And I will begin with some of
the conversation we have had this morning on the whole point
behind the Strategic Choices and Management Review that I
directed about a month and a half ago, which Deputy Secretary
Carter and General Dempsey are leading, because it focuses
right on that key question of readiness and when and how and
when will we not know and when will we know and all the
components of that.
That is why we are doing this. That is why we are looking
at everything, factoring in every budget reality, what may
happen, what may not happen. But that is the essence of what we
do in our main responsibility, having the capability to be
ready, to respond, take initiative, agile, flexible, competent,
capable, with a force structure, and everything else has to
support that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask one further small question?
The Chairman. No. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you gentlemen for your service to our country and
for your attendance today.
Mr. Secretary, I represent the Anniston Army Depot in
Alabama. Several thousand employees have dedicated their
careers to supporting our warfighters and they have served side
by side with them here at home and in theater. The Department
sent furlough notices across the entire civilian workforce. My
question is, when it comes to the Anniston Army Depot and
similar maintenance facilities like it that are funded through
the Defense Working Capital Fund, which is fully funded and in
fact has carryover work through into next year, why are they
being issued furlough notices?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. I don't believe we
have sent any furlough notices out.
Secretary Hale. We have notified the Congress of the
possibility of furloughs on February 20th, but we have not sent
out individual notices of proposed furloughs to employees. We
have said we may have to, but it is still being considered.
Mr. Rogers. Would that ``may have to'' include
installations that are funded by the Defense Capital Fund that
is fully funded for this fiscal year?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we are going to have to exempt some
civilians for safety, security, the areas that are of highest
priority. As to your specific question----
Secretary Hale. Yes, it could. I mean, we haven't made a
final decision. And the reason is, although you say they are
fully funded, frankly, we are having terrible cash problems in
all of our depots right now because of the reduction in
workload, which is understandable given what is happening to
the budgets that pay for them. So we have not made a final
decision, but it could include some of the depot workers.
Mr. Rogers. Under what basis, since the money is there, it
has already been paid? I mean, they literally have carryover
work well into the end of next year that is funded.
Secretary Hale. Well, as I said, the working capital funds
have to break even on a cash basis by law, we can't go below
zero, and we have a cash crisis in virtually every one of our
depots because the workload is being drawn down in many of
them. So again I want to restate we have not made a final
decision either way. But I can't sit here and tell you no
chance there would be any furloughs of depot workers.
Mr. Rogers. If in fact it does happen, I would really love
to have a much more detailed conversation with you about how
that could arise. But thank you.
Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Hagel. Excuse me, Congressman, if I may, to get
to your point, your request, yes, we will. We obviously, if we
have to do that and make any of these tough choices on
furloughs, which as you know we have been talking about,
hopefully we won't have to or at least minimize it. As you
know, we have moved from 21 to 14 and maybe we can get better,
maybe we can't. But we would let the Congress know of our
actions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, your predecessor,
Secretary Panetta, stated in here that he believed that the
treaty route, with confirmation by the Senate, was the only
appropriate way to undertake nuclear reductions with another
state. Do you concur with that observation and that position?
Secretary Hagel. Well, generally, that has been the route
that we have taken. I mean it has been Soviet Union, Russia.
And for the reasons treaties are important, I have always
supported.
Mr. Rogers. Well, there was an attempt under the Bush
administration to try to outside the parameters of a treaty, as
you know, you were in the Senate at the time.
Secretary Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. That was criticized soundly then for trying to
get around the Senate and that it would not be verifiable. So I
hope that you still feel as you did when you were a Senator
that the Senate should have to ratify any nuclear arms
reduction agreements.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I think all those treaties are
important, that route, that process, if for no other reason
than what you just noted. It brings the American people into
it, it brings the Congress that represents the American people
into that process. Now, there may well be, as we get into
complicated pieces here down the road, some variables to, well,
can we do something better this way than a treaty? I don't
know. But you look at all the options, you look at all the ways
to accomplish the purpose and the end mean. But overall I have
not changed my opinion as I sit here from where I was in the
Senate.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
General Dempsey, do you believe that such an agreement
would be verifiable outside the parameters of a treaty if
confirmed by the Senate?
General Dempsey. That is obviously a policy decision. What
I have said as the military adviser is that any further
reductions should be done as part of a negotiation and not
unilaterally.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you both and all of you for your service
again.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for your thoughtful testimony and endurance this
morning.
I want to ask Secretary Hagel a question about Afghanistan,
but before I do I just want to run through a couple quick
points as long as I have got you here. Number one, Secretary
Panetta did, I think, make auditability of the Pentagon a
priority, which a number of us, with Mr. Hale's assistance,
have been pushing for on this committee, and I hope again that
you will continue that effort. As we are dealing with budget
issues, we have to see what we are doing, and waste and
duplication, it is there, we know it, auditability will help
that cause. And I did get your letter, and I want to thank you,
that expressed your commitment to that.
Secondly, on export controls, the Department did move
forward about a few weeks ago to try and simplify the system of
export controls for our defense manufacturing industrial base
who are going to be, again, under a lot of pressure. You know,
things like valves and helicopter parts and engine parts which
have been restricted because of ancient, outdated regulations
needs to be changed. And, again, good progress recently, and,
again, I hope under your leadership that effort will continue.
The last point is, is that the budget document tries to
frame BRAC in the context of the Budget Control Act; 2021 is
the timeframe of the Budget Control Act. As someone who has
spent 7 years on the Readiness Subcommittee dealing with the
2005 budget BRAC, which is not going to generate a penny of net
savings for 13 years, no prior BRAC has been able to do that in
less than 6 years, frankly, that is just a case that doesn't
work. There may be other reasons why people want BRAC, but
doing it in the context of the Budget Control Act, frankly, for
a lot of us who have spent a lot of time on this issue, that
just doesn't work.
But my real question this morning is, again, you made your
visit to Afghanistan, and I compliment you on the elegant
response when you were asked about the situation there and
described it as complicated. You know, I would just say, as
someone whose district, we lost a Marine captain from Madison,
Connecticut, whose funeral was a few weeks ago, who was the
victim of so-called friendly fire, again 2014 we all get it,
that is sort of the end date, but are you going to be coming to
us with sort of your own thoughts now that you have had some
opportunity to digest the situation over there about, between
now and then, what is the pace? Is there, again, going to be
sort of more feedback to us in terms of what your thoughts are
on this conflict, which really should be our number one
priority on this committee with 66,000 troops in harm's way.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you. And thank you for your first
two comments, and we will continue to work together on those.
On your question regarding Afghanistan, first, you are
exactly right, it is our first priority. We are at war, we have
66,000 Americans there, and we have been there 12 years, and
there is no higher priority. And we will continue to do
everything to support that mission and make that the highest
priority.
As to your larger universe of thoughts on my thoughts
regarding drawdown times and so on, when I was in the Senate I
went to Afghanistan many times. Matter of fact, was in the
first congressional delegation that landed there--I think it
was 1 o'clock in the morning--under [unintelligible] in January
of 2012--or, I am sorry, 2002. And doesn't mean I am an expert
on it, but been back many times since. I support the current
process, drawdown time. How we are doing it responsibly, I
think it is critically important we do this responsibly. One of
the first, maybe the first question I guess this morning was
about Afghanistan from the chairman, about the Bilateral
Security Agreement, and that is the centerpiece of how we
continue to unwind and transition.
I think that is the correct course. There are a lot of
things that have to happen and be put in place, BSA being one
of them. We have to be mindful of all the dynamics, Pakistan,
so on. I will always be available to you on any basis for any
question, whether you want to call me or have a one-on-one
privately on this or my thoughts to any member of this
committee.
But just suffice to say, I think we are on the right
course. We are doing it the right way. It is not done yet, a
lot of problems. Question was asked about the OCO budget, how
come we are not drawing that down because we are drawing our
guys out. A lot of expenses yet remain, a lot of uncertainties,
you know that.
Every day I get a report, start the morning on Afghanistan.
General Dunford was in 2 days ago. We spent 2 hours with him.
As you know, the Chairman was just there last week. So there is
no higher priority in the focus of DOD than getting this right,
getting our people out safely, and doing what we have got to
do.
You mentioned the green-on-blue attacks, those kinds of
things, huge problems. We are going to have to continue to deal
with those. We have got NATO partners in there, ISAF
[International Security Assistance Force] partners in there.
Then the bigger question which came up here today is what kind
of residual force do we leave behind. Define, train, assist,
and advise, the President has said that will be our role. I
think that is correct. But still a lot of pieces out there. So
I am available to you or anyone else at any time to give you my
thoughts. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentlemen for being here.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presence here today, sir.
During the March 15th press conference on missile defense,
Dr. Jim Miller stated and related to North Korea that, quote,
at that time, the threat was uncertain, right, we didn't know
that we would see today what we are now, close quote. In other
words, it sounds a little like that we were waiting on the
North Koreans to succeed in developing missiles to attack the
United States before we would need to improve our own missile
defenses. And I just have to ask the hard question: Is this
going to be the posture of the Obama administration in dealing
with the evolving Iranian ICBM program? Do we need to wait for
success by the Iranians before we deploy an additional
capability or are we going to try to anticipate the evolving
threats and be ready to meet them before they are deployed?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman thank you.
Let me begin with this. You know what this administration's
policy is on Iran. The President has been very clear about
that, preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Franks. I don't think the Iranians are as clear on it
as the President would like for them to be.
Secretary Hagel. Well, there are a lot of things that we
would like the Iranians to be clearer on. But I think the
President has been very clear on this. Our allies have been
clear on this. We have, as you know, many channels working on
this, diplomatic, P5+1 [United Nations Security Council plus
Germany], which has met recently. The most significant
international sanctions against a country, certainly, I think
in our lifetime, U.N. supported.
So we are working all the dynamics on this. Our force
structure in the Arabian Sea, our capabilities, our military
options, contingencies. So, no, we can't control internally
what decisions are made, what they do. We are trying to have
some influence over the Iranian leadership's decisions. Whether
that will have an effect, the right outcome, the right effect,
I don't know.
But again, I think the President's position on this is
right and has been right, and we will continue to go forward on
that basis.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Secretary, I guess my concern, as you know,
I appreciate the commitment to sanctions and those things, I
believe they are right and good. But to rely upon them without
the backup of clarity that the Iranians would understand I
believe is a mistake. We have sanctioned North Korea
practically into starvation for nearly 50 years, and we find
ourselves exactly in the place that we are today. So I am
hoping that, you know, my hope was that somehow we could
catalyze a commitment on the part of all of us to be ready for
whatever they decide to do, and that is my main concern.
General Dempsey, I would maybe ask you a question now. We
see senior lawmakers in South Korea openly calling for South
Korea to consider developing its own nuclear weapons
deterrence. A recent poll shows that two-thirds of the South
Korean public supports such a move. Similarly, we have seen
calls by South Korean officials to redeploy U.S. nuclear
tactical weapons to South Korea as a clear demonstration of the
United States extended deterrent commitment.
So I guess I would like to ask you, with that in mind, what
actions do you think that we should be taking to strengthen our
nuclear assurances to South Korea? Do you feel that redeploying
U.S. tactical weapons, nuclear weapons to South Korea to
strengthen our assurances is the best way? Or do you think it
would be preferable for South Korea to do as they would like to
do, to develop their own nuclear weapons capability?
General Dempsey. Well, we are not encouraging any of our
allies to develop. We have been very clear about our extended
deterrence and assurance. And I think some of the actions we
took in the last week or so with B-52s and B-2s were a clear
demonstration of that.
Secondly, we have been working with the South Koreans on
revising their national missile guidelines to give them a
ballistic missile capability to be able to range further than
they had been able to range previously.
So I think we are in about the right place, at least
military to military, the public proclamations notwithstanding.
Mr. Franks. But are you able to address the issue of U.S.
nuclear tactical weapons in South Korea?
General Dempsey. No, we do not advocate the return of
tactical nuclear weapons to the peninsula.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And again, thank you gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to both of you for your service, and Mr. Hale as
well. Appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple questions on
the readiness front, if I may. I do appreciate everything that
our industrial organic base provides. I think we all understand
how important that is, especially, obviously, when it comes to
our arsenals, our depots, our ammunition plants, et cetera. And
thinking about going forward in the event that we have another
contingency, we have to be ready. There is no doubt about it.
And that industrial organic base is going to be very, very
important, as it's shown to be the case with these last two
conflicts.
Now, I think that to preserve our readiness, we have got to
make sure that that industrial base stays warm during peacetime
as well, and I think we can all agree on that. Mr. Secretary,
you have indicated that reductions in the civilian workforce
would be based on analysis designed to preserve essential
skills and capabilities. We have to be able to do that at those
arsenals, those depots, whatever the case may be. Can you
specify how that analysis, any actions proposed by the
Department would, in fact, preserve those capabilities found
within that organic industrial base and ensure that we maintain
that highly skilled workforce, something that is absolutely
essential? Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you.
First, I agree, and I think the entire leadership of DOD
agrees with your emphasis on how critical it is to preserve
that industrial organic base. So there is no issue there. Now,
how do we do it in light of the kind of budget realities we are
facing? Well, that is all part of the prioritization of
balancing, as the General noted two or three times this
morning. How do you balance all this and keep that readiness,
but also preserving--in the Chairman's comments he got into
this, this morning in his statement--preserve the ability for
the longer term, for the future. And if you erode that base,
then you are going to have a huge problem.
One of the things that I have noted and the Chairman has,
the chiefs have said that we are consuming our readiness at the
cost of the longer term as we allow that base, if that happens,
to erode. So we are going to do everything we can to preserve
that base because it is critical to our future capabilities.
Mr. Loebsack. And if we have a conflict down the road and
we have let that base erode, it is going to be more costly in
the end to get it back up and running again. And so we need to
keep that in mind throughout as we are making these decisions,
and I appreciate that.
One other question I have about the Reserve Components,
National Guard and Reserve. I appreciate your response earlier,
Secretary Hagel, but I would like to turn to General Dempsey
and maybe drill down just a little bit more deeply if we could.
We all understand how important the Guard has been, the Guard
and Reserve, in these two conflicts, the Title 10 missions that
they have been on. We also understand how important they are
for domestic responses to tornadoes, earthquakes, all the rest.
If you could, General, just talk a little bit more about the
coming years and how you see Active Duty versus Reserve
Components that balance how we are going to maintain that
balance, and, in particular, to keep those Reserve folks there
in the event, because I assume we are going to still look at
them as an operational force. How does that play out moving
forward?
General Dempsey. Hopefully, it won't be Active versus
Reserve Component. We have actually read that book and some of
us have that T-shirt.
Mr. Loebsack. We had a bit of a concern about that with
respect to Air National Guard.
General Dempsey. Right. No, I know.
Mr. Loebsack. Keep that in mind
General Dempsey. I keep it in mind. I absolutely have it in
mind. And so the idea here is we take a look at the total
force, and I really do believe in the total force, and we
determine which capabilities have to be immediately available
and those need to be in the Active Component, and the ones that
can wait for some period of time, we migrate those elsewhere.
We have got the Chiefs and General Grass, the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, we have a Reserve representative on the
Joint Staff. And as we go forward we will figure out how to
have the right balance of capabilities. But make no mistake
about it, if we go to full sequestration and maybe even
something less, all of the components will be affected. But the
commitment we have made is that we will go after this answer as
a total force.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Just one last point I would like to make. I do want to
associate myself with Congressman Wilson and his concerns about
the benefits. I know we have to make tough decisions and there
are going to be tradeoffs we have to make, we are going to have
limited budgets, there is no doubt. But at the same time these
are folks, as we all know, who volunteered, and we have to make
sure we treat them, I think, with the dignity and the respect
they deserve. So thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here today. My question
deals specifically with MEADS [Medium Extended Air Defense
System], Mr. Secretary. During your confirmation process you
assured your former Senate colleagues that you would uphold the
NDAA prohibition on funding MEADS. What has changed that and
why have you moved forward with it?
Secretary Hagel. Well, what has changed is the
appropriations bill that was passed a few weeks ago that put
the money back in the budget to fulfill that last year
commitment. According to our Office of General Counsel, and I
asked for legal advice on this, they have told me that we are
obligated to finish that contract as a result of that
appropriations directive with the money, and that is what has
changed.
Mr. Shuster. Well, I respectfully think you need to get
some new lawyers, because I believe it is pretty clear in the
NDAA we said the final only obligation in 2012, and then in the
language we have used, it is a prohibition on the use of funds
for MEADS.
In addition to that, it is foolish for us to be spending
almost $400 million on a system that nobody is going to
procure, nobody is going to buy. And in the times we face today
with North Korea rattling their saber, in this case rattling
their missiles, we ought to be focusing on missile defense. And
I see that the President's budget cut over $500 million in
missile defense. I mean, this to me is just foolish to be
spending $400 million on a system that just is never going to
be deployed.
Secretary Hagel. I am not here to defend MEADS, but I would
respond this way, aside from what I have already said about our
legal counsel advising me that we are obligated to make that
last payment. Two other points.
Mr. Shuster. They say you are obligated under what law?
Secretary Hagel. Under appropriations.
Mr. Shuster. And again, this committee, the committee and
the Senate Armed Services Committee, we write the laws, the
appropriators just cut checks. So the law is pretty clear.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you. But that was the advice I got
from counsel. We went into it at some detail, and that was the
decision I made. There are a couple other facets to this to
respond to you. And again, I am not here to defend that system.
That was all in place long before I got here.
There would be, if we didn't fulfill that commitment, there
would be litigation costs and there would be penalty costs
which might have actually gone more than what we are going to
do to fulfill our obligations to our partners, Italy and
Germany, on that. Actually, there are some things that came out
of that as I have asked a lot of questions about this, because
I have gotten hit and will get hit again with questions on it
and should be. What did we learn from this? Is any of this
applicable for us to go forward? And I am told by our missile
people there are a lot of things that we can use. Now, I know
that doesn't satisfy with your question and concern.
Mr. Shuster. Not only doesn't satisfy, but the fact that
there is a 2005 memorandum of understanding that clearly states
the responsibilities of the participants will be subject to the
availability of funds appropriated for such purposes. And
again, we passed a law that prohibits that, so it seems to me
that your lawyers are wrong again.
And as far as the components of interest, the MSE [Missile
Segment Enhancement] interceptor is something we want, we are
already integrating it into the Patriot missile system. And the
other thing that we want, the 360-degree radar is under a stop
work order because of the funding of the Germans and the
Italians.
So, again, the American people, the taxpayers are paying
for something that is never going to be deployed while we have
reaped, we have harvested the technology, the main technology
that we wanted on the system. So again, we are going down a
path here.
And we have got North Korea, everybody is seeing the news,
who knows what that crazy guy is going to do? But we have to
make sure we are beefing up our missile system, and the
President's budget cuts it by, I believe, $550 million. This is
irresponsible. And again, you as the Secretary, I think you
need to go back, I think you need to talk to your lawyers,
because I think there is probably grounds here to sue the
Department of Defense, and now we are going to get into
litigation. And I think you have a responsibility to the
American people first and foremost and get another crew of
attorneys in there to make sure they understand the law.
Secretary Hagel. I will ask them a question again. Thank
you.
Mr. Shuster. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to return to the issue raised by Mr. Turner,
the issue of sexual assault in the military. And I, like Mr.
Turner, commend you, Secretary Hagel, for recognizing the need
to reform Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
especially so soon after coming into this position, and for
your proposal to eliminate the ability of a convening authority
to change findings after a court-martial. I think we were all
shocked by the recent decision by a military convening
authority, a general who had this authority under the Uniform
Code as it currently stands, to throw out a jury verdict in a
sexual assault case. And I appreciate your commitment to
solving this problem.
I would also like to thank you, General Dempsey, for all
your efforts to prevent sexual assault in the military. I know
we all appreciated very much your visit to the Hill last year
to announce changes to the way the military handles sexual
assault, and I admire the willingness you expressed in your
written testimony today to explore new options and new ideas to
confront this scourge.
To give you a sense, we all know the numbers, but to give
you a sense of the enormity of the issue, last year I attended,
it was a gathering of women and men who had been assaulted
while serving in the military. It was here in Washington under
the umbrella of a service organization that has really worked
on this issue. And I walked into a ballroom full of people who
had been assaulted while serving in the military. It made the
issue very real.
And many members of this committee, we have been working on
it for years, those who are more new to it, those who have been
here over the many years and obviously we have had the support
of our chairman, of Ranking Member Smith. So as a result, we
have put a lot of tools in the toolbox for the services to
begin to really to give you just more tools, to finally come to
a better place than you certainly are today.
Last year's defense authorization included language that
created an independent review panel to review and assess the
systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes
involving sexual assault and the related judicial proceedings.
I know you mentioned it, Secretary Hagel, in your written
testimony. But how will you go about the process of appointing
people to this panel so that we have a group that is really
willing to be bold and thoughtfully examine both military
culture and the Uniform Code of Military Justice so that we can
get a better handle on stopping these crimes?
Secretary Hagel. Congresswoman, thank you. And thank you
for your leadership over the years as well other members of
this committee. I am well aware of what you have done and
continue to do, and we thank you, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you. We have a lot more to do, as we
all know.
On the sexual assault panel question, I am currently
reviewing a list of names that had been brought forward from my
office. That list started to accumulate actually before I
arrived at the Pentagon. It has come from different services,
the General Counsel's Office, all the components of DOD, to
reflect individuals who understand this issue, are aware of
this issue, have something to contribute if they were part of
this panel. I am currently reviewing those names, and I think,
according to the law, the Secretary has five designates on that
panel. I think four come from the Congress, if I recall. So, I
will make a decision on those panel members shortly and will be
letting the Congress know about that decision.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I would encourage you to get a diversity
of opinions, those who can take a clear-eyed look at the
services and what they are doing and not simply those who--they
are remarkable institutions. These crimes do such great harm to
all the wonderful work that the services seek to do in
protecting our country. But I think you can stand up to the
harsh scrutiny of those from the outside as well and move ahead
in a way that really does make a difference in the long run.
I did a recent screening of ``The Invisible War'' back in
Massachusetts and people are scandalized at what they are
learning, and it just doesn't serve you well. So I encourage
you to be very bold in the group that you suggest and bring
forward.
Secretary Hagel. Well, I will tell you that that group will
be diverse, and that is the whole point of a panel like this,
and that is why I am taking time personally going through it.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I look forward to working with you.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel, welcome to your new responsibility. Mr.
Hale would be disappointed if I didn't at least talk to you a
little bit about auditing and the auditable financial
statements of the Department of Defense. Your predecessor did a
great job of creating the forward momentum to get this job
done. The risk, of course, is change in leadership and now with
sequester and all the other challenges that are out there, this
issue might be one of those that could slip to a back burner.
And I just appreciate your letter that you sent me the other
day, but on the record here that you are as committed as
Secretary Panetta was in getting this heavy lift done.
Secretary Hagel. I am just as committed as Secretary
Panetta. I am not near as smart as Secretary Panetta on these
things. He had a long history of these kinds of matters,
starting in this institution, as you all know, some of you
served with him, on budget issues and actuarials and statements
that actually made sense. So, yes, I will pick up where he left
off. I already am. The Comptroller and I have had many
discussions about this, as well as others in the institutions.
Everybody is committed to get this done, and everyone is
exactly where Secretary Panetta was and where we will continue
to be.
Mr. Conaway. Well, thank you, Secretary. I appreciate that.
That is music to my ears. And I know you have some hard
decisions ahead as you try to allocate resources across an
awful lot of competing issues, but this is one that I
appreciate your personal support. And I want to publicly
acknowledge Bob Hale's yeoman-like work that he has done on
this issue for years. It is kind of like Sisyphus, he keeps
pushing this ball up and it keeps falling back on him, but he
has done great work.
Let me turn to Syria a little bit. It has been reported
last month in the open press that Syria used chemical weapons
or that chemical weapons were used. The President has stated
over and over that that is one of his red lines about if that
is the case. If a red line is crossed and we have to enact the
plans, and I am assuming that General Dempsey and his team have
put in place to do whatever it is we need to do, the question
comes, how do we pay for that?
And I think the chairman has sent the White House a letter
recently asking that if we do something like that in these
times of budgetary issues, that that ought to be a supplemental
or a separate appropriations to do that rather than ask you to
take that out of hide. Can you give us some thoughts on that?
Secretary Hagel. Thank you. And I will let the Chairman
respond specifically. But let's start with the question of how
do you pay for it if we do something, and what we have to do
and what we would do. Yes, I think it is pretty clear that a
supplemental would be required. And, again, I am going to leave
the specifics of that to the Chairman.
Second, yes, we are preparing, have prepared, continue to
prepare contingency plans, options for the President, all
options on all situations, as to Syria using chemical weapons.
As you know, the U.N. has empanelled a body to go in, but that
is not moving forward very quickly, go in and investigate, take
a look. What we have said publicly and what we believe, the
United States, is that we have not detected use of chemical
weapons. We stay very close to that. Obviously, if that line is
crossed, then we have got a different situation. Then you get
into the next set of dimensions to this if chemical weapons
fall in the wrong hands.
It is a very unstable, unclear situation in Syria, a lot of
bad elements in play there. So this is a serious and
complicated problem that we all have. The borders around there,
the refugees. So this has to be handled pretty carefully. And I
think the way we are proceeding here is responsibly. But the
bottom line is that we may have to take some different action
if that is required.
Let me stop there, not to use up your time, ask General
Dempsey for his thoughts.
General Dempsey. I will just reaffirm what the Secretary
said. It would take a supplemental.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here. This hearing is about basically
the 2014 Department of Defense request for the budget. My
problem is that as soon as we mention budget and what is the
premises that we have in it, I am stuck. And let me explain to
you why.
First of all, the assumption is that the sequester will be
repealed, and that is what your budget is based on. That is one
thing. You know, I mean, we assumed that sequester would be
repealed before we went into this continuing resolution cycle,
and it didn't, and we know what the consequences of that has
been.
The second part of it is that the Budget Control Act of
2011 also has the second component, which is the caps on
spending. And that brings us back to a discussion we have had
many times in this committee which is what does that $487
billion that we have been promised, what does that represent?
And, Mr. Secretary, in your speech before the National
Defense University, you called it a reduction, you said it
reduced the Department's planned spending by $487 billion. That
sort of sounds to me like the caps of the Budget Control Act.
It is like, you know, we are going to hold down our spending.
And then, also, as part of this proposal, is $150 billion worth
of savings.
My problem is I need to understand how all of these
interact with each other, because if the assumption, the
fundamental assumption is we must get rid of sequestration, we
all will have colleagues who would want to know how are we
going to pay for the $1.2 trillion in terms of defense? And I
understand the first 2 years of that was basically a 50 percent
burden by the defense, the President comes up with a proposal
of $1.8 trillion, of which defense is going to comprise $150
billion. But in order for us to get all there we are building
this on a whole series of assumptions.
So if you can start by first telling me what is the $487
billion? Do you intend for that to be applied to the caps? Or
do you intend for that to be part of sequestration
satisfaction? So where does that go? And after that, then why,
if we are doing all this, why do we still need to talk about
the ``B'' word, which no one likes, which is of course BRAC?
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Hagel. Well, that is probably 3 or 4 hours'
worth. But let me try it this way because you asked all the
right questions and so on. Let me start with your first
question: assumption that sequestration would not occur. That
is the whole point again of why I directed a Strategic Choices
and Management Review, because, as you know, you noted it, in
Budget Control Act 2011, that is law. And so, we are looking at
that possibility, as the months tick off, the real possibility
that is what we are going to have to live with. So that is part
of the review. So we are not assuming anything. That is why we
have undertaken a review, partly.
Second, why then if that is the case did you come up with
the budget you did? Well, as you know, the House, Senate
resolutions are essentially the same numbers for defense. So it
is not that the President is out there somewhere in the ether;
it is consistent with the resolution that the House and Senate
passed.
Probably more fundamental, as the Chairman and Mr. Hale
know so very well, it takes a long time to build a budget. You
can't build a budget of a $600 billion enterprise in a month or
two. You have got all the pieces here that have to play into
everything. So that is a component here that sometimes gets
overlooked.
So we are looking at everything. We are not assuming
anything. Matter of fact, one of the points that I make in the
review and I said in the speech I gave over at NDU is that we
need to challenge every past assumption. I used that
terminology for the obvious reasons. The $487 billion referred
to, I don't have my speech in front of me, but what I think
what that was referring to, what I was referring to is what DOD
has already started to absorb over a 10-year period as a result
of a previous agreement between Congress and the President.
That is what I was referring to.
Now, if I have not further complicated it. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here and for your contributions.
Secretary Hagel, I would like to ask you a question first.
On March 15th, when you announced that we would be able to have
additional interceptors, you were standing next to Admiral
Winnefeld, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
he said, and I am quoting from the transcript: We believe that
KN-08, the North Korean missile, probably does have the range
to reach the United States. And would you agree with that
statement?
Secretary Hagel. I don't recall him making. I wasn't
there--I don't know if I was there or not. I am not sure if he
was referring to Hawaii, which is part of the United States, as
we know. So I don't know if that is what he was referring to.
Certainly, as I said, there are things we don't know. So I will
ask him if he was, and I will ask the Chairman.
General Dempsey. Let me help a little bit here. You recall
the Taepodong-2, which launched the satellite, the North Korean
satellite into space. That had a third stage. And it is that
third stage that was kind of the breakthrough for the North
Koreans. And I think what Admiral Winnefeld was saying is that
now that they have that third stage technology apparently under
control, it could very well migrate to the KN-08.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. And, General Dempsey, I would
like to ask you my next question. The Defense Intelligence
Agency [DIA] did a study that was finished last month. Now,
while the contents of the study are classified, the conclusions
and certain statements are not classified. And quoting from the
unclassified portion which I believe has not yet been made
public, they say quote, ``DIA assesses with moderate confidence
the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by
ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low.''
General, would you agree with that assessment by DIA?
General Dempsey. You know, Congressman, with the number of
caveats you put on the front end of this, I can't touch that
one because I am not sure now. It hasn't been released. Some of
it is classified, some of it is unclassified. Let me take that
one for the record.
[The information referred to is classified and retained in
the committee files.]
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Let me repeat. Maybe I caught you a
little bit off guard here because you have had so many
questions today, and I understand this is a lengthy process.
But they concluded, and this is public, this is unclassified,
so I can make it public, DIA assesses with moderate confidence
the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by
ballistic missiles; however, the reliability will be low.
General Dempsey. And your question is do I agree with the
DIA's assessment?
Mr. Lamborn. Yes.
General Dempsey. Well, I haven't seen it and you said it is
not publicly released, so I choose not to comment on it.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Okay. Then let me ask my third question.
Secretary Hagel, if we didn't have sequestration limiting the
funds that the DOD has to operate with, would you prefer, would
you require, would you order that we do have two carriers, two
aircraft carriers present in the Arabian Gulf. As you know, we
are down to one because of funding issues.
Secretary Hagel. I would advise the President on that
specific issue as I do on others, based on the advice I would
get from the Chairman and the combatant commander in that area,
the CENTCOM [Central Command] commander, as to what they think
we need in order to fulfill the strategic interests and our
capabilities of readiness to be prepared for all contingencies.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you believe that having only one aircraft
carrier instead of two is a limiting factor in our ability to
project force and act as a deterrent in that part of the world?
Secretary Hagel. No, I do not. I don't think it limits our
ability to do that. And I base that on the conversations I have
had with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman and others.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Lastly, in the short time that I have,
it has been told to me--admittedly by anonymous sources within
parts of the DOD--that some of the civilian furloughs were not
required in their initial plans for funding, but they were told
to revise those plans and to come up with civilian furloughs.
Is there any truth to that kind of statement?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, I don't know. I have not
heard that, but let me ask the Comptroller. Thank you.
Secretary Hale. I am not aware of that specific direction.
We have not made decisions on furloughs. We are trying to look
at a policy that minimizes adverse effects on our mission. That
is the key goal.
Within that and to the extent it doesn't violate it, we
would like to see consistency and fairness. Because we are
going to have to jump into this pool, we would like to jump
together. But no final decisions have been made on furloughs.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time expired.
Ms. Duckworth.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am very pleased to hear of your commitment
to maintaining the National Guard and Reserve forces as an
operational force. As someone who spent the first half of my
military career as a Strategic Reserve and then the second half
as part of the operational force, I applaud your commitment to
that.
My question actually has to do with the acquisition process
that DOD undergoes. I also sit on the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, and over the last 3 months that I have been
in Congress I have heard a lot of testimony about issues with
DOD acquisition processes, with the F-35 process. The
concurrent acquisition process has actually been called by a
former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, has been
termed acquisition malpractice.
We are moving on towards sixth-generation aircraft someday.
I see also that we are planning only to select one contractor
for the engineering and manufacturing phase for the Ground
Combat Vehicle program instead of two, and while that cuts
costs initially, in the long run it places that entire project
in the hands of a single contractor.
I also see in the budget that you have submitted that we
are boosting the Littoral Combat Ship procurement to about $3.2
billion, even though naval commanders have said that it is not
a sufficiently--let me see here--does not have sufficient
offensive capability.
Can you talk a little bit in the light of sequestration and
the current budget constraints what you are going to be looking
at in terms of the defense acquisition process to see if there
are not some cost savings there?
Secretary Hagel. Thank you, Congresswoman, I appreciate
your comments. Yes, there are savings that need to be found and
will be found. Stepping back just for a moment, then I will get
to some of the specific projects, as you know, starting with
the current Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter when he was
the Under Secretary for Acquisitions, he worked very hard to
put in place a whole new accountable acquisition system.
Imperfect. I mean, the dollars here are immense. The projects
are immense. The lead times, you know all the complications. It
is no excuse.
But many factors were starting to play out at the same
time: auditable financial statements and holding contractors
more accountable, taking a more realistic look at the kind of
acquisitions that we started with, based on what. You mentioned
the F-35 was a good example of that. We started with an
interesting theory, but we weren't ready to start that program.
And now, after many years of pain and billions and billions of
dollars, we actually, I think, have it on track. I just met
with the project director of the F-35 yesterday for an hour and
a half to see where we are. Those costs are coming down per
copy. There is some good news here.
The GAO [Government Accountability Office] report that just
recently came out, which you have probably seen with your other
committee assignment, was actually pretty complimentary to our
acquisition systems. Imperfect. Need more to do. Will do more.
But it is a big area. As I said in my opening statement,
acquisitions, procurement, research, development, all that
together is a third of our budget. It is a huge sum of money.
The complications of lead time and what do we need and do we
really need this and all those questions.
So let me stop there and see if our Comptroller has
anything that he specifically, within the time we have got,
wants to add to this. Thank you.
Secretary Hale. Well, just briefly, Congresswoman, on the
F-35, we have rephased it significantly over the last several
years to try to reduce some of the concurrency. I think we may
have had this discussion before the HOGR [House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee]. Some concurrency is right. It is
a hard judgment as to how much, but we don't want to string
them out over an inordinately long period.
Ground Combat Vehicle, tough call, but we believe that the
savings that we achieved were worth it because they allowed us
to reinvest substantial funds in existing Ground Combat
Vehicles for the Army. We put much of that money back in and we
felt that produced a quick payoff. But I understand the
tradeoff that you are saying. And I think we are committed to
the Littoral Combat Ship, believe it is an important part of
the Navy and will be for many years.
Ms. Duckworth. Are you going to continue the concurrent
acquisition process for future weapon systems such as the
sixth-generation fighter aircraft?
Secretary Hale. There will probably be some concurrency in
almost any major project, but I think we have learned our
lesson that we need to look at that very carefully and really
minimize it, recognizing that if you don't do the testing
first, you have to backfit the planes, and it is very
expensive, or the weapons, very expensive.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, Mr. Hale, thank you all
so much for joining us today. Mr. Hale, it was great to be with
you there for the commissioning of the Arlington just this past
weekend.
Secretary Hagel, I want to begin with you and focus on your
comments about BRAC. We know going back to the 2005 BRAC that
we won't enjoy savings from that until 2018. It was $35 billion
to implement that. In your opening statement, you talked about
$2.8 billion in the cost of the proposed BRAC that is in the
President's budget. I wanted to get your perspective on whether
you believe that in this time of uncertainty, especially facing
the sequester, facing our drawdown in end strength, determining
where we need to be strategically as a nation, and then where
we are from budget constraints, is this really the right time
to do a BRAC? Especially based on the recent history of the
cost of BRAC and the time to accrue savings. In the face of
budget constraints, is this the right time to pursue a BRAC?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. Well, it is the
right question, and that question was not only asked but
discussed for hours. I am going to give you the answer to it. I
wasn't part of that decision, but I support it. I supported
BRAC when I was in the Senate. But I will give you my overall
take on it, then I am going to ask Mr. Hale to address
specifically the savings issue, when do we start seeing savings
and how much and is the squeeze worth the juice part of your
question, I think.
First on the rationale of BRAC, and then, as you say, at
this time. I think it is important that we look at everything.
If in fact we are drawing down our force structure 100,000 and
making all the other strategic decisions that have been made
with the Congress' involvement on this, and I know there are
disagreements on specifics, so on, but that is where we are
going for obvious reasons, then it seems to me, just
legitimately, logically, that we are going to have to look at
overhead. Why do you need the bases? Can you consolidate some
of those bases? What are the strategic priorities? How do you
implement those priorities? I don't know how you can come at it
any other way without some kind of review, kind of a top to
bottom.
I understand the politics of this. I understand, as I said
in my opening comments, it is very imperfect. You all sitting
here know that, I know it. And still I think it is an important
time to do it, I think it is worthwhile to do, and I think
there are savings that you get out of it.
If no other reason, it is important to get some sense of
our leaders. They have to have some sense of what that
inventory is. Do we even need that inventory?
We, over the last 12 years, we have layered commands on
commands on commands and weapon systems because we essentially
have had, over a 10-year period, pretty much an uninterrupted
flood of moneys going to DOD, for the reasons everybody
understands and accepted and supported. This is a different
time, so we are going to have to do some things differently and
still protect the interest of our country.
So let me take the rest of the time, if it is okay,
Congressman, ask Mr. Hale to respond to the specific numbers.
Secretary Hale. Let me try to answer your question on BRAC
2005. Yes, we spent $35 billion, an enormous sum of money. We
will save about $4 billion a year when it is fully in place,
and it is close to that point now. We won't break even because
of that huge sum till about 2018.
We don't intend BRAC 2015 to repeat BRAC 2005. BRAC 2005
built a lot of new facilities. It was partially in response to
9/11. And we are just not going to do that again. This is going
to be a more classic realignment and closure round. It usually
takes 4 or 5 years to break even, maybe 6 at the most. We would
expect $1 billion to $2 billion of savings when we get there.
If we don't start now and get going, some successor
Secretary of Defense--I don't want to limit your tenure, Mr.
Secretary--but some successor is going to need those moneys and
they won't be there. As you heard the Secretary say, we are
saving $12 billion a year from past BRAC grounds, and those
will go on as long as we don't reopen those bases.
So I think we have to do it, even though times are tough.
And we have figured in the money, we have added the upfront
costs to this Future Years Defense Plan. We believe we need to
move forward with BRAC 2015.
Mr. Wittman. Very good.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to finish with this. In your effort
to initiate the Strategic Choices and Management Review in
order to avoid, as you say, unacceptable risk that have been
caused by the sequester cuts and are you willing to accept a
fundamental change in our military. I understand the concept of
that, but after three rounds of budget cuts, in my mind you can
only avoid unacceptable risk by two ways, either restoring
resources or reducing missions, and otherwise, the radical
reform is likely going to result in more risk.
So help this committee understand this. What kind of
fundamental change do you have in mind and can you name one
reform that has been tried or previously proven to be unwise?
Secretary Hagel. Well, the quick answer is----
The Chairman. Gentleman's time has expired. If you could
please take that one for the record, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Hagel. I will. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 107.]
The Chairman. We are running up hard against the votes here
now.
Mr. Enyart.
Mr. Enyart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as a former enlisted guy, I would like to
congratulate you on your selection as Secretary of Defense. I
think bringing an enlisted man to rise to the ranks of
Secretary of Defense brings a great perspective that is
probably needed in that position.
General Dempsey, I believe I heard you say that post-2014
in Afghanistan we are looking at a force of 8,000 to 12,000
folks. What percentage of those approximately will be U.S.
forces?
General Dempsey. Yeah, Congressman, I did say that NATO's
declaration was that range of 8,000 to 12,000. And historically
it has been two-thirds, one-third. I say historically because
we haven't had that negotiation with NATO.
Mr. Enyart. And now also I believe you answered the
question about why the cost for OCO is not going down when the
size of the force is coming down substantially, and you
indicated that that cost, that it was due to the cost of
repatriating the forces and particularly repatriating
equipment.
Now, it is my understanding the cost to buy new Humvees,
give or take $120,000. The cost to rebuild one is give or take
$130,000. What considerations have been given to not
repatriating that equipment but rather either transition it to
the Afghans or destroying it in place? And what is your
analysis of the cost factors there?
General Dempsey. Yeah. Just to clear up on why isn't OCO
coming down. In some cases the cost is up, you know, fuel
costs, wherever it happens to be, reset and reconstitution.
But to your point, there is a very deliberate process for
taking a look at all kinds of equipment and materiel in
Afghanistan and making a determination on whether to transition
it, sell it to regional partners, bring it back, or destroy it,
and that project is generally overseen by the Deputy Secretary
of Defense.
Mr. Enyart. Mr. Secretary, from what I have heard today,
this morning, in testimony, we talked about the ends of your
Department, the ends being the protection of this Nation. We
have the ways and the means. Is there a serious mismatch
between our ends and our ways and our means? Are we seeing
that? And if there is, what is your analysis of what we need to
do to align those ends, ways, and means?
Secretary Hagel. Well, Congressman, thank you, and thank
you for your earlier comments about the enlisted.
I think you really, in that question, defined the purpose
of the review, because it really does come down to your
question, is there a mismatch, is there a disconnect? The
expectations of what are our ends, is that somehow distorted
right from the beginning, the way we are going to provide
resources and the means and so on? And that is very much the
intent, aside from the budget issues and be prepared and
prioritize resources, whether it is a $50 billion hit each year
or it is going to be $8 billion or $10 billion, but it really
gets to ways, ends, and means.
And that would be the answer I would give the Congressman
here before you on what do I expect to come out of this review.
I don't know what we are going to see coming out of this
review. I didn't ask for the review because I had the answers.
I asked for the review because I didn't have the answers. I
don't know what the answers are going to be here.
But I do know enough about this business or any business
that you can't continue what we are doing with less resources
in an uncertain world and less flexibility and less time. There
is no equation that you can show me how that is going to work.
So that is why I say I think your question is really the
centerpiece of the whole point. We will be having further
discussions, obviously, with this committee on what that review
shows and what decisions we'll make, what policy, strategic
decisions we need to bring to the President.
The Chairman. Thank you. Gentleman's time has expired.
The vote has started. It looks we are not going to finish
everyone, so what I will do is call next is Mr. Coffman and
then Mr. Gallego, and I am going to have to ask the rest of
you, if you will please submit your questions for the record.
And Mr. Secretary, General, if you could please respond
accordingly, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General Dempsey, Mr. Hale, thank you all so
much for being here today, and thanks so much for your service
to our country.
I support your call for a BRAC or Base Realignment and
Closure Commission if in fact we have restructured our forces
and we can exact some efficiencies, some cost efficiencies from
closing bases we no longer need. However, what I would like is
a commitment to look at overseas bases, which are not a part of
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process where we
only look at bases within the United States, out of fairness.
I think we can accomplish a lot of our goals, whether it is
our 28,000 troops in South Korea or 79,000 troops still in
Europe, through joint military exercises, through rotational
forces, as opposed to overseas permanent military bases. And
so, Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you might be able to address
that.
Secretary Hagel. Well, thank you, and I agree with you. We
are currently undertaking a review and have been on that very
issue, our bases overseas. Overhead, do we need them, can we
consolidate them, everything you said, we are doing, and that
is exactly right.
To your point about allies and how we bring value to those
relationships so we don't have to carry that kind of overhead,
you are exactly right and that is what we are doing. I
mentioned some of this in my speech at NDU. I mentioned a
couple of these things in my opening statement this morning.
But long before I got there, Gates was talking about, Panetta
was talking about, General Dempsey has been talking about
agility, flexibility, capability, and it must factor in our
relationships with our allies. That is why I responded the way
I did to the NATO question this morning, and what we are doing
with the French in Mali, what we are doing with our other
allies around the globe, trying to build--help them build
capacity for themselves so that we have some partners with some
capability.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you. I know you talked about
compensation for our personnel, and what I would like is a
consideration with a greater emphasis, having had a military
career where I deployed five times overseas, four times with a
ground combat unit--ground combat units and then one time as a
civil affairs officer, that it seems that--I don't think there
is enough emphasis in terms of compensation for our deployed
forces versus our forces who are in CONUS [continental United
States]. Certainly doing a great job, but I think in terms of
things like hazardous duty pay and things like that, maybe we
ought to look at increasing those as opposed to simply the
across-the-board type of increases that we do.
General Dempsey, I wonder if you might be able to address
that.
General Dempsey. Yeah, if I could, Congressman, I'd also
like to comment, since I have the mike open, on the issue of
forward presence rotational deployments and what we call surge
capability back in the homeland. We need to balance that out. I
mean, I don't think you would ever suggest we shouldn't have
some forces forward present, because they have an incredibly
stabilizing effect. And so we don't want to become sanctuary
America. We have to be out and about. The question is how much
forward present, how much rotational.
To your point about compensation, we are looking at every
possible aspect of compensation. You are talking about special
pays for those in this case. Could be special pays for doctors
or aviators. We are looking at the entire spectrum of
compensation issues.
Mr. Coffman. Certainly for those that are forward deployed,
particularly in Afghanistan today.
Let me just mention one last point, and that is that,
again, along the cost side in terms of maybe taking a look at
slowing down the promotion system. We have this up and out
process today, but with tension as high as it is, I am
concerned that we are forcing out people that are good
performers and have a lot of experience. And I think we ought
to take a look at slowing down that promotion system and
allowing people to have more time in their particular
respective grades as opposed to the system that we have now
that I think is fairly rapid in its advancement. If either one
of you could answer that.
General Dempsey. Yeah, if I could, because I spent some
time as the Chief of Staff of the Army, as you know.
We allowed promotion rates to be artificially accelerated
because we were trying to grow the Army so fast. We grew it by
60,000 over about a 3- or 4-year period. Promotion rates for
lieutenant colonel and major, 95 and 90 percent, much higher
than you would want them to be as a profession. And so we are
ratcheting those back as well as changing retention and control
points, but what you just suggested is competing with the
reality that we have got to reduce the size of the force by
100,000. So I will take your points to heart as I always do,
but there are some competing narratives that we have got to
reconcile.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, thank you so much for
your service, both past and present. For my purposes here
today, I would like to discuss not only the budget, but, to be
blunt, whether as a country we can continue to meet our global
objectives in this fairly challenging fiscal environment.
And to the credit of the senior military and civilian
leaders of the Department of Defense, there has been a lot of
efforts, fairly meaningful efforts to reduce unnecessary
overhead and administrative costs and those kinds of things
over the last few years, including the end effects of
sequestration, which I view as kind of a mindless policy. I am
very happy to say that I wasn't here when that was enacted. I
don't believe anybody can be supportive of allowing the
sequester to continue and at the same time be pro-national
defense. I mean, they are not congruent in my mind.
I am honored to work on behalf of the military
installations like Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio or
Lackland and Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Bliss. Laughlin is
one of our Nation's premier pilot training programs, and Fort
Bliss certainly plays a key role in readiness, and Lackland as
well.
I want, however, at this point, to talk to you, some of the
questions have been tinged with partisanship, which in national
defense to me is always a little disheartening, but I want to
talk, Secretary Hagel, you have seen more than probably anybody
on this dais in the course of your life, and what I want to
talk about is finding a better way to ensure that we take care
of America's core national security interests, because you
understand more than most, I think, that these are our kids,
these are our sons and daughters and our brothers and our
sisters.
And so we have lost a few folks over the course of the last
few years doing things that some of us would question. I mean,
trying to essentially not necessarily ingratiate, that is
perhaps not the right word to use, but to convince people about
our sincerity or our efforts, and many times that hasn't worked
so well. And how do you balance that? Because for me, I want to
make sure that we have a clearly defined mission objective so
that we understand at the end of the day that our first and
foremost--you know, I mean, I wouldn't sleep. My little boy is
8, and I wouldn't sleep. So how do we make sure that our
parents and brothers and sisters are getting as much sleep as
possible?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. I wish I was wise
enough to give you a really good answer. I am not. But I would
respond this way. Every generation is faced with a set of
challenges and threats. No generation has escaped that. It is
always how you respond to those threats.
Each of us who has the great privilege of serving in some
capacity, as you do, as everyone on this committee, as the
three of us do at this table, have an immense responsibility
not to fail your 8-year-old. And I think you start there. We
will make mistakes in policy. It will be raggedy, imperfect.
But I have always believed that as you look at all of this, and
much of the discussion this morning is about my testimony, the
Chairman's testimony, it was about our people. You take care of
your people. That always has to come first.
As I noted in my last sentence of my statement this
morning, every policy must be worthy of the service and
sacrifices of our men and women and their families that we ask
to make these great sacrifices. For me, that is the starting
point. And I am not the only one. Certainly General Dempsey has
put a lifetime into this. I doubt if he ever sent a young
person anywhere without asking that fundamental question to
himself.
So that is where you start, then you work outward on what
is relevant, what is real, what is doable. And sometimes we
don't prioritize and discipline ourselves as much as we should
or ask the tough questions. And I think, you know, history is
going to replay the last 12 years, and I am not going to get
into that. I will let history deal with that. But not just
mistakes, because everybody makes mistakes, but how carefully
did we think through all those things?
The consequences we are living with today, what General
Shinseki is dealing with at the VA and our country and they are
going to continue, are the consequences of decisions that were
made 10 years ago and 8 years ago. So there are consequences to
actions and consequences to non-actions.
So, you know all these things, and I just say that because
it is I think sometimes lost in the overall rush to find a
quick answer and decision and we live in an immediate world
where everything is a situation room, everything is just an
emergency, give me an answer, give me an answer. And I realize
the world that we live in is different today, too, than 50
years ago. General Eisenhower had some luxury of having a
little time. And that takes nothing away from General
Eisenhower who I thought was one of the greatest leaders in the
history of our country.
It is not a good answer, but that is the only answer I can
give you.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, Secretary Hale, thank
you very much for your patience and for your willingness to
share of your time here with us today. I think it has been
very, very productive. This committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP
Secretary Hagel. Please refer to my attached written response,
dated April 29, 2013. [See page 29.]
[The written response can be found in the Appendix on page 99.]
Secretary Hagel. Please refer to my attached written response,
dated April 29, 2013. [See page 30.]
[The written response can be found in the Appendix on page 99.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Secretary Hagel. Yes, I believe I have the authority to transfer
detainees to locations outside the United States.
However, my authorities with respect to Guantanamo detainees
preclude transfers to the United States. And, in the absence of a court
order, I am required by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to make certain certifications before a
detainee may be transferred out of our detention facilities at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries or other foreign entities.
Moreover, with respect to transfers of detainees from the Detention
Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan, I am required by the NDAA for FY 2013
to submit to the appropriate congressional committees notice in writing
of the proposed transfer of any individual detained pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C.
1541 note) who is a national of a country other than the United States
or Afghanistan from detention at the Detention Facility at Parwan,
Afghanistan, to the custody of the Government of Afghanistan or of any
other country. [See page 36.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Secretary Hagel. Please refer to my attached written response,
dated April 28, 2013. [See page 34.]
[The written response can be found in the Appendix on page 101.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
Secretary Hagel. The Department is currently in the process of
conducting a strategic choices and management review (SCMR), which will
examine the choices that underlie our defense strategy, posture, and
investments, identify the opportunities to more efficiently and
effectively structure the department, and develop options to deal with
the wide range of future budgetary circumstances. It will be informed
by the strategy that was put forth by the President a year ago, and we
will keep strategy in mind at every step of this review. The results of
this review are expected to provide the Department with a holistic set
of strategic choices to preserve and adapt the defense strategy--to
include possible adjustments to military personnel levels--if
sequestration is not de-triggered. [See page 56.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 11, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON
Mr. McKeon. During your testimony, you stated:
``As to the nonproliferation question in the budget, as you know,
DOD does not have responsibility for funding nonproliferation programs.
Our responsibility is funding and maintaining, securing the stockpile--
the nuclear stockpile. And we'll continue to--to do that. The
nonproliferation programs, which we work with State on, specifically,
also Energy, but--and we participate in that process, but the funding
doesn't come from DOD.''
Could you please clarify this statement? How do you define
nonproliferation and do you consider the DOD-funded Cooperative Threat
Reduction program to be a nonproliferation program? If not, then what
is the purpose and object of the CTR program and what will the $528
million FY14 request for CTR be used for?
Secretary Hagel. I answered the question in the context of the
Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA's) budgets, and how the respective funding for each differs in
terms of the nuclear stockpile (over which we have a shared
responsibility) and NNSA's nonproliferation programs. DOD does support
a number of important nonproliferation-related efforts. In particular,
DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, implemented by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency, is an example of DOD-funded
nonproliferation work. DOD's CTR program plays a critical role in
preventing and reducing weapons of mass destruction threats,
complementing and supporting the President's nonproliferation agenda.
The Nunn-Lugar programs, of which CTR is a part, recently celebrated 20
years of successful efforts, securing or destroying as appropriate,
biological and chemical weapons and production capabilities, strategic
delivery systems and weapons usable fissile material.
Mr. McKeon. The budget materials that the committee received this
year states that ``There will be a rebalance of force structure and
investments toward the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions while
sustaining key alliances and partnerships in other regions.'' Does this
suggest that more forces and investment will be flowing to the Middle
East. Is this a change to last year's defense strategy, which sought to
re-balance to the Asia-Pacific theater while maintaining a presence in
the Middle East.
Secretary Hagel. There is no change in strategy. The Department
continues to use the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) as its
foundation for prioritizing DOD activities, missions, and presence. The
DSG provides that DOD will rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region
while continuing to place a premium on U.S. and Allied military
presence in--and in support of--partner nations in and around the
Middle East. DOD will sustain a presence in the Middle East that is
capable of responding to contingencies, deterring aggression, and
countering violent extremist threats. The budget materials offered to
the Committee are consistent with this guidance.
Mr. McKeon. Is it accurate that the QDR is on hold until the
strategic choices and management review is complete? How is the review
going to impact the QDR? I understand your cost assessment team rather
than your policy and strategy shop is leading the strategic choices and
management review--can you explain why? Please explain why this is not
a recipe for a budget driven QDR.
Secretary Hagel. The QDR is being preceded by a 60-day Strategic
Choices and Management Review. As I have stated, the 2012 Defense
Strategic Guidance is the review's point of departure, ensuring a
strategy-driven foundation for examining a range of potential budgetary
scenarios. The review is led by the Deputy Secretary of Defense working
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Because the purpose of
the review is the development of potential budgetary scenarios and
options for cost-savings, I directed the head of our cost assessment
team to organize the effort. That being said, there is an integration
group that convenes daily, including participants from the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Joint Staff, and my
personal staff, to oversee the review. I anticipate that the review
will identify areas where the constrained fiscal environment could
place stress on the Department's ability to execute the defense
strategy. The results of the Strategic Choices and Management Review
will then be examined in more depth during the QDR.
Mr. McKeon. When do you expect to begin work on the QDR? Consistent
with section 113 of Title 10 USC, Congress has made its appointments to
the National Defense Panel, while the Department has not. When will you
make your appointments to the National Defense Panel?
Secretary Hagel. The QDR will begin soon after the completion of
the Strategic Choices and Management Review, which will be provided for
my review in early June. The QDR will be completed in time to deliver
the QDR report to Congress in February 2014. I will appoint National
Defense Panel co-chairs prior to the start of the QDR.
Mr. McKeon. You recently stated that North Korea is ``skating very
close to a dangerous line.'' What is that line? And what would be the
implications for North Korea if they crossed that line?
Secretary Hagel. My April 10 statement referred to North Korea's
increasingly belligerent rhetoric and actions over the last several
months, including its launch of a ballistic missile in December 2012,
its third nuclear test in February 2013, North Korea's declaration in
March 2013 that the 1953 Armistice Agreement was invalid, its threat to
launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States and South
Korea, and its pledge to restart its Yongbyon nuclear complex.
I do not want to speculate about a U.S. response to hypothetical
scenarios. The bottom line is that the United States is prepared to and
capable of defending the homeland and our Allies against the North
Korean nuclear, other weapons of mass destruction, and missile threat.
The United States takes North Korean provocations very seriously, and I
can assure you that there would be grave consequences for the regime if
it took actions that threatened the security of the United States or
our Allies.
Mr. McKeon. Is it your assessment that the French had to conduct
the operation in Mali due to the gains that Al Qaeda was making in the
country?
If so, had the French not stepped up to conduct this operation in
Mali, would the U.S. have conducted the operation? If not, why?
Secretary Hagel. The French intervened in Mali in response to a
Malian request for assistance and because the French feared--as they
put it--that ``the whole of Mali will fall into their (terrorist
elements) hands, threatening all of Africa, and even Europe.'' We also
recognized that al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)
was expanding its freedom of movement. We increased efforts with
neighboring countries to contain the threat within Mali, and began
providing support to the African-led International Assistance Mission
in Mali (AFISMA). As AQIM forces moved south and the French responded,
we made a policy decision to support the French efforts to counter this
shared threat.
Mr. McKeon. Is it correct that the Department has a $53 billion
shortfall for FY13--$41B for the sequester, $10B for OCO, and $2B from
fuel?
Given this shortfall, have you or anyone in DOD asked OMB and the
White House to submit to Congress a FY13 supplemental to make up the
shortfall? Absent a supplemental request, how do you plan to make up
the shortfall?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, that is the approximate amount of the total
funding shortfall the Department faces this fiscal year. The Department
will prepare a reprogramming action that will address much of the OCO
shortfall. Reduced consumption and potential mitigation of fuel prices
for the remainder of the fiscal year may reduce some of the fuel bill.
However, the Department has no way to mitigate the impact of sequester
other than reducing spending across all the programs, projects, and
activities that are impacted by the sequestration.
In the current fiscal climate it is highly unlikely that a
supplemental budget request will be favorably acted on. Therefore, the
Department is not making any plans to submit a supplemental budget
request.
The Department highlighted the impact of sequestration. The
Department is taking a wide range of actions to slow operating
spending. These include travel and conference limits; civilian hiring
freezes; layoffs of temporary/term employees; cutbacks in facility
maintenance; reductions in base operating support expenses and reduced
service support contracts. Civilian furloughs are unavoidable.
Equipment maintenance inductions have been deferred to include ship
availabilities. Multiple training events across all the Military
Departments were cancelled. Flying hours and steaming days were
reduced. Virtually every acquisition program will have to manage with
fewer funds, resulting in selected reductions in procurement quantities
and delayed research and development efforts. The Department is still
assessing the impact to specific programs.
As the military leadership has articulated, we are eating into
readiness, not sustaining readiness. The real impact will be felt in
the months and years ahead. There are no easy solutions to our dilemma
other than taking action to de-trigger sequestration
Mr. McKeon. Earlier this year we received a letter from senior
military leadership, known as the 28-Star letter, warning of a
readiness crisis. Your budget does not appear to request funds to fix
the damage to our readiness caused by sequester. Please explain how
this budget request addresses the readiness crisis? Are there any
shortfalls?
General Dempsey. The FY 2014 President's Budget (PB14) does not
include funds to restore lost readiness caused by sequester because we
do not yet know the full impact or the cost of recovery from the
readiness shortfalls we are experiencing this fiscal year. PB14 does,
however, fund initiatives that seek to return to full-spectrum training
and preparation for missions beyond current operations in Afghanistan.
The Department continues its work to understand and quantify readiness
activities as we seek to maximize our preparedness for real-world
missions.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SANCHEZ
Ms. Sanchez. I am very appreciative of the Department's strong
support of biomedical research, which has led to many advances in
medical care for our wounded warriors as well as many medical
interventions that are in the pipeline. It is of note that many of
these new diagnostics and treatments have the added benefit of helping
all American citizens. I have noted with interest that the Department
has sponsored a very important conference--the Military Health System
Research Symposium (MHSRS)--which provides an opportunity for all the
services to identify and share advances as well as identifying critical
research needs. The real time sharing of important medical research
information and the exchange of ideas fosters the development and rapid
advancement of medical innovations. It is an important forum in which
problems are identified and possible solutions developed. Many
successful medical treatments and innovative research programs have
been initiated as a resulted. It also provides a forum where academic
and industry collaborators, at their own expense, can assist with
developing solutions. I am concerned that some other conferences have
been cancelled this year, but would like to recommend the continuation
of the MHSRS. This conference provides a unique opportunity for a great
deal of information to be exchanged and discussed between all
interested parties in a very short period of time--which expedites the
delivery of these new medical interventions to our wounded warriors.
While I support cost saving measures, the department needs to be
mindful that this conference has many additional benefits--not the
least of which is to preclude duplication of efforts, thus saving both
time and money. The benefit ultimately saves lives.
Secretary Hagel. I appreciate your endorsement of this symposium.
The Department finds the interchange to be very productive. In light of
fiscal constraints, DOD is looking at other formats to conduct the
conference, e.g. virtually, to curtail total costs while maximizing
participation. I recognize the value of on-site attendance, but look to
include other means of exchange that will hold down travel costs while
maximizing participation.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES
Mr. Forbes. As part of the final conference report on the National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310), members of the House and Senate
chose to include Section 533, protecting the conscience rights of
service members and chaplains, and directing the Secretary of Defense
to issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this
section. Since the bill was signed into law on January 2, 2013, what
steps have you taken to implement section 533 and when will the final
regulations be issued?
Secretary Hagel. The Department of Defense places a high value on
the rights of military personnel and their families to observe the
tenets of their religions wherever they may be stationed around the
world.
Long-standing policy maintains that chaplains have the freedom to
preach and conduct religious worship according to the dictates of their
religions. Consistent with the Department's long-standing policy of
religious freedom, the DOD is in the process of revising two Department
of Defense Instructions (DODI's) to implement section 533 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
These revised instructions will fully support Service members'
rights to practice their religions and receive religious accommodations
as appropriate, as well as affirm Chaplains' rights to practice their
faiths without fear of reprisal and without having to perform services
which are inconsistent with their religious beliefs, and those of the
religious organizations with which they are affiliated.
The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness September
30, 2011 memorandum to the Secretaries of the Military Departments and
Chiefs of the Military Services supports section 533, through guidance
that affirms Chaplains' rights to refuse participation in events that
would be in variance with tenants of his or her religion or personal
beliefs.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. Miller. Section 2814 of the FY13 NDAA, as signed by the
President, requires the DOD to report on the recent Air Force Materiel
Command reorganization. Can you provide an update to the status of this
report? Can you tell me who in OSD has the lead for this report and
whether OSD has directed the Air Force to provide input to assist with
preparation of the report? If the Air Force has been so directed to
support, what organizations are involved and what is their roles?
Secretary Hagel. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) has the responsibility for the report
required by section 2814 of the FY13 NDAA on the Air Force Material
Command reorganization. The Department intends to send the completed
report by September 30, 2013. The ASD(R&E) asked the Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) for input on the reorganization, and
how it is proceeding. This input will be sent to ASD(R&E), who will
then complete the report, in coordination and consultation with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), and other key OSD
offices.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN
Mr. Langevin. Secretary Hagel, Given the shortage of qualified
cyber personnel in both the military and civilian domains, in your
view, is DOD doing enough to ensure that such personnel are properly
positioned within the Department? Are we diluting our cyber operators
too much by spreading them out to the various commands, or are we
striking the proper balance with regards to the integration of cyber
capabilities into our force structures?
Secretary Hagel. I believe that DOD is moving expeditiously to
address the growing threats faced in cyberspace. As part of its efforts
to develop cyberspace operations capabilities, the Department provides
cyber capabilities where they are most needed. DOD must ensure that
defense networks are more secure and have the capability to continue
operating in degraded information environments. The Department also
needs to provide strong support to combatant commanders. Finally, DOD
needs to have both the capabilities and capacity to defend the United
States against significant threats in cyberspace. In light of these
priorities, DOD is building teams comprising more than 6,000 highly
skilled military and civilian personnel to support national and
Combatant Command specific missions, focusing on the most critical
threats and requirements first. As DOD's cyber force structure is
built, civilian and military personnel will continuously assess
implementation to ensure that the Department is maximizing operational
effectiveness and striking a reasonable balance across the priority
missions.
Mr. Langevin. General Dempsey, I'd like to touch on a couple
operational aspects to anti-access area denial environments. Such
battlespace limitations are likely to place a premium on particular
assets, technologies, and competencies, particularly in the Asia-
Pacific region where there is a significant proliferation of
submarines, advanced tactical fighters, and ballistic missiles, as well
as many electronic warfare challenges. Can you speak to how the
Department is resourcing, training, and investing in research and
development in order to meet those challenges, particularly with
regards to directed energy, undersea warfare, and advanced tactics,
techniques, and procedures?
General Dempsey. There are many ongoing efforts that are addressing
these issues: Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense, clearly established the 10 primary missions of the Joint
Force. The ability to project power despite Anti-Access/Area Denial
(A2/AD) challenges is one of the 10 and when that particular mission is
accomplished, it serves as a key enabler to accomplishing the other
nine primary missions. The guidance directs the implementation of the
Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC). The concept describes how the
joint force will operate to overcome the challenges you describe. The
concept identifies 30 capabilities required to implement the concept.
The JCS also identified three supporting concepts including: A multi
Service Air-Sea Battle concept, which is being implemented, a concept
for Entry Operations which is nearing completion and a concept for
sustained joint land operation that will be developed. Holistically
these concepts will ensure the development of capabilities to include
training, materiel, leadership development and the advanced tactics,
techniques and procedures to ensure the Joint force can operate in an
A2/AD environment. Many combatant command and Service Title 10 training
events are planned between FY14-18 to exercise countering the A2/AD
threat. The Department has re-aligned training funds in FY14 to United
States Pacific Command (USPACOM) in order to support the President's
National Strategy of an Asia-Pacific rebalance. Three USPACOM exercises
include objectives specifically focused on countering A2/AD threats.
As for advances in directed energy capabilities, there is great
potential for using directed energy for both kinetic and non-kinetic
purposes to include advanced laser rangefinders and designators, use
against sensors that are sensitive to light, uses to protect friendly
equipment, facilities, and personnel, and to retain friendly use of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Services are exploring the feasibility of
directed energy weapons.
Mr. Langevin. General, given how sensitive many aspects of cyber
operations are, in your view, are we doing enough to ensure we are able
to share information and operate jointly with our allies, particularly
in the Asia-Pacific region, at least to the level of establishing a
common operating picture both in the traditional domains and in
cyberspace?
General Dempsey. There are several information sharing, Common
Operating Picture (COP) and cyber space efforts underway to ensure
sufficient focus on these important issues.
First, we are working very hard to improve interoperability and
share information with our allies. Recent achievements include
significantly improved email capability to share Secret releasable
information with our regional FVEY partners (Australia and New
Zealand). We also established the capability for Australians to access
US web-based Secret-Releasable information and connected US and
Australian secure voice telephone networks. These same web and voice
capabilities will be available for New Zealand within six months.
Secondly, to improve security of classified and unclassified
information sharing we are working with our partners to cross certify
national public key security systems. Using Public Key ``Smart Card''
technology to access networks and resources ensures our data exchanges
are attributable. The first step in this area was made on 9 May 2013
when the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer signed an
unclassified public key cross certification agreement with her
Australian counterpart.
Additionally, beyond our regional FVEY allies, we are also
developing processes and procedures that will better enable information
sharing with any potential mission partner. This Mission Partner
Environment (MPE) capability framework allows mission partners to plan,
prepare, and execute operations in the same security domain supporting
the Commander's intent for unity of effort.
I agree that we need a Common Operating Picture (COP) in the
traditional domains. The Global Command and Control System--Joint
(GCCS-J) is DOD's primary fielded COP capability to the combatant
commands, Services, Defense Agencies, and the Joint Staff. Pending
GCCS-J enhancements will improve the cross domain sharing of COP data
with mission partners enabling more effective joint operations.
Lastly, DOD has a validated requirement for cyber situational
awareness (SA) and is currently conducting an Evaluation of
Alternatives that serves as the first phase to inform the allocation of
the DOD's new and existing investments in achieving cyber situational
awareness capabilities that will become part of our fielded GCCS J COP
capability.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. The Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) was
established 7 years ago and has since been provided billions of dollars
in funding to develop counter-IED capabilities for the warfighter.
However, GAO has identified several significant internal control
weaknesses and a lack of comprehensive visibility over all of DOD's
counter-IED efforts external to JIEDDO, and that these issues have
persisted for many years despite several reports and recommendations to
address these problems. GAO cited, among other things, a lack of
sustained management attention and senior DOD leadership as causes for
these continued problems. It has also been argued by some that JIEDDO
may not have all the authority it needs to effectively lead and oversee
all of DOD's joint and military service counter-IED activities.
What will JIEDDO's mission and organization be in the future beyond
2014? Will JIEDDO stay a separate entity as it is currently, or will it
be integrated into other existing organizations and processes?
General Dempsey. JIEDDO is a joint entity and a jointly manned
activity of the Department of Defense (DOD) operating under the
direction of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The future of JIEDDO's
mission and organization are being discussed as part of a broader
effort to determine the Department's long term approach to providing
quick reaction capabilities. The Joint Staff is an active participant
in these ongoing discussions to ensure alignment to current and
developing strategic guidance and fiscal realities, while at the same
time maintaining the requisite focus on the enduring threat that IEDs
present. The options currently under consideration range from
maintaining an organization with functions and responsibilities similar
to those currently performed by JIEDDO to a distribution of those
functions and responsibilities to other DOD organizations with related
competencies. It is premature to speculate on what JIEDDO's mission and
organization will be beyond 2014 until deliberations conclude and a
recommendation is made to the Secretary.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE
Mr. Kline. Does the Office of the Secretary of Defense recognize
that there are inefficiencies in the Medical Evaluation Board system
which are causing extreme hardship for Reserve Component soldiers? If
so, what immediate and long term actions are being taken to correct the
growing number of Medical Evaluation Board cases?
Secretary Hagel. The Department is not aware of specific
inefficiencies in the Medical Evaluation Board phase of the Integrated
Disability Evaluation System (IDES) which are causing extreme hardship
for Reserve Component soldiers. However, we are constantly looking for
ways to make this process more efficient and less burdensome to the
Service members. For example, effective March 2012, the Department
provided Service members with the option to undergo interview and
examination at a Veterans Health Administration location closest to
home. This eliminates the need for Service members to travel long
distances to a Military Treatment Facility.
Through efforts like this, there has been a 26% reduction in
processing timeliness for Reserve Component cases through the 140-day
Medical Evaluation Board phase (174 to 128 days) over the last 6
months.
Mr. Kline. What actions are being taken to establish a singular,
transparent system that adjudicates service members cases fairly and
quickly?
Secretary Hagel. In 2007, DOD and VA integrated the disability
evaluation processes for seriously ill and injured Service members to
establish, within the confines of existing law, a singular,
transparent, faster, and fair process.
DOD and VA eliminated redundant disability ratings, which
simplified, accelerated, and increased the consistency of disability
determinations between the Departments.
DOD and VA provide Service members their disability
ratings and anticipated disability compensation prior to separation
from military service so that they are better prepared to make
decisions about their future.
Since implementing the integrated the disability
evaluation process, DOD and VA decreased the time from referral for
disability evaluation to VA benefits receipt by 30% (540 days to 376
days).
In the past six months, DOD and VA reduced the time for
the medical evaluation portion of the integrated disability evaluation
process by 39% from 132 days to 80 days, and the Departments are now
meeting the 100-day goal. The time required to complete physical
evaluation boards also decreased by 25%, from 133 to 100 days, and is
currently meeting the 120-day goal. The Department of Defense is
committed to improving the overall process and has taken the following
actions to further improve the Integrated Disability Evaluation System
(IDES).
DOD increased IDES staff levels by 127% (676 personnel)
to improve case processing timeliness and customer service.
DOD authorized the Services to use PhD psychologists (in
addition to psychiatrists) to adjudicate behavioral health cases, and
reduced the requirement for Informal Physical Evaluation Board
membership from 3 to 2 to increase their capacity to process cases.
The Army improved its Medical Evaluation Board timeliness
by 74% (reduced from 117 to 31 days against 100-day goal) at select
locations by segmenting Soldiers into cohorts of simpler versus complex
cases.
The Military Departments are identifying and expediting
back-logged cases and giving priority to clearing oldest cases first
and are committed to clearing their back-logs by December 2013.
Mr. Kline. The 2004 initiative regarding Integrated Electronic
Health Records between Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs
medical entities was abandoned in February 2013, apparently due to
technological obstacles. An integrated record, shared between the two
agencies, would have greatly helped transparency of the Medical
Evaluation Board process, especially as the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES) is fully implemented. The Veterans Affairs and
Department of Defense have apparently opted for a more affordable
solution to link the separate record systems using existing programs.
When will this be complete?
Secretary Hagel. I would like to dispel any belief that DOD and VA
are moving away from a joint, seamless electronic health record (EHR).
Our goal remains to seamlessly integrate DOD and VA electronic health
record data, and while the strategy used to accomplish this goal has
changed; the end goal remains the same. Therefore, we are implementing
actions to accelerate availability of seamless information by
developing a core set of iEHR data interoperability capabilities, such
as allowing VA and DOD patients to download their medical records (what
we call our Blue Button Initiative); expanding the use of the graphical
user interface to seven additional sites and its expansion of two DOD
sites; and improving the integrated electronic health record data
before the end of this year, by standardizing health care data.
Mr. Kline. Is there a difference in the average adjudication time
between an Active Component soldier versus Reserve Component soldier
through the Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board process?
If there is a difference in time, why is there such a disparity?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, there are slight differences. The Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) phase goal for Active Component Service members
is 100 days, while Reserve Component Service members is 140 days. The
DOD/VA allocates an additional 40 days for Reserve Component Service
members to gather medical and Veterans records required for processing.
Between November 2012 and April 2013 leading indicators show that
MEB timeliness for Active Component cases improved 33% to an average of
80 days. MEB timeliness for Reserve Component cases improved 26% to an
average of 128 days. The Department is now meeting its goals for
timeliness of MEBs for both Active and Reserve Component cases.
The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) phase goal for both Active and
Reserve Component cases is 120 days. Between November 2012 and April
2013 leading indicators show that PEB timeliness for the Active
Component cases improved 17% to an average of 101 days, while Reserve
Component cases remained steady at an average of 158 days. During this
period, the number of Reserve Component cases at the PEB increased by
65% (2,017 to 3,322). The Military Departments are increasing their
capacity to adjudicate Reserve Component cases to meet the higher
demand.
Mr. Kline. Can the Department of Defense task Reserve Components to
place clinical professionals on orders to augment existing Military
Treatment Facility staff in order to relieve the backlog?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, the Department can request Reserve
augmentation. However, DOD does not believe it is necessary to augment
military treatment facility staff with Reserve Component clinical
professionals at this time. Because Medical Evaluation Boards (MEBs)
are conducted at Military Treatment Facilities, a review of leading
indicators show that MEB timeliness significantly improved for all
Military Departments. Between November 2012 and April 2013, the number
of Reserve Component cases in the MEB phase decreased 12%. During the
same period DOD and VA improved timeliness 26%, shortening the MEB
phase from 174 days to 128 days, which meets the 140-day Reserve
Components MEB phase goal.
Mr. Kline. What is the current backlog at the Military Treatment
Facilities for Reserve Component and Active Component cases?
Secretary Hagel. In April 2013, there were 9,185 Active Component
cases and 2,672 Reserve Component cases in the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES) that are exceeding timeliness standards.
Mr. Kline. There appears to be great variance in communication
models from Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO) to PEBLO,
even among PEBLOs from the same Military Treatment Facility. Are the
communication expectations for PEBLOs standardized?
Secretary Hagel. Yes. DOD instruction 1332.38, ``Physical
Disability Evaluation,'' sets standard communication requirements for
PEBLOs, including the timeliness for counseling of service members upon
their referral for disability evaluation (10 days) and the topics that
must be communicated. Each year the Military Departments submit a
report to DOD certifying their PEBLOs are trained and adhering to DOD
policies. The Department recognizes the need for continuous learning
and improvement and began a bottom-up re-build of the Disability
Evaluation System (DES) training standards and objectives. DOD will
provide these improved training standards and objectives to the
Military Departments no later than June 30, 2013. Additionally, DOD is
revising disability quality assurance requirements to measure PEBLO
communication/practices.
Mr. Kline. Do you need legislative authority from Congress to
address and correct deficiencies in the Medical Evaluation Board
process?
Secretary Hagel. No. I appreciate the Congress' interest in this
issue but the Department does not need any legislative assistance with
the Medical Evaluation Board process at this time.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. The FY 13 NDAA under section 2832 requires the
Department of Defense to meet 4 requirements in order to fully spend
Government of Japan funds that have been received and are currently
sitting unobligated in the U.S. Treasury. This is a matter of great
concern to our community. What steps is the Department of Defense
taking to meet these 4 requirements?
Secretary Hagel. The Department of Defense will ensure that
Congress is provided regular updates on the status of realignment
planning, as well as on expenditures of any related funds. Within the
next few weeks, the Department plans to provide a comprehensive
response to Congress detailing DOD efforts to meet the requirements of
section 2832. This response will be in the form of a letter from the
Deputy Secretary to the leadership of this Committee and others. It
will include details of the specific steps being taken to meet the
requirements of Section 2832.
Ms. Bordallo. It is important to ensure that as we draw down in
Afghanistan that we posture our nation to ensure freedom of access and
economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. I read with interest
the fact that you have ordered a Strategic Choices and Management
Review that will challenge all previous assumptions and strategy,
including those made in the 2011 Defense Strategic Guidance. The Asia-
Pacific region is the world's most militarized region with 7 of the 10
largest militaries and multiple nations with declared nuclear arms.
Instability in this region will have a direct and immediate effect for
our nation. I wish to emphasize to you today the need for continued
focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Secretary, can I get your
commitment once again that as you and the Department look into the
future, you will keep the Asia-Pacific Region at the center of your
focus?
Secretary Hagel. The 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance stated that
the Department ``will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific
region,'' and that strategy remains in effect today. The United States
will maintain its security presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific.
Specifically, defense spending and programs will continue to support
key priorities. At the same time, reviewing strategies and underlying
assumptions, as the Department is doing in the Strategic Choices and
Management Review, is always a prudent measure to ensure American
security.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. A senior Russian researcher, Sergei Rogov, recently
claimed that the Aegis Ashore platforms we have chosen to deploy in
Romania and Poland are a violation of the INF treaty because the VLS
canisters could launch the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, the TLAM
cruise missile. Can you state whether you agree with that statement? Do
these deployments violate the INF treaty?
Secretary Hagel. The land-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) system,
sometimes referred to as Aegis Ashore, will be developed, tested, and
deployed in a manner that is fully consistent with U.S. obligations
under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Specifically,
the land-based SM-3 will be developed and tested solely to intercept
and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth. Under
paragraph 3 of Article VII of the INF Treaty, such a missile is
specifically exempted from the limitations of the Treaty. The launcher
for the land-based SM-3 will be fully consistent with the INF Treaty.
The launcher will not be capable of launching the Tomahawk cruise
missile or any missile prohibited under the INF Treaty.
Mr. Rogers. Why is the INF treaty of enduring value to the security
of the United States and its NATO allies?
Secretary Hagel. The INF Treaty remains a foundational pillar of
strategic stability for the Euro-Atlantic region, and one that is in
the interests of the United States, the Russian Federation, and NATO
Allies. Reintroduction of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles into
the arsenals of the Parties would be a destabilizing element in the
geostrategic relationship between the United States and the Russian
Federation.
Mr. Rogers. During his recent appearance before this committee,
NORTHCOM Commander Jacoby testified that, ``What a third site gives me,
whether it's on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be
increased battle space. That means, increased opportunity for me to
engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.'' (emphasis added)
Do you agree with the Commander of NORTHCOM? Does a third site
provide more ``battle space'' for the defense of the homeland?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, a third Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) site
would provide increased ``battle space'' for some homeland defense
scenarios. Generally speaking, more battle space increases decision
time to determine the appropriate actions to be taken. A key question
is whether the benefits associated with more battle space are worth the
cost of a third site (approximately $3 billion for an East Coast
missile field). Although there is no current requirement for a third
site, the Department is in the early stages of identifying at least 3
candidate locations for a third GBI site as directed by the Fiscal Year
2013 National Defense Authorization Act. At least 2 of the possible
sites must be on the East Coast. The Department will also conduct
environmental impact statements in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act for the possible sites as directed, and
consider the benefits of such a site in comparison to the costs.
Mr. Rogers. General Kehler, commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that,
``I am confident that we can defend against a limited attack from Iran,
although we are not in the most optimum posture to do that today . . .
it doesn't provide total defense today.'' What he was referring to was
what the National Research Council described in its 2012 report as the
basis of an East Coast missile defense site, ``to provide the battle
space necessary for shoot-look-shoot of the entire country.''
Do you agree that the East Coast of the United States is not
presently defended from Iran with a shoot-look-shoot missile defense?
What is the plan today to provide that capability now that Phase IV of
the EPAA has been terminated?
Secretary Hagel. The United States is currently defended from any
intercontinental range ballistic missile that Iran may acquire in the
foreseeable future. The Department is continuing the development of the
technologies and capabilities that could allow for improvements to the
shot doctrine in the future, and remains focused on pursuing the most
cost-effective means to improve missile defense within the current
resource-constrained environment.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, the decision to terminate the Precision
Tracking Space System (PTSS) and the SM-3 IIB missile frees up $4
billion over the Future Years Defense Program. We are told the March
15th strategy will cost $1 billion. Is the remaining $3 billion coming
out of the missile defense budget? As you know, that budget has been
cut each every year the President has been in office and is $6 billion
dollars below the Bush Future Years Defense Program.
Secretary Hagel. Of the $4 billion, the Department added $2 billion
back into the Missile Defense Agency budget across the Future Years
Defense Program, and used the remaining $2 billion for other Department
priorities.
Mr. Rogers. In your nomination hearing to be Secretary, you
distanced yourself from the recommendation of the Global Zero report,
which you had previously signed, and endorsed the maintenance and
modernization of the TRIAD of nuclear delivery systems. Do you continue
to support the nuclear TRIAD of submarines and missiles, ICBMs and
bombers with gravity bombs and cruise missiles?
Secretary Hagel. Yes. I believe that retaining the Triad,
consistent with the Nuclear Posture Review's conclusions, remains the
right decision at the present time. I believe that the Triad's mix of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic
missiles, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers continues to support U.S.
national security interests.
Mr. Rogers. When can the Congress expect to receive the plan called
for by the FY12 NDAA concerning the force structure of the U.S. nuclear
force under the New START treaty? How much funding is required in FY14
for force structure reductions to implement the treaty?
Secretary Hagel. The FY14 President's Budget request for Fiscal
Year 2014 maintains the current force structure (14 ballistic missile
submarines, 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 98 heavy
bombers). A decision on reductions in U.S. forces to meet the New START
Treaty limits is expected to be finalized before Fiscal Year 2015
begins. This approach provides the maximum flexibility to tailor our
force structure to meet deterrence requirements while still enabling us
to meet the Treaty's deadline in February 2018. In the meantime, the
Department will continue necessary planning activities to implement the
reductions, to remove from New START accountability previously retired
systems, and support the full verification and inspection regime
allowed under the Treaty.
Mr. Rogers. The Guardian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the
father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, A.Q. Khan, admitted to traveling to
North Korea repeatedly over several years. It is reported these trips
involved him ``handing over nuclear secrets in exchange for missile
technology.'' How has this and other cooperation, including Iranian,
Chinese and Russian, enhanced North Korea's nuclear program?
Secretary Hagel. North Korea's links with the black market of
illicit nuclear trafficking and the related exchange of nuclear-related
expertise, technologies, components or material extends well beyond its
dealings with A.Q. Khan. North Korea's nuclear program is supported by
North Korean efforts across the globe. I am equally concerned about the
potential proliferation by North Korea of weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, and related materials. The dynamic structures of
proliferation networks are challenging, but DOD is actively working
with international and interagency partners to address this challenge.
Mr. Rogers. The March 2013 data declaration shows that for the
third year since entry-into-force of the New START treaty, the Russian
Federation is already below the deployed warhead and deployed delivery
vehicle limits of that treaty. Thus, is it correct that only the United
States must reduce those deployed systems to comply with the treaty?
Secretary Hagel. Under the New START Treaty, each Party retains the
right to determine for itself the structure and composition of its
strategic forces within the Treaty's overall limits. Although the
Russian Federation is below the deployed warhead and deployed delivery
vehicle limits as of March 1, 2013, it remains above the limit of
deployed and non-deployed launchers of intercontinental ballistic
missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and both deployed
and non-deployed heavy bombers. Under the terms of the New START
Treaty, each Party has until February 5, 2018, to meet the Treaty's
overall limits.
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Turner wrote to you in early March to ask you
whether Russia was acting consistently with its arms control
obligations to the U.S. At the time, you wrote that the final report of
the annual ``Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control,
Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments'' report
was ``in final coordination and forthcoming but has not yet reached
[your] desk for review.'' Have you now reviewed this report? Can you
now answer the question?
General Dempsey. The report, which is submitted by the Secretary of
State on behalf of the President, is in final coordination. I
respectfully defer to that forthcoming official assessment.
Mr. Rogers. When can the Congress expect to receive the plan called
for by the FY12 NDAA concerning the force structure of the U.S. nuclear
force under the New START treaty? How much funding is required in FY14
for force structure reductions to implement the treaty?
General Dempsey. The FY14 President's Budget maintains the current
force structure (14 SSBNs, 450 ICBMs, and 98 nuclear-capable heavy
bombers). A decision on reductions in U.S. forces to meet the New START
Treaty limits is expected to be finalized before FY15 begins. This
approach provides flexibility to tailor our force structure to meet
deterrence requirements while still enabling us to comply with the
treaty central limits by February 2018.
Mr. Rogers. The March 2013 data declaration shows that for the
third year since entry-into-force of the New START treaty, the Russian
Federation is already below the deployed warhead and deployed delivery
vehicle limits of that treaty. Thus, is it correct that only the United
States must reduce those deployed systems to comply with the treaty?
General Dempsey. New START was created with a view to maintain
flexibility by allowing each Party to determine for itself how to
structure its strategic nuclear forces within the aggregate limits of
the Treaty. The United States and Russia have the freedom to determine
how to meet the three central limits of the New START Treaty by
February 5, 2018, which is the end of the treaty's seven-year reduction
period. As indicated by the March 2013 biannual data exchange, the
United States still maintains more strategic offensive arms than Russia
in every category of declared aggregate data. Yes, it is correct that
only the United States must reduce its deployed systems to comply with
the treaty. Although the Russian Federation is below the deployed
warhead and deployed delivery vehicle limits, it still is above the
limit of deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs, and
deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.
Mr. Rogers. General Kehler, commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that,
``I am confident that we can defend against a limited attack from Iran,
although we are not in the most optimum posture to do that today . . .
it doesn't provide total defense today.'' What he was referring to was
what the National Research Council described in its 2012 report as the
basis of an East Coast missile defense site, ``to provide the battle
space necessary for shoot-look-shoot of the entire country.''
Do you agree that the East Coast of the United States is not
presently defended from Iran with a shoot-look-shoot missile defense?
What is the plan today to provide that capability now that Phase IV of
the EPAA has been terminated?
General Dempsey. We continue to look for ways to improve our
missile defense of the East Coast. As required by Section 227 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, the
Department of Defense will evaluate at least three locations, including
conducting environmental impact assessments, for a potential additional
Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) site in the United States. At least two
of these sites will be on the East Coast. The Administration has not
decided to proceed with an additional site, but if that decision were
made in the future, conducting an environmental impact assessment for
each potential site in advance would shorten the timeline for
construction.
Our homeland missile defense system today provides coverage for the
United States against possible North Korean and Iranian long-range
ballistic missiles. The Department recognizes the additional benefit of
improving the efficiency of shot doctrine in order to better manage our
limited inventory of GBIs in the face of an increasing threat. A
``shoot-look-shoot'' capability would potentially allow the United
States to fire fewer interceptors per incoming missile. The Department
is continuing the development of the technologies and capabilities that
could allow for modifications to the shot doctrine in the future, and
we remain focused on pursuing the most cost effective means to improve
missile defense within the current resource constrained environment.
Mr. Rogers. During his recent appearance before this committee,
NORTHCOM Commander Jacoby testified that, ``What a third site gives me,
whether it's on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be
increased battle space. That means, increased opportunity for me to
engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.'' (emphasis added)
Do you agree with the Commander of NORTHCOM? Does a third site
provide more ``battle space'' for the defense of the homeland?
General Dempsey. Every military commander will tell you that more
``battle space'' is better than less. It expands the commander's
available options and increases the decision space to allow more time
to determine the appropriate actions to be taken. The Department is in
the early stages of identifying candidate locations for Environmental
Impact Studies (EIS) for a third Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) site as
directed in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. At
least two of the possible sites must be on the East Coast. The EIS
would be part of the process to evaluate the value and effectiveness of
a potential third interceptor site to the overall U.S. homeland
defense.
Mr. Rogers. The Guardian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the
father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, A.Q. Khan, admitted to traveling to
North Korea repeatedly over several years. It is reported these trips
involved him ``handing over nuclear secrets in exchange for missile
technology.'' How has this and other cooperation, including Iranian,
Chinese and Russian, enhanced North Korea's nuclear program?
General Dempsey. [The information referred to is classified and
retained in the committee files.]
Mr. Rogers. General Dempsey, on the matter of verifiability,
STRATCOM Commander Kehler recently responded to a letter from me
stating that he has no reason to disagree with the position of the
Perry-Schlesinger Commission and former Assistant Secretary of State
Rademaker that Russia is not in compliance with the Presidential
Nuclear Initiatives. Do you agree with them? Are the Russians in
compliance with the PNIs?
General Dempsey. Every military commander will tell you that more
``battle space'' is better than less. It expands the commander's
available options and increases the decision space to allow more time
to determine the appropriate actions to be taken. The Department is in
the early stages of identifying candidate locations for Environmental
Impact Studies (EIS) for a third Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) site as
directed in the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. At
least two of the possible sites must be on the East Coast. The EIS will
be part of the process to evaluate the value and effectiveness of a
potential third interceptor site to the overall U.S. homeland defense.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Secretary, the inability of the Defense Department
and Veterans Administration to share the medical records of active and
veteran service members has become a national embarrassment. Millions
of dollars have been spent over the last decade with no meaningful
results. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 established the
Interagency Program Office to act as the single point of accountability
for both departments to develop and implement coordinated electronic
health record systems and capabilities.
I understand that, in the last couple of weeks, the IPO conducted a
series of tests on integrating representative health data between the
two systems in use. Have you been briefed on the results of those tests
and the progress they demonstrated in identifying the best solution?
Secretary Hagel. I have not yet been briefed significantly on the
ongoing Integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) Increment 0 testing
that is underway. I understand this is very early testing is intended
to assess the proposed single sign-on and context management
capabilities only. Lessons learned from this testing will be
incorporated into follow-on efforts.
Mr. Johnson. Given the pending requests for potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars of Military Construction for Guantanamo, for only
166 people and for a facility that we want to close, at what point does
the funding begin to fail the common sense test?
Secretary Hagel. The Department is currently in the process of
assessing whether to repair or to replace certain facilities that have
exceeded their anticipated service life (in some cases by many years).
DOD will abide by its obligations to keep the Congress informed,
consistent with current military construction authorities. The projects
being considered would replace deteriorating structures, consolidate
facilities, gain efficiencies by reducing detainee movements, and
provide quality of life improvements for service members supporting the
Joint Task Force mission.
Mr. Johnson. Are you in favor of closing the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay?
Secretary Hagel. The President's goal is to cease detention
operations at the detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. I fully support that goal.
Mr. Johnson. Are you aware of the human rights violations ongoing
in Bahrain and what more can the United States do, particularly given
the 5th Fleet, to help protect the people there and ensure stability,
which surely is in both of our national interests?
Secretary Hagel. Yes, I am aware of the human rights violations
that occurred in Bahrain. I share your concerns regarding the stability
of Bahrain's government and the challenges the Kingdom faces in
addressing internal unrest. However, I am optimistic that the Bahrain
government is making some progress due to the restart of the National
Dialogue and the King's appointment of the Crown Prince as the Deputy
Prime Minister. I am also certain that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) will continue to play a productive role in
encouraging the dialogue to move forward.
The presence of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (the Fifth Fleet)
in Bahrain increases the ability of the U.S. Government to influence
the Government of Bahrain's behavior regarding human rights by
providing a means to reinforce U.S. concerns directly with the Bahraini
political, military, and security leadership. In addition, the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry, in its report issued in November
2011, indicated that the Bahrain Defense Forces--with which the United
States has a relationship--were not implicated in any of the human
rights abuses that were described in the report.
Mr. Johnson. Do you believe you have the legal authority to
transfer a sick detainee to the continental United States?
Secretary Hagel. No. There are a number of legal provisions that
restrict the Department of Defense (DOD) from transferring detainees
from Guantanamo to the United States. Section 1027 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 2013 NDAA) prohibits
the use of FY 2013 funds ``to transfer, release, or assist in the
transfer or release'' any detainee currently held at Guantanamo ``to or
within the United States, its territories, or possessions.'' Section
8109 of the DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2013 contains a nearly
identical provision. These provisions do not contain exceptions.
Mr. Johnson. Are you aware of the human rights violations ongoing
in Bahrain and what more can the United States do, particularly given
the 5th Fleet, to help protect the people there and ensure stability,
which surely is in both of our national interests?
General Dempsey. Yes, I am aware of the human rights violations
that occurred in Bahrain. I share your concerns regarding the stability
of Bahrain's government and the challenges the Kingdom faces in
addressing internal unrest. However, I am optimistic that the Bahrain
Government is making significant progress, due largely to the start of
the National Dialogue and the King's appointment of the Crown Prince as
the Deputy Prime Minister. I am also certain that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and UAE will continue to play a productive role in encouraging the
dialogue to move forward.
The presence of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (the Fifth Fleet)
in Bahrain increases the ability of the U.S. Government to influence
the Government of Bahrain's behavior regarding human rights by
providing a means to interact directly with the Bahraini political,
military, and security leadership to reinforce U.S. efforts in this
regard. In addition, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, in
its report issued in November 2011, indicated that the Bahrain Defense
Forces--with which we have a relationship--were not implicated in any
of the human rights abuses that were described in the report.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BARBER
Mr. Barber. Secretary Hagel, thank you for your time today, your
service to our country, and your candid testimony. I know you agree,
that maintaining our commitments to our allies is a paramount endeavor.
As we re-balance defense and diplomatic funding to the Asia-Pacific
region, it is important that we continue to send a strong message of
support to our allies in other regions. Israel is an important ally and
friend to the United States. In order to ensure regional stability and
the protection of Israel from harm, a robust, multi-layered air defense
system must be in place. The Iron Dome system has proven successful in
defending Israel from the onslaught of rockets and missiles targeting
Israeli civilians. However, more can be done. I believe we must
continue to work to support Israel in this mission and provide them
with the additional resources necessary to speed up the production of
these batteries. As the United States continues our long and proud
commitment of standing by our allies, what more can be done to support
Israel and our other allies in the Middle East? And would you agree
that standing up another line of production for the Iron Dome missile
system would help Israel meet its defense goals?
Secretary Hagel. As the President and I have said many times, the
United States' commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. Both
American and Israeli officials agree that the defense relationship
between the United States and Israel has never been stronger, and we
are in constant contact with Israel to understand its defense
requirements and ensure that it is able to defend itself in this
changing security environment.
As a testament to this, the President requested unprecedented
levels of support for Israel, even in the midst of a tough fiscal
climate. This year the U.S. provided Israel with $3.1 billion in
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and the Department has worked with
Congress to provide significant additional funding for Iron Dome and
other cooperative missile and rocket defense programs. To date, DOD
transferred approximately $275 million for Iron Dome ($205 million in
Fiscal Year 2011, and $70 million in Fiscal Year 2012), and will soon
transfer nearly $200 million in additional Fiscal Year 2013 funding for
Iron Dome. The extent of this funding was determined through close
consultations with the Israelis to ensure that their Iron Dome funding
requirements are met, and funding levels will continue to be determined
in coordination with Israel and based upon its security needs. These
discussions include the consideration of current and future production
needs.
Mr. Barber. Secretary Hagel, first let me say I applaud your
initiatives to reform the Department's acquisition process. I think we
all agree the acquisition process is overly complex leading to
unnecessary inefficiencies. Second, I appreciate your focus on
maintaining critical capabilities in lieu of new acquisitions. In a
fiscally constrained environment, it makes sense to maximize our
previous investments and be good stewards of the tax payers' money. For
example, the budget mentioned maintaining the C-130 for airlift
capability rather than procuring a new, more expensive airplane. The
budget also noted the Department will retain F-15 and F-16 fighter
aircraft. While we greatly anticipate the continued procurement and
fielding of the F-35, the fact remains that the Air Force currently
lacks the necessary fleet of F-35s to replace the A-10. Yet, also
within the budget, the Department continues with its plans to either
shift to the Air Force Reserve, or retire, the A-10. In my district, we
have Davis-Monthan Air Force Base that is home to the 354th Fighter
Squadron, a squadron of A-10s. They just returned from Afghanistan this
week. Wouldn't you agree that these pilots, and the A-10s that they
fly, provide a critical close air support role not readily filled by
another airframe? What measures is the Department undertaking to ensure
sufficient numbers of A-10s are kept mission ready and able to support
our forward forces and combatant commanders?
Secretary Hagel. The A-10 Thunderbolt II has served the country
very well for the past 30 years. Through two wars in Iraq, and for the
last 12 years in Afghanistan, the A-10 has been operated by all of the
components--the Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve--and has been a
significant battlefield force multiplier. The A-10 continues to undergo
a series of airframe structural changes to ensure viability, has
completed precision engagement (integration of data links with a
cockpit/avionics suite upgrade), carries advanced targeting pods, and
employs the latest in guided weapons. The Air Force will continue to
invest in the A-10 for the foreseeable future, while still planning for
the F-35 replacement process to fulfill future close air support (CAS)
needs. We continue to train A-10 pilots and our budget ensures that the
requisite number of A-10s necessary to support Combatant Commander
requirements are available. Until we have sufficient numbers of F-35s,
the Air Force intends to keep the A-10 viable and combat-ready.
In short, the Air Force is ensuring A-10 availability, reliability,
and maintainability with procurement of enhanced wing assemblies,
scheduled structural inspections, replacement of aging fuselage
longerons, and operational equipment upgrades. Combined, these efforts
extend the A-10 service life to 14,000 hours. The A-10 will be kept
operationally viable through software suite development that enhances
the capabilities of its targeting pods and weapons upgrades. The Air
Force is equipping the A-10 with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System to
satisfy an Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) urgent operational need.
These efforts will ensure our A-10s are kept at a mission ready status
and are able to support our forward forces and Combatant Commanders. As
the Air Force reallocates aircraft across the Total Force, the A-10
will continue to provide CAS as it has for the last 30 years,
regardless of component ownership.
Mr. Barber. Secretary Hagel, I wanted to ask a question about
TRICARE and our beneficiaries in the Philippines. For years, the
Department of Defense has said there has been a problem of fraud by
providers to TRICARE Management Activity in that country. TMA has
implemented a number of policies that has had the result of reducing
access to care, yet failing to combat fraud. At this time, TMA is four
months into a new demonstration project, and a constituent of mine has
kept me well informed on how it is proceeding. Mr. Secretary, I must
say I am dismayed to report that the demonstration program has seen
many flaws and I am quite concerned that beneficiaries are being
limited to a number of providers, for example, one authorized hospital
in a city larger than New York City. Many have seen their fees doubled
or have had to pay up front for office visits. What is the Department's
response to this situation? Can you please provide me a detailed report
on the implementation of TMA's demonstration program since January
2013, how much fraud DOD has found in TMA's work with Philippine
providers, and how this new demonstration program is combating this
fraud? Thank you for your timely consideration to these questions.
Secretary Hagel. (1) Providers have a choice to participate as
approved providers, which may result in an insufficient mix of primary
and specialty providers. The TRICARE Management Activity approved
specialty waivers in designated demonstration areas for beneficiaries
to receive inpatient services at hospitals that are approved providers
for outpatient services only. As of May 2013, there are seven
institutional providers and 122 professional providers delivering
health care in designated demonstration areas for Phase I.
Beneficiaries can still seek care from certified providers,
professional and institutional, outside designated demonstration areas.
TRICARE reimburses health care costs based on the lesser of billed
charges or the Philippine fee schedule located online at: http://
www.tricare.mil/CMAC/ProcedurePricing/SearchResults.aspx.
To participate in the TRICARE Department of Defense Philippine
Demonstration Project, providers agreed to bill at the lesser of the
billed charges or the Philippine Foreign Fee Schedule. Approved
providers have agreed to collect only the appropriate deductible and
cost-shares from TRICARE Standard under the Demonstration Project.
According to TRICARE policy, beneficiaries who use TRICARE Standard,
whether they reside overseas or in the United States may be required to
pay their deductible and cost-shares up front when receiving medical
services.
(2) In response to your request for a detailed report on the
implementation of TMA's demonstration program, I have enclosed a
document outlining the Philippine Demonstration Project.
[The document can be found in the Appendix on page 102.]
(3) In 2008, the Department's aggressive action resulted in
seventeen individuals convicted of defrauding the TRICARE program of
more than $100 million. The Department's health care antifraud
initiatives have resulted in a cost avoidance of approximately $255
million from 2006 through the end of fiscal year 2011.
(4) To combat fraud under the Demonstration Project, the
establishment of an approved provider network allows the Tricare
Overseas Program (TOP) contractor to screen out providers under
prepayment review because of the providers' historical fraudulent
claims activity before they become approved demonstration providers for
TRICARE. Approved providers must comply with the on-site verification,
certification, and credentialing requirements. The TOP contractor
provides one-to-one education to approved providers to ensure the
approved providers understand how to submit accurate claims. To date,
there have been no identified fraudulent billing activities under the
demonstration project.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARSON
Mr. Carson. Secretary Hagel, recently over 1,000 National Guard
service members from Indiana had their deployments cancelled at the
last minute under the auspices cost savings. This sort of off-ramping
can be difficult on service members and their families--especially when
it comes to employment, housing and higher education. I am interested
in hearing more about what goes into these decisions, both generally
and in the Indiana case, especially in light of the fact that National
Guard units can be less expensive than active units in some cases. Can
you describe your considerations and how, under sequestration, the
Department justifies making these types of changes?
Secretary Hagel. The Army made the decision to off-ramp in the case
of the Indiana National Guard units to save money. Mobilization of
these units was estimated to cost the Army $88M as opposed to using
available active duty units that would not require these additional
costs.
The Service decision to alter the Indiana National Guard Units
deployment is in accordance with current Department policies. In cases
where deployment changes occur, the Services have policies in place to
mitigate hardships on individual service members. The diligent efforts
of Indiana Army National Guard Leadership and State Organizations, in
conjunction with National Guard Bureau, the Department of the Army, and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, mitigated numerous hardship
issues. These efforts include the re-missioning of interested Soldiers
via the Army's Worldwide Individual Augmentation System, resume
preparation courses, available Employment Support of the Guard and
Reserve (ESGR) employment mediation services, employment counseling
sessions, and a job fair hosted by the Indiana National Guard.
Additionally, off-ramped Indiana Guardsmen were afforded the
opportunity to extend their health care coverage through enrollment in
Tri-Care Reserve Select health insurance. Finally, the deadline to
apply for Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) was extended
so that all affected Indiana Guardsmen were able to re-enroll in higher
education programs.
The Reserve Component remains a full partner in the Total Force and
will be employed along the full spectrum of required operations from
the strategic reserve for the Nation, and in an operational capacity as
an integral part of our operational Total Force as the Department
shapes its military forces to implement the new defense strategy and
respond to the challenges of a new era.
Mr. Carson. The President's budget has laid out several steps to
protect the industrial base, but as we all know the threat does not
just rest on prime and major subcontractors. The threat is most
pronounced with our small business suppliers, many of which have a
small number of defense contracts and may not survive cutbacks or
cancellations. If sequestration continues unimpeded, what is your
assessment of its impact on our supplier base? What steps is DOD taking
to minimize this impact? And what costs, if any, do you believe we will
incur in the wake of sequestration to rebuild our base of small
business suppliers?
Secretary Hagel. The amount of actual dollars obligated to small
businesses in FY 2013 is less than previous years at this point in
time--and will remain so for the rest of the fiscal year as a
consequence of the delayed implementation of sequestration--but our
improved achievement as a percentage of total obligations has thus far
helped to mitigate the impact to small businesses. Still, the fact
remains that reduced spending will result in reduced awards to small
and large businesses alike. Small businesses are much less capable of
absorbing these cuts than large businesses.
Although sequestration potentially impacts every contract, it will
not impact every contract or business equally. The cuts will have a
significant impact on service contracts--an area where the competitive
advantage gained through aggressive pricing, lower overhead, and
increased innovation has traditionally allowed small businesses to
excel.
Additionally, 60 to 70 percent of our contracted defense dollars
are typically subcontracted, and many of our subcontractors are small
businesses. The Department recognizes that small businesses do not have
the capital structures and liquidity necessary to survive severe
reductions in revenues, and that they rely on the prime contractors to
pay them what they are owed in a timely manner, which could become more
difficult during sequestration. For example, the Department has already
been forced to suspend our program for making accelerated payments to
prime contractors, which was intended to encourage the timely payment
of their small business subcontractors. However, we have been working
toward improving our monitoring of prime contractors' compliance with
their approved small business subcontracting plans and will reemphasize
that sequestration has not affected their obligation to provide the
maximum practicable opportunity to small businesses.
An additional source of impact on small business due to
sequestration is the reduction in critical activities, such as
outreach, match-making, and workforce training, that directly influence
small business participation and procurement opportunities. Budget
constraints have already caused the Office of Small Business Programs
to postpone its planned Small Business Training Week, during which our
DOD small business professionals have traditionally met in a central
location to receive annual training. These direct and indirect factors
could combine to cause a disproportionate impact on small businesses.
The DOD Component Acquisition Executives and I closely monitor all
aspects of small business performance, including impacts due to
sequestration. We have taken several steps to mitigate the impact of
sequestration on small businesses, including emphasis on increasing
small business participation in specific services portfolios and in
procurements under the simplified acquisition threshold. As far as
calculating the actual costs of rebuilding our base of small business
suppliers, any such estimates would be premature at this time as there
is no way to accurately predict how long sequestration will last or the
extent to which it will adversely affect the small business community.
Primary responsibility for the health of most small business firms in
the supply chain rests with our first- and second-tier suppliers, who
in turn rely on market forces to ensure that critical suppliers remain
in business. The Department has taken an active role in working with
private industry through our Sector-by-Sector-Tier-by-Tier Evaluation
Program to monitor the health of our overall supply chain.
We will continue to monitor the impact of sequestration closely
and, when appropriate, take mitigating actions as quickly as possible.
Mr. Carson. What is your assessment of our military and diplomatic
partnerships with Pakistan? Do you believe that they have improved at
all since tensions arose following the raid on Osama bin Laden's
compound? And how do you believe our relationship will change when we
withdraw the last of our troops from Afghanistan--presumably leaving
many Al Qaeda and other enemy combatants in the border regions between
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Secretary Hagel. The May 2011 raid on Osama bin Ladin's compound
and its aftermath underscored and accelerated tensions between the
United States and Pakistan. The cross-border incident at Salala in
November 2011, and Pakistan's subsequent decision to close the Ground
Lines of Communication (GLOC) to U.S. and NATO/International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) cargo, marked a low point in the U.S.-Pakistan
bilateral relationship.
Since Pakistan re-opened the GLOC in July 2012, the United States
and Pakistan returned to previous levels of cooperation, in part by
refocusing the bilateral relationship on core counter-terrorism issues
and stability and security interests. The Department works closely with
Pakistan to rebalance our bilateral defense relationship and refocus it
on a narrow set of security objectives.
Pakistan has worked closely with the Department in bilateral
defense meetings resulting in both sides endorsing this shift. The
United States agreed to pursue a security relationship that prioritizes
support for core capabilities: precision strike; air mobility and
combat search and rescue; survivability and counter IED; battlefield
communications; night vision; border security; and counter-narcotics
and maritime security. Security assistance that supports these core
capabilities--along with Coalition Support Fund reimbursements for
Pakistan's counterterrorism/counterinsurgency operations that support
Operation Enduring Freedom--advances U.S. interests by increasing
Pakistani capacity to conduct operations against militant and terrorist
networks in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.
More broadly, these engagements and security and security-related
assistance activities occur against a backdrop of increased Pakistani
cooperation with the U.S., including the ground lines of communication
(GLOC) opening, positive signs of support for Afghan reconciliation,
trilateral border cooperation with Afghanistan, and ongoing
counterterrorism operations. I believe that U.S. force reductions in
Afghanistan will magnify the importance of Pakistani support for these
efforts--underscoring the importance of sustaining our security- and
security-related assistance for Pakistan.
Mr. Carson. General Dempsey, recently over 1,000 National Guard
service members from Indiana had their deployments cancelled at the
last minute under the auspices cost savings. This sort of off-ramping
can be difficult on service members and their families--especially when
it comes to employment, housing and higher education. I am interested
in hearing more about what goes into these decisions, both generally
and in the Indiana case, especially in light of the fact that National
Guard units can be less expensive than active units in some cases. Can
you describe your considerations and how, under sequestration, the
Department justifies making these types of changes?
General Dempsey. On 20 March 2013, Headquarters Army published
Execution Order (EXORD) 104-13 affecting the programed sourcing
solution for support to Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) Sinai
and Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (JTF HOA). This order changed the
sourced forces from the 76th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Indiana Army
National Guard, to active component Army forces. This change was
necessary due to budgetary constraints.
Forces affected consisted of 570 soldiers scheduled to deploy on 16
May 2013 supporting JTF HOA and 459 soldiers scheduled to deploy on 18
July 2013 supporting MFO Sinai.
All those involved in making these decisions understand the
difficulties experienced by our Guardsmen and Reservists when scheduled
deployments are off-ramped. In this case, the National Guard Bureau,
Department of the Army and Army Forces Command diligently worked to
publish an amended de-mobilization order on 28 March 2103 moving the
planned off-ramp date to 21 April 2013. This adjustment was meant to
give our Guardsmen sufficient time to reverse any plans they had made
relating to the deployment.
In addressing the larger issue of how these decisions are made, it
is true that reserve component forces can cost less than active
component forces. The Indiana situation is an example of when this is
not the case. Because the Army had uncommitted active component forces
that could accomplish the same missions, utilizing a National Guard
solution actually becomes an added expense. We would now be paying for
maintaining the uncommitted active forces and the mobilized Army
National Guard forces.
Mr. Carson. What is your assessment of our military and diplomatic
partnerships with Pakistan? Do you believe that they have improved at
all since tensions arose following the raid on Osama bin Laden's
compound? And how do you believe our relationship will change when we
withdraw the last of our troops from Afghanistan--presumably leaving
many Al Qaeda and other enemy combatants in the border regions between
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
General Dempsey. As stated in my testimony, we are gradually
rebuilding our relationship with Pakistan from its low point following
the trying events of 2011. While we are unlikely to return to the
aspirational strategic partnership we envisioned in 2010, Pakistan has
taken a number of positive steps in the past year towards forging a
more modest and sustainable relationship, most notably the signing of a
tripartite border document with Afghanistan to standardize border
operations. As we reduce our footprint in Afghanistan, we need to be
mindful of Pakistan's concern that our drawdown will require close
coordination with all regional partners to ensure the region remains
stable. We must acknowledge that a secure and stable Pakistan is in our
national interests and essential to the stability of the region as a
whole. The threat from militant groups in the tribal border regions and
other volatile areas is unlikely to diminish as ISAF forces withdraw,
it is important that our security assistance programs reflect our
commitment to support Afghanistan and Pakistan in this fight.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT
Mr. Nugent. General Dempsey, you warned this Congress and the
President of the effect sequestration would have on readiness. What
would a budget request look like that really did reset all your
equipment, procure the replacement assets you require, and reinstate a
training schedule that maintains the level of readiness our troops
deserve? What can you say to assure me, my wife, and all Blue Star
parents, that the Pentagon's budget recommendation will provide our
sons and daughters with all the equipment they need to fight and win
wars--and then safely return home?
General Dempsey. We do not yet know the cost of fixing the
readiness of the force following the sequester cuts to training in this
fiscal year; therefore, these costs were not included in the FY 2014
President's Budget (PB14). PB14 does, however, fund initiatives that
seek to return to full-spectrum training and preparation for missions
beyond current operations in Afghanistan. The Department continues its
work to understand and quantify readiness activities as we seek to
maximize our preparedness for real-world missions.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE
Mr. Bridenstine. My philosophy is that a strong America results in
a safer world and that a weak America invites aggression.
My specific concern is about missile defense. We have seen this
administration cut $6 billion from missile defense over the last 4
years. During the campaign we heard the President tell Russian
President Medvedev the following:
This is my last election. After my election I will have more
flexibility.
He was talking specifically about our missile defense capabilities.
After the election, he has quickly moved to restructure the SM-3 Block
2B missile interceptor program. This would have provided defense
against a long-range missile aimed at our East Coast.
Now we see his budget. It includes a $600 million cut to missile
defense. It also includes significant cuts to Israel cooperative
missile defense programs.
We have established a pattern of behavior in this administration
that favors cutting missile defense. Yet, North Korea is preparing a
missile launch and Iran continues to develop missile capabilities. It's
surprising that your budget request continues to cut missile defense
since weakness is provocative.
Secretary Hagel, is this weakness--the weakness of cutting missile
defense in your budget request--part of the President's flexibility?
Secretary Hagel. Russia was not a factor in the development of U.S.
missile defense budget decisions. The United States is committed to
continuing to develop and deploy missile defenses that are affordable
and effective against projected threats, consistent with the Ballistic
Missile Defense Review (BMDR). The President is on record as stating,
and I agree, that the United States cannot accept limits on its missile
defense systems. The President made clear the need to ensure that U.S.
missile defense systems are capable of defeating the growing threat
faced from North Korean and Iranian missiles. The budget also fully
funds Israeli missile defense programs with $316 million requested for
Israeli missile defense development and procurement programs in FY 14.
This includes the Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome systems and
represents a 216 percent increase from last year's request.
Mr. Bridenstine. Though you did not account for sequestration in
your budget, what is your estimate of the total number of Active Duty,
Reserve, and National Guard personnel that will have to be reduced if
sequestration continues?
Secretary Hagel. The Department is currently in the process of
conducting a Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR), which will
examine the choices that underlie defense strategy, posture, and
investments, identify the opportunities to more efficiently and
effectively structure the department, and develop options to deal with
the wide range of future budgetary circumstances. The results of this
review are expected to provide the Department with a holistic set of
strategic choices to preserve and adapt the defense strategy--to
include possible adjustments to military personnel levels--if
sequestration is not de-triggered.
Mr. Bridenstine. I am concerned about your request for a BRAC round
in 2015 despite the President saying he's opposed to BRAC this past
July. From my understanding, last year the Congress required the
Department to complete an overseas basing assessment. Shouldn't this
assessment be completed and delivered to Congress before we authorize a
BRAC?
Secretary Hagel. An independent assessment of the Department of
Defense's overseas basing of military forces, as required by section
347 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was
completed by the RAND Corporation on December 31, 2012. The Department
delivered the assessment and Deputy Secretary of Defense's comments in
response to the assessment to the Congressional Defense Committees on
April 18, 2013. Generally speaking, it is beneficial to undertake
reviews of overseas and domestic infrastructure in tandem, so each can
inform the other.
Furthermore, the President did not say that he is opposed to BRAC,
but instead expressed a concern that the proposal at the time--a round
in 2013--was too soon. The President's Budget requests a round in 2015,
consistent with that premise.
Mr. Bridenstine. I am concerned by the $600 million dollar cut to
missile defense, particularly given that North Korea is due to test
launch a missile any day now. Iran's ballistic missile development is
just as troubling. Given the restructuring to SM-3 Block IIB, what is
the plan for defending our homeland from long-range ballistic missile
attack from Iran? Shouldn't we be re-investing the $600 million cut in
upgrading our long-range defense systems given what's going on in North
Korea?
Secretary Hagel. Although the SM-3 IIB in Europe was planned to
provide a capability against possible Iranian Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), the SM-3 IIB was not going to be ready
until 2022 at the earliest, as a result of Congressional reductions to
the program and the effects of the Continuing Resolution. Given the
growth of the North Korean ICBM threat and the potential for Iran to
develop an ICBM, the Department requires a more responsive solution.
Therefore, DOD opted to deploy the 14 additional GBIs in Alaska by
Fiscal Year 2017 and to pursue the deployment of a second AN/TPY-2
radar to Japan as the fastest, most cost-effective method of increasing
U.S. homeland missile defense.
Other steps are also underway. The Department plans to deploy an
additional In-Flight Interceptor Communications System data terminal on
the U.S. East Coast and upgrade the Early Warning Radars at Clear,
Alaska, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, by 2017. Additionally, DOD will
accelerate the command and control system's development and
discrimination software to handle larger numbers of incoming ballistic
missiles. These improvements in sensor coverage, command and control,
and interceptor reliability will have a significant impact on the
expected performance of the GMD system. I am confident that these steps
will allow the United States to maintain an advantageous position
relative to the Iranian and North Korean ICBM threats.
Mr. Bridenstine. Are you confident the $130 million requested for
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system is adequate to support
additional Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) deployments in Alaska?
Secretary Hagel. For FY 2014, the Missile Defense Agency requested
a total of $135M in funding for the first year of a three year $224M
Missile Field-1 Refurbishment and Repair Project at Fort Greely,
Alaska. The request is based on funding required to construct a
mechanical-electrical building, repair existing facilities and upgrade/
replace existing system support equipment. Work is planned to be
completed on these activities in FY 2016, requiring $44M in FY 2015,
and $45M in FY-2016.
Mr. Bridenstine. I am concerned about the cut to Israeli
cooperative missile defense programs. Please explain this large cut in
funding, particularly in terms of Arrow and Short Range Ballistic
Missile Defense. Iranian ballistic missile development is going strong.
If that's the case, how can you justify such large cuts to our ally at
this crucial time?
Secretary Hagel. The United States continues to work with and
support the Israeli Government to ensure it is able to protect its
population against ballistic missile and rocket attacks. Accordingly,
the President's Budget requests $220 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014
and $176 million for FY 2015 to fulfill the Administration's commitment
to provide a total of $677 million in procurement funds from FY 2012
through FY 2015 to the Government of Israel to purchase additional Iron
Dome short-range rocket defense systems. In addition, the President's
Budget requests $96 million in FY 2014 for research, development,
technology, and engineering funding for three U.S.-Israeli cooperative
programs: the Arrow Weapon System, the David's Sling Weapon System, and
the Arrow-3 Interceptor.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. WALORSKI
Mrs. Walorski. General Dempsey, last year 16 Adjutants General
requested funding to modernize the aging HMMWV fleet. In response, the
Appropriations Committee honored this request and provided $100M to
begin a multi-year effort to field new model HMMWVs in Guard units
across the country. $100M was even included in the DOD Appropriations
bill and CR that was recently signed. However, the Army has indicated
that they may use the money to recap existing HMMWVs instead. What are
your plans relative to this issue, and what priority do you attach to
it relative to your modernization programs?
General Dempsey. I fully support the Army's plan to use $100
million to continue the highly successful HMMWV recapitalization
program at Red River Army Depot, while concurrently divesting excess
HMMWVs rather than restarting HMMWV production for the Army National
Guard (ARNG). Army HMMWV quantities currently on hand exceed both
current and projected Light Tactical Vehicles quantity requirements.
Given the current fiscal constraints, it is more cost effective to
recapitalize existing equipment to meet near term readiness needs and
Joint requirements rather than procuring new, unneeded assets.
That said, we face an array of challenges and potential threats in
a period of fiscal uncertainty. As such, our modernization efforts
remain a top priority for equipping and sustaining a force that is
globally responsive to meet the needs of Combatant Commanders and our
Joint interagency partners.
Mrs. Walorski. I recently visited NSWC Crane and witnessed the
unique work they are doing to detect and defeat missile threats.
General Dempsey, we are all waiting anxiously for what we understand is
an imminent missile launch in North Korea. We don't know if that launch
is a missile test or something more significant. My question is, once
that missile is launched, given flight times to targets in the region,
including Japan, South Korea and U.S. forces in Guam, how much time do
our forces have to make a decision to shoot it down? Who has authority
to make that decision today? Has a decision been made what we will do
if a missile appears to be headed to Japan or Guam? Will you know at
launch if it has a nuclear warhead on it?
General Dempsey. The timeline for engagement of a North Korean
missile targeting U.S. Forces in Guam, South Korea, or Japan, is
measured in minutes. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense delegated
engagement authority for regional threats to Commander, US Pacific
Command and authorized him to further delegate as he deems necessary.
Ballistic Missile Defense assets are postured in the region to engage
the threat and will execute established procedures if a missile is
projected to impact a defended area in Japan, South Korea or Guam. It
is unlikely that we will know the type of warhead on a threat when it
is launched.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
