DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2018 

HEARINGS

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as 

ranking minority member of the full committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees. 

JENNIFER MILLER, WALTER HEARNE, BROOKE BOYER, B G WRIGHT,

ADRIENNE RAMSAY, ALLISON DETERS, MEGAN MILAM, CORNELL TEAGUE,

COLLIN LEE, MATTHEW BOWER, and SHERRY L. YOUNG

Subcommittee Staff 

Page

Testimony of Members of Congress .............................................................. 1

U.S. Central Command ..................................................................................... 189

U.S. European Command ................................................................................. 257

United States Pacific Command .................................................................... 281

National Guard Bureau / Reserve Componets ............................................ 319

Department of Defense .................................................................................... 451

Public Witness Statements .............................................................................. 529

( 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

28–272 WASHINGTON : 2018 
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 1

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

DAVID YOUNG, Iowa 

EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia 

—————

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

GRACE MENG, New York 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

NANCY FOX, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2018 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. 

Good morning. The subcommittee will hold an open hearing during which Members of the House of Representatives will have the 

input and the opportunity to provide the subcommittee their input 

on how to address the challenges and needs facing our military. 

At no other time in history have we as a Nation faced such serious, complex, and growing threats to our national security. As 

Members of the Congress, it is our constitutional responsibility to 

provide for our Nation’s defense. We must ensure that the brave 

men and women who protect us have the tools, training, and equipment they need. 

Mr. Visclosky, the committee’s ranking member, and I are here 

today to hear your thoughts and ideas about how we can make 

sure the Department has what it needs to meet the challenges. 

Your input today will be of great benefit to the committee as we 

draft the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriation bill. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Visclosky, the ranking 

member, for any opening comments he would like to make. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chairwoman. 

First of all, I want to thank the chair for holding this hearing. 

I do think it is vitally important at the outset, given the fact that 

we are going to have a supplemental due shortly, as well as a fiscal 

year 2018 budget submission in May to hear from our colleagues 

in advance. I also look forward to the hearing. I also appreciate the 

fact that I believe this is now the first hearing that I will share 

with the chairwoman and wish her luck in this endeavor and look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses throughout the day. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Out of respect for members’ time, we will strictly adhere to the 

5-minute clock. The timer in front of me, this one right here, will 

change from green to yellow when you have 1 minute remaining to 

conclude your statement. Your full written statement will be made 

a part of the record. 
2

The gentlelady from Guam is recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE FROM THE TERRITORY 

OF GUAM 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DELEGATE BORDALLO

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Chairman Granger, and 

Ranking Member Visclosky, and the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And thank you for allowing me the 

time to address you this morning. 

I do very much appreciate the work that this subcommittee made 

in developing the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill. And I believe 

it makes many good investments in the defense of our country. And 

I thank the subcommittee for their support of some critical programs.

Though it is difficult to make requests without a budget before 

us, I would like to take a few minutes to outline a few critical capabilities which I hope to see supported as the appropriations process 

for fiscal year 2018 moves forward. 

In particular, I would first like to note my appreciation for your 

inclusion of $9.5 million in fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill for 

the reestablishment of drydocking capabilities in the western Pacific. This critical funding, which is a tiny fraction of the Navy ship 

repair account, will enable our forward deployed forces in the region and reduce our reliance on foreign ship repair. This is particularly important in a contested environment with the potential for 

limited access, so I very much appreciate the committee’s support 

in appropriating at the authorized level for fiscal year 2017. 

Now moving forward, I do hope to continue to work together to 

ensure that the Navy is adequately resourced to operate and maintain their fleet in the western Pacific, especially given that 60 percent of the fleet is to be operating in the Pacific; 60 percent. And 

the threat in our region, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, 

is very, very real, and it grows more so every day. Funding this capability is essential to having a viable, forward deployed fleet. 

The second item I would like to raise is my support for full funding of the B–21 Raider program. This next-generation bomber will 

replace a sorely aging fleet that has provided us with long-range 

strike capabilities for generations. With an ability to strike anywhere in the world, it is the most versatile leg of the nuclear triad, 

and also provides a tested and proven conventional strike capability.

Moving forward, especially at this stage of the acquisition program, it will be important to ensure adequate funding in order to 

avoid unnecessary and costly delays. On Guam, we recently saw 

the deployment to the Pacific of all three existing bomber airframes 

for the first time in history, and the continuous bomber presence 

at Anderson Air Force Base is a linchpin for America power projection in the region. 
3

And finally, Madam Chairman, I also want to briefly touch on 

the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration program. 

I have appreciated very much this committee’s long-standing support to find resources to address the unfunded requirements of this 

program. The REPI program helps to stop encroachment at the 

U.S. military installations and training ranges across the country. 

There is a long and a growing list of projects that need funding, 

so I would ask the subcommittee to continue to address the unfunded requirements to address this backlog. 

And again, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, and other 

members, I thank you again for your time and your support. I truly 

appreciate it and the consideration of my testimony here today. 

And I yield back. 

[The written statement of Delegate Bordallo follows:] 
4

TESTIMONY OF 

CONGRESSWOMAN MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO 

BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

MARCH 9, 20I7 

Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members of the Defense 

Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the time to address you this morning. 

I know you might find it odd to say this but I often find a friendlier audience amongst my friends 

on the Appropriations Committee than I do with my own authorizing committee. To that end, I 

do appreciate the work this subcommittee made in developing the FY17 appropriations bill. I 

believe it makes many good investments in the defense of our country and I thank the 

subcommittee for their support of some critical programs. 

Though it is difficult to make requests without a budget before us, I would like to take 

just a few minutes to outline a few critical capabilities which I hope to see supported as the 

appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2018 moves forward. 

In particular, I would first like to note my appreciation for your inclusion of $9.5 million 

in the Fiscal Year 2017 Appropriations bill for the re-establishment of dry docking capabilities in 

the Western Pacific. This critical funding, which is a tiny fraction of the Navy's ship repair 

account will enable our forward deployed forces in the region and reduce our reliance on foreign 

ship repair. This is particularly important in a contested environment with the potential for 

limited access, so I appreciate the committee's support in appropriating at the authorized level 

for Fiscal Year 2017. Moving forward, I hope to continue to work together to ensure that the 

Navy is adequately resourced to operate and maintain their fleet in the Western Pacific especially 

given that 60 percent of the fleet is to be operating in the Pacific. The threat in our region is very 

real and grows every day. Funding this capability is essential to having a viable forward 

deployed fleet. 

The second item I would like to raise is my support for full funding of the B-21 Raider 

program. This next-generation bomber will replace a sorely aging fleet that has provided us with 

long range strike capabilities for generations. With an ability to strike anywhere in the world, it is 

the most versatile leg of the nuclear triad, and also provides a tested and proven conventional 

strike capability. Moving forward, especially at this stage of the acquisition program, it will be 

important to ensure adequate funding in order to avoid unnecessary and costly delays. On Guam, 

we recently saw the deployment to the Pacific of all three existing bomber air frames for the first 

time in history, and the continuous bomber presence at Andersen Air Force Base is a lynchpin 

for American power projection in the region. 
5

Finally, I also want to briefly touch on the Readiness and Environmental Protection 

Integration program. I have appreciated this subcommittee's long standing support to find 

resources to address the unfunded requirements of this program. The REP! program helps to 

stop encroachment at U.S. military installations and training ranges across the country. There is 

a long and growing list of projects that need funding so I would ask the subcommittee continue 

to address the unfunded requirements to address the backlog. 

Thank you again for your time, and consideration of my testimony here today. 
6

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for your testimony today and your continuing support. I enjoyed our visit there. Thank you very much. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking 

Member Visclosky. I want to take a couple seconds. I just had the 

opportunity to spend some time with the gentlelady from Guam 

and our Natural Resource chairman in Guam. I certainly want to 

support her request. It is very evident being there how that it really is the tip of the spear for us in terms of our defense. And good 

morning and thank you for the opportunity to share my priorities 

for fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations. 

As the father of an Army staff sergeant who has received the 

Purple Heart during combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom and a 

strong supporter of our Nation’s defense programs, I appreciate the 

subcommittee’s willingness to receive testimony from incoming 

members. This truly is a privilege and an honor to be before you 

this morning. I recognize the challenges placed before the subcommittee and I appreciate your ongoing commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Reserve 

forces.

For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to ensure 

that our military does not face a continued drawdown in force 

strength. This begins with ensuring that our military continues to 

have the tools and equipment to get the job done. And for this reason, I will be respectfully requesting funding for the C–130 in-flight 

propeller balancing system to be increased by $18 million from fiscal year 2017 levels. The system will improve fuel efficiency, increase readiness and mission availability, and reduce maintenance 

costs for our Nation’s C–130 fleet. 

I also respectfully request full funding of the Columbia-class submarine program. As the Ohio-class submarines begin to retire in 

2031, it is imperative that we fund their replacement to maintain 

a presence in the world. Supporting our troops when they return 

home from the front lines is just as important as providing them 

the tools that they need to defend our Nation. 

As a former healthcare professional with nearly 3 decades of experience, I would like to advocate for expanding telemedicine access 

for veterans and out Active Duty military. In light of recent technology advances, evolving telemedicine programs and the authority 

given to the Department of Defense by Congress in support of telemedicine, I respectfully request strong financial support for both 

the medical information technology development program and the 

medical technology development program within DOD defense 

health programs for fiscal year 2018. 
7

It is undeniable that those within the Department of Defense 

have demonstrated their willingness to improve the lives of the 

military members and civilians alike. Medical research conducted 

within the Department has led to lifesaving breakthroughs and the 

development of effective treatments for numerous conditions. In 

order for the Department to build on previous discoveries and 

maintain momentum in medical research fields, it is imperative 

that we provide adequate funding for vital research programs. 

These include the multiple sclerosis research program, the ALS research program, the breast cancer research program, the ovarian 

research program and the Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic Research 

Program. There is no doubt that making critical investments in 

medical research at the Federal level will improve the well-being 

of our Nation as a whole. 

Now, while we work to assist our servicemen and -women who 

are here with us, we must keep in mind the more than 80,000 

American citizens who served in the Vietnam war, the Korean war, 

and World War II who are still missing in action, according to the 

Department of Defense. For those who made the ultimate sacrifice, 

their families and loved ones deserve no less than our greatest efforts for their recovery. To continue attempts to recover our fallen 

heros overseas, diligent work planning and sufficient funding is 

necessary. To provide grieving families the opportunity for closure, 

I respectfully request that the subcommittee supports robust funding for the Defense POW/MIA office in the fiscal year 2018. 

In tandem with providing adequate support services to all our 

servicemen and -women, we must also recognize the value of encouraging innovation in the U.S. defense industrial base. The manufacturing technology program, also known as ManTech, is intended to improve the productivity and responsiveness of the U.S. 

defense industrial base by funding the development optimization 

and transition of providing manufacturing technologies to key 

Naval suppliers. And specifically my district, the Pennsylvania 

State University’s Applied Research Laboratory manages two 

ManTech centers of excellence: The Institute of Manufacturing and 

Sustainment Technologies and the Electro-Optics Center. The work 

accomplished by these partnerships includes basic and applied research and technology demonstrations and facilitation of technology 

commercialization. I respectfully encourage the committee to look 

favorably at this request. 

And finally, I would like to register my support for a diverse energy mix in the American military installations abroad, including 

energy domestically sourced. If there are viable, cost effective ways 

to utilize American energy on our bases abroad, I fully recommend 

that we pursue those avenues. And specifically, I recommend the 

United States implement strategies to consider that all energy 

needs acquired by the Kaiserslautern Military Community in the 

Federal Republic of Germany be sourced domestically within the 

United States. 

Really again, once again, it is a privilege and honor to be before 

you this morning, and thank you for your leadership that you are 

providing.

[The written statement of Congressman Thompson follows:] 
8

The Honorable Glenn 'GT' Thompson 

(PA-05) 

Testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 

Member Hearing on Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018 

Tuesday, March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky: 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to share my priorities for Fiscal Year 2018 

Defense appropriations. As the father of an Army Staff Sergeant who has received a Purple 

Heart during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a strong supporter of our nation's defense programs, I 

appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to receive testimony from in-committee members. 

I recognize the challenges placed before the Subcommittee and appreciate your ongoing 

commitment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen and reserve forces. 

For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to ensure that our military docs not face a 

continued drawdown in force strength. 

This begins with ensuring that our military continues to have the tools and equipment to get the 

job done. For this reason, I will be respectfully requesting funding for the C-130 In-Flight 

Propeller Balancing System to be increased by $18 million from FYI? levels. This system will 

improve fuel efficiency, increase readiness and mission availability, and reduce maintenance 

costs for our nation's C-130 fleet. 

I also respectfully request full funding of the COLUMBrA Class Submarine program. As the 

OHIO Class submarines begin to retire in 2031, it is imperative that we fund their replacement to 

maintain a presence around the world. 

Supporting our troops when they return home from the front lines is just as important as 

providing them the tools they need to defend our nation. 

As a fom1er healthcare professional, with nearly three decades of experience, I would like to 

advocate for expanding telemedicine access for veterans. In light of recent technology advances, 

evolving telemedicine programs, and the authority given to the Department of Defense by 

Congress in support oftelemedicine, I respectfully request strong financial support for both the 

Medical Information Technology Development Program and the Medical Technology 

Development Program within DOD Defense Health Programs for Fiscal Year 2018. 

It is undeniable that those within the Department of Defense have demonstrated their willingness 

to improve the lives of military members and civilians alike. Medical research conducted within 

the department has led to lifesaving breakthroughs and the development of effective treatments 

for numerous conditions. 

In order for the Department to build on previous discoveries and maintain momentum in medical 

research fields, it is imperative that we provide adequate funding for vital research programs. 
9

These include the Multiple Sclerosis Research Program, the ALS Research Program, the Breast 

Cancer Research Program, the Ovarian Research Program, and the Peer Reviewed Orthopedic 

Research Program. There is no doubt that making critical investments in medical research at the 

federal level will improve the well-bring of our nation as a whole. 

While we work to assist our service men and women who are here with us, we must keep in 

mind that more than 80,000 American Citizens who served in the Vietnam War, Korean War, 

and World War II are still missing in action, according to the Department of Defense. 

For those who made the ultimate sacrifice, their families and loved ones deserve no less than our 

greatest efforts for recovery. To continue attempts to recover our fallen heroes overseas, diligent 

work, planning and sufficient funding is necessary. To provide grieving families the opportunity 

for closure, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee supports robust funding for the Defense 

POW/MIA Office in Fiscal Year 2018. 

In tandem with providing adequate support services to all of our servicemen and women, we 

must also recognize the value of encouraging innovation in the U.S. defense industrial base. The 

Manufacturing Technology Program, also known as Man Tech, is intended to improve the 

productivity and responsiveness of the U.S. defense industrial base by funding the development, 

optimization, and transition of providing manufacturing technologies to key naval suppliers. 

Specifically, in my district, The Pennsylvania State University's Applied Research Laboratory 

manages two Man Tech Centers of Excellence, the Institute for Manufacturing and Sustainment 

Technologies, and the Electro-Optics Center. The work accomplished by these partnerships 

includes basic and applied research and technology demonstrations and the facilitation of 

technology commercialization. I respectfully encourage the committee to look favorably upon 

this request. 

Finally, I would like to register my support for a diverse energy mix in American military 

installations abroad, including energy domestically sourced. If there are viable, cost-effective 

ways to utilize American energy on our bases abroad, I fully recommend we pursue these 

avenues. 

Specifically, I recommend that the United States implement strategies to consider that all energy 

needs required by the Kaiscrslautcrn Military Community in the Federal Republic of Germany 

be sourced domestically within the United States. Supporting our military presence abroad with 

American energy will not only create jobs at home, but eliminate energy-based conflicts of 

interest between the US and Russia. 

Thank you again for your continued commitment to the issues within the jurisdiction of your 

Subcommittee and the Committee as a whole. I appreciate your consideration and look forward 

to working with you to support the needs of our military. 
10

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue of the industrial base, particularly ManTech. You are 

not the only member that has certainly brought it to the committee’s attention, but appreciate your concern. I also appreciate the 

fact that we have been joined by four of our colleagues during your 

testimony. It was compelling. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Oklahoma. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

ranking member. I have five specific requests that I will get right 

into.

First, I would request that this subcommittee appropriate $10 

million for Air Force weather service or weather system follow-on 

RDT&E funds to fund the commercial weather data pilot program. 

Congress formerly established this program in the fiscal year 2017 

NDAA. The Appropriations Committee provided $5 million for the 

program in the fiscal year 2017 defense appropriations bill we just 

passed yesterday. So thank you for that. 

The reason we need, in my estimation, a commercial purchase of 

data for weather for the Department of Defense is threefold. Number one, it distributes the architecture. Currently, we have massive 

satellites that could be an easy target for the enemies of the United 

States. If we start purchasing commercial data, it very quickly distributes the architecture. In other words, there are more satellites 

that complicate the targeting solution for the enemy. 

I am not suggesting that we need to cannibalize any of our existing architecture at all. In fact, the program did continue to go forward, but we need to augment that with additional commercial 

data simply to distribute the architecture and complicate the targeting solution and lower the orbit for the enemies of the United 

States. That is number one. 

Number two, it also spreads the cost across the private sector. 

These constellations are launching not because they want to serve 

the Department of Defense; they are launching because they are 

serving the agricultural industry, the transportation industry, the 

entertainment industry, the shipping industry. And so what we 

ought to do as a government is be one of many customers of this 

private commercial weather data and feed our numerical weather 

models.

Finally, when we do this, we get more data, better data, in some 

cases, more resilient data and, certainly, more rapid refresh of the 

data, which all improves the weather models for the warfighters in 

theaters. So I think it is important that we fund $10 million in Air 

Force weather service or weather system follow-on RDT&E money. 
11

Second, this subcommittee should appropriate at least $50 million in Air Force wide band global SATCOM RDT&E for the Air 

Force satellite communications pilot program. The fiscal year 2015 

NDAA created this pilot program to fund demonstrations of commercial SATCOM services which offer order of magnitude increases 

in capability. The Defense Authorization and Appropriations Committee have strongly supported this program. This Appropriations 

Committee included $10 million for it within the fiscal year 2017 

bill.

The reason this is important, as a warfighter we have bifurcated 

architectures. We lease commercial SATCOM capabilities from the 

private sector at the same time that we are building our own government owned and operated systems. Government systems use Xband, Ka-band upper. Commercial systems use C-band, Ka-band 

lower, as well as Ku-band. The challenge here is they don’t work 

together. We need a single integrated system. We have an analysis 

of alternatives that is currently being prioritized right now by the 

Department of Defense to bring these architectures together. And 

we need order of magnitude, generational leaps, and capability that 

commercial can bring to the table. 

That brings me to my third request, which is protected tactical 

service. In this bifurcated environment that we live in, commercial 

SATCOM is not as resilient as it otherwise could be. It brings a 

tremendous amount of capability in throughput and data, hundreds 

of gigabits per second of throughput, but it is not protected. It is 

not frequency hopping for antijam capabilities. In many cases, it is 

not encrypted. So what we have to do to bring the architectures together is fund the protected tactical service so we get the wave 

forms and the modems necessary for commercial operators to be 

able to provide the warfighters some level of protection. So sticking 

with this, we need to fund the protected tactical service. 

Fourth, this subcommittee should support the President’s likely 

budget request—I say likely because it is not guaranteed—for enterprise ground services. We need to make sure that our systems 

are not bifurcated. So when you think of communications, GPS, 

missile warning and weather, these ground systems are not able to 

receive and transmit each other’s data. What this means is that everything is stovepiped and it prevents us from being able to create 

a single integrated operating picture for the combatant commanders in theater. So we need to fund the enterprise ground services program that I hope will be in the President’s budget request. 

Finally, this subcommittee should appropriate at least $30 million in Air Force RDT&E money for the space test program to fund 

responsive launch operational demonstrations and missions. The 

Appropriations Committee included $15 million in the fiscal year 

2017 appropriations for this purpose. The reason this is important, 

constellations are growing, electronics are getting smaller, we are 

seeing a whole lot more activity being launched into low Earth 

orbit. We are talking about launch manifest growing exponentially 

and these launches are going overseas. The Department of Defense 

is now dependent on commercial satellites, commercial capabilities, 

and these are growing rapidly. And our launches now are going 

overseas because we don’t have the infrastructure here. So that 

would be my final request. 

[The written statement of Congressman Bridenstine follows:] 
12

Introduction 

CONGRESSMAN JIM BRIDENSTINE 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

FY 2018 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS- MEMBERS DAY 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITIEE ON DEFENSE 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on fiscal 

year 2018 national security appropriations. 

During the Cold War, outer space was a relative sanctuary from military 

conflict. Two big players- the United States and the Soviet Union- shared the 

"ultimate high ground" with each possessing a small number of high-value 

satellite systems. Now, space is an increasingly congested and contested theater 

of operations for the United States, our allies and partners, and commercial 

operators. From GPS-guided munitions, to mobile communications, to highfidelity imagery, the American Way of War relies upon space-based capabilities. 

In the space domain, the Department of Defense (DOD) must develop, 

acquire, operate, and sustain space capabilities in fundamentally new ways. Our 

current space systems are stovepiped, vulnerable, and expensive. Our nextgeneration space systems must be integrated, resilient, and affordable. My five 

requests help move DOD toward these objectives. 

Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program 

First, this Subcommittee should appropriate $10.0 million in Air Force 

Weather Service or Weather System Follow-On RDT&E to fund the Commercial 

Weather Data Pilot Program. Congress formally established this Pilot Program in 

the FY17 NOAA. The Appropriations Committee provided $5.0 million for the 

program in the FY17 Defense Appropriations bill we passed yesterday. Multiple 

companies are launching constellations of small weather satellites to serve 

customers ranging from agriculture, to transportation, to energy, to insurance. 
13

The pilot program will test, validate, and hopefully purchase commercial 

weather data and services to improve DOD weather models and forecasts. Buying 

data and services from commercial operators distributes our space-based 

weather data architecture and complicates the targeting picture for our enemies. 

Commercial weather data also improves DOD weather models through providing 

more data, more recent data, and in some cases, better data. Planners and 

operational forces get more accurate and timely forecasts. Since the U.S. 

government is one of many customers, the cost to the taxpayer would be shared 

and correspondingly reduced. I urge the Subcommittee to continue its forwardthinking support for this innovative program. 

Satellite Communications Pilot Program 

Secondly, this Subcommittee should appropriate at least $50.0 million in Air 

Force Wideband Global SATCOM RDT&E for the Air Force Satellite 

Communications (SATCOM) Pilot Program. The FY15 NDAA created this Pilot 

Program to fund demonstrations of commercial SATCOM services which offer 

order-of-magnitude increases in capability. The defense authorization and 

appropriations committees have strongly supported the program. This 

Appropriations Committee included $10.0 million for it within the FY17 bill. 

The DOD relies heavily on both commercial and military systems to deliver 

communications capability- voice, video, and data- to the warfighter. In fact, 

commercial operators provide 80% of SATCOM, but the Department buys 

commercial in the most inefficient way possible- annual spot market leases. 

In the face of surging demand and growing adversary threats (such as 

jammers), DOD is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives to help 

determine the follow-on architecture for the legacy Wideband Global SATCOM or 

WGS system. Will DOD replace one stovepiped, vulnerable, and expensive 

architecture with another? Or will DOD open the aperture and consider 

integrated, resilient, and affordable alternatives? This AoA will shape the answer 

and the SATCOM Pilot Program will inform the process. Dedicated funding is 

needed to demonstrate promising technologies and commercial business models 

such as managed services. 

2 
14

Protected Tactical Service 

Sticking with SATCOM, this Subcommittee should support the President's 

likely budget request for Protected Tactical Service (PTS). In truth, we really need 

to accelerate this program. As I mentioned earlier, our current SATCOM 

architecture is stovepiped and imposes a choice between protection and 

throughput. Protection stops jamming, cyber attacks, and other attempts to 

degrade or deny the signal. Throughput delivers the "bits"- voice, video, and 

other data- to the warfighter. Commercial SATCOM systems- the kinds that 

deliver DirecTV and internet from space- have a massive throughput advantage 

over government systems, but generally lack the most robust military-grade 

protection. Protected Tactical Service helps "level the playing field" by 

developing standardized protected waveforms and modems usable on both 

government and commercial systems. Bringing commercial up to military-grade 

protection moves us closer to a unified SATCOM architecture. 

Enterprise Ground Services 

Fourth, this Subcommittee should support the President's likely budget 

request for Enterprise Ground Services (EGS). Ground stations process and 

transmit data and command the satellite. Today's ground stations, however, are 

custom-built which prevents automated and efficient data sharing between them. 

For example, a GPS ground station cannot "talk" to a missile warning ground 

station. Walled off ground systems prevent national and operational 

commanders from getting a common operating picture. We link together systems 

in the air, maritime, and land domains. Let's do the same for the space domain. 

EGS will develop common standards and interfaces for ground systems for 

protected communications, GPS, missile warning, and weather. Eventually, EGS 

will insert a common operating system which increases automation and data 

sharing across the enterprise. Commonality and automation will dramatically 

reduce the sustainment costs and produce a common operating picture that is 

essential for exercising command of forces in a contested environment. I urge the 

Subcommittee to continue its support for EGS. 

3 
15

Responsive Space Launch 

Finally, this Subcommittee should appropriate at least $30.0 million in Air 

Force RDT&E for the Space Test Program to fund responsive launch operational 

demonstrations and missions. The Appropriations Committee included $15.0 

million in FY17 Appropriations for this purpose. In the space business, launch is 

rightly considered the "long pole in the tent". The dearth of U.S. launch capacity 

is forcing our most innovative space companies to launch overseas on foreign 

rockets. Recently, the U.S. remote sensing company Planet sent 88 nextgeneration imagery satellites to space on an Indian rocket. It's truly disgraceful 

when U.S. companies- and U.S. astronauts- must hitch a ride on Russian rockets 

only to see Moscow use the fare to fund its military space programs. 

This problem is about to get much worse. OneWeb, SpaceX, Boeing and 

others are planning multi-thousand satellite constellations in Low-Earth Orbit. The 

only question is will they launch American? The military also needs responsive 

launch capabilities as much as commercial operators. An army of inexpensive, 

responsive rockets could rapidly populate and reconstitute military satellites. 

Responsive launch facilitates rapid technology refresh and deters adversaries 

from attacking on-orbit assets. 

NASA's Venture Class Launch Services program is fostering the burgeoning 

small launch vehicle market through dedicated cubesat launches. DOD's Space 

Test Program has the experience and expertise to do the same for expendable, 

partially reusable, and reusable vehicles launching payloads of all sizes. 

Conclusion 

The Subcommittee has already helped DOD begin to adapt to the 

fundamentally new space domain. The FY17 defense appropriations bill we 

passed yesterday is testament to this Subcommittee's forward-thinking. I urge 

the Subcommittee to continue its work through supporting the five innovative 

initiatives which I have discussed. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity 

to testify this morning. 

4 
16

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. Thank you for your information.

Each person has 5 minutes to speak. At the 4-minute time, your 

yellow light will come on, that gives you one more minute. However, we have your written testimony. So if you are not able to testify and finish that in 5 minutes, we have it written here. 

Mr. Visclosky, did you have something? 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FITZPATRICK

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Good morning. I would like to start by thanking Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. And I am here 

today on behalf of Pennsylvania’s Eighth Congressional District in 

their support for Department of Defense funds be allocated to a 

comprehensive health study and remediation effort of public and 

private wells contaminated by perflourinated compounds, namely 

PFOA and PFOS. 

Nearly 70,000 Pennsylvanians may have been exposed to levels 

of PFOA and PFOS exceeding the lifetime health advisory level set 

by the EPA. These chemicals have been reported in public and private drinking wells at and around the former Naval Air Warfare 

Center in Warminster and former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve 

Base in Horsham, as well as the Horsham Air Guard Station. 

These contaminants have also been found in communities surrounding over 600 military installations nationwide. PFOA has 

heavily impacted communities such as Hoosick Falls, New York, as 

well.

PFOS, PFOA, and other emerging contaminants are unregulated 

compounds being sampled for the first time in public water systems. The EPA uses unregulated contaminant monitoring rule to 

collect data for contaminates suspected to be present in drinking 

water. In the summer of 2014, as a result of the EPA effort to test 

for emerging contaminants, concentrations of PFOS and PFOA 

were found to exceed the EPA’s provisional health advisory levels 

of 400 parts per trillion in several onsite monitoring wells. The 

U.S. Navy and Air National Guard, in conjunction with the EPA, 

expanded groundwater sampling in my district to include private 

wells and public offsite wells. In May of 2016, the EPA released a 

lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion on the chemicals. 

Since then, 22 public wells and over 140 private wells have been 

shut down due to high levels of PFOS and PFOAs. 

The military does not dispute its responsibility for the well contamination in Horsham, Warrington, and Warminster. And it is 

suspected that high levels of PFOS and PFOA originated from firefighting foams used in the Naval and Air National Guard bases in 

the 1970s. The Navy has spent at least $19 million and the Air Na-
17

tional Guard has spent at least $8.3 million in remediation efforts, 

which includes the installation of granular activated carbon filtration systems in public wells, bottled water for residents with private wells, pump connection to public water systems, and paying 

for replacement water from neighboring public water systems. That 

said, the Department of Defense should work with Centers for Disease Control and the Pennsylvania Department of Health to conduct a comprehensive study related to the long-term health impacts of both PFOA and PFOS. My constituents have a right to 

safe, clean drinking water and they deserve to know if PFOS and 

PFOA have compromised their long-term health. 

I urge you to include funding for the Department of Defense to 

conduct long-term health study on the impacts of these two chemicals, PFOS and PFOA. These studies will aid the Federal Government, in conjunction with State and local agencies, to reverse the 

contamination and protect the health and welfare of residents. Additionally, I urge the committee to appropriate funding that allows 

the Department of Defense to fund cleanup and remediation of 

PFOS and PFOA. 

While the U.S. Navy and Air National Guard have worked in 

conjunction with affected municipalities in supplying clean drinking water to residents, the decision for public water suppliers to 

purchase uncontaminated water from the surrounding communities 

resulted in the water customer bearing the cost. 

Again, I would like to thank you for your time and consideration. 

A low cost, common-sense study will go a long way in providing 

Americans critical information about the impact that these unregulated chemicals may have on our health, and we look forward to 

working with you and this committee in accomplishing that goal. 

And I thank you for your time. 

[The written statement of Congressman Fitzpatrick follows:] 
18

STATEMENT OF 

REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN FITZPATRICK OF PENNSYLVANIA'S EIGHTH DISTRICT 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

I would like to start off by thanking Chairman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and 

members of this subcommittee for holding this hearing. I am here today on behalf of 

Pennsylvania's eighth congressional district and their support for Department of Defense (DoD) 

funds to be allocated to a comprehensive health study and remediation effort of public and 

private wells contaminated by pcrfluorinated compounds, namely perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 

and perfluorooctancsulfonic acid (PFOS). 

Nearly 70,000 Pennsylvanians may have been exposed to levels ofPFOA and PFOS 

exceeding the Lifetime Health Advisory levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). These chemicals have been reported in public and private drinking wells at and around 

the former Naval Air Warfare Center in Watminstcr and former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve 

Base in Horsham, as well as the Horsham Air Guard Station. These contaminants have also been 

found in communities surrounding over 600 military installations nationwide. PFOA has heavily 

impacted communities such as Hoosick Falls, New York. 

PFOS, PFOA, and other emerging contaminants are unregulated compounds being 

satnpled for the first time in public water systems. The EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule to collect data for contaminants suspected to be present in the drinking water. In 

the summer of 2014 as a result of an EPA effort to test for emerging contaminants, 

concentrations ofPFOS and PFOA were found to exceed the EPA's Provisional Health Advisory 

levels (400 ppt) in several onsite monitoring wells. The U.S. Navy and Air National Guard in 

conjunction with the EPA expanded groundwater sampling in my district to include private and 

public offsite wells. In May 2016, the EPA released a Lifetime Health Advisory (70 ppt) on the 

chemicals. Since then, 22 public wells and over 140 private wells have been shut down due to 

high levels ofPFOS and PFOA. 

The military does not dispute its responsibility for the well contamination in Horsham, 

Warrington, and Warminster areas of my district. It is suspected that high levels ofPFOS and 

PFOA originated from tirefighting foams used on the Naval and Air National Guard bases since 

the 1970s. The Navy has spent at least $19 million and the Air National Guard has spent at least 

$8.3 million in remediation efforts, which included the installation of Granular Activated Carbon 

filtration systems on public wells, bottled water for residents with private wells, home 

connections to public water systems, and paying for replacement water from neighboring public 

water systems. 

That said, the Department of Defense should work with Centers for Disease Control 

(CDC) and the Pennsylvania Department of Health to conduct a comprehensive study related to 

the long term health impacts of PFOA and PFOS. My constituents have a right to safe, clean 

drinking water and they deserve to know ifPFOS and PFOA have compromised their long-term 

health. I urge you to include funding for the Department of Defense to conduct a long-term 

health study on the impacts ofPFOS and PFOA. These studies will aid the federal government in 
19

conjunction with state and local agencies to reverse the contamination and protect the health and 

welfare of our residents. 

Additionally, I urge the committee to appropriate funding that allows the Department of 

Defense to fund the cleanup and remediation ofPFOS and PFOA. While the U.S. Navy and Air 

National Guard have worked in conjunction with the affected municipalities in supplying clean 

water to residents, the decision for public water suppliers to purchase uncontaminated water from 

the surrounding communities resulted in the water customer bearing the cost. 1 

Again, thank you for your time and consideration. A low-cost, commonsense study will 

go a long way in providing Americans critical information about the impact these unregulated 

chemicals may have on their health. We look forward to working with you to accomplish this 

goal. 

1 http:/lwww.theinteU.com/news/horsham-pfos/blood-boiling-over-warminster-water-ratebl~el a rtifJLl.i@_?£666-708 e · )Je6-bs 79- ZfQ§)Jl.?Ji.~l.::L htr11! 

2 
20

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. And thank you for your 

testimony.

We have two others that signed up for this time who are not here 

right now, they haven’t come in yet. So we will give a few minutes 

to see about that. 

Are there any questions on this testimony? 

Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Texas, welcome. We will take you now, 

Roger Williams. 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. ROGER WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Visclosky, members of the subcommittee. I thank you for 

allowing me to testify before you today about some of my priorities 

for the fiscal year 2018 Department of Defense appropriations bill. 

But first, Madam Chair, I would like to congratulate you on the 

chairmanship of this prestigious subcommittee. I think the funding 

of our Nation’s military and national security could not be in better 

hands or more capable hands, and I am proud to call you my 

friend. So congratulations. 

The single most important duty for Congress is to provide for our 

national defense. Our troops deserve to have the resources they 

need to be the very best in the world and to protect our country 

and our way of life. As a Member of Congress whose district includes Fort Hood, I know that the great place is the gold standard 

for the Army, the Department of Defense, and our Nation’s overall 

national security posture. 

It is my hope that this subcommittee will aggressively fund our 

military personnel and pay to cover the base requirements, as well 

as overseas contingency operations and global war on terror requirements. I oppose any troop reductions and fully support an additional pay raise also for our troops. 

I want to express my support for the F–35. As the only fifth generation aircraft in production, I would urge the subcommittee to 

support an investment in F–35 production tooling to ensure that 

the program can support full rate production of 80 F–35As, 36 F– 

35Bs and 30 F–35Cs in 2021. 

In order to help address the critical need to maintain air superiority and support a ramp up to full rate production, I urge the committee to support a production ramp of 60 F–35As, 24 F–35Bs and 

12 F–35Cs in fiscal year 2018. This production ramp would continue to restore the previously planned F–35 procurement to address readiness of the fleet and ensure as more aircraft become 

operational that the correct spares are available. And I encourage 

an investment of spares that would support $272 million to im-
21

prove spares performance and another $562 million for additional 

spares procurement in the fiscal year 2018 budget. 

Readiness investment in spares is required to ensure that we can 

keep these fifth generation aircraft flying. The program supports 

more than 1,400 suppliers, more than 45,000 direct jobs, and another 125,000 indirect jobs in the United States. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I also support the third multiyear procurement 

for the F-22 Osprey. It is my hope that the committee consider the 

$1.25 billion already saved by the first two multiyear procurements 

over year-to-year procurement pricing. 

Identified requirements for additional aircraft by all of the services should be incorporated into this multiyear procurement plan to 

the maximum extent possible so that aircraft’s unit cost is the lowest possible. Not only does this contribute to further savings for the 

U.S. taxpayer, but also makes the aircraft more affordable to our 

foreign partners that is helping sustain our critically important 

aerospace industrial base and U.S. jobs. 

Madam Chair, our country is facing unprecedented threats here 

at home and abroad from radical Islamic terrorists, Russia, North 

Korea, and China, to name a few. As you make the difficult funding decisions for fiscal year 2018 Department of Defense appropriations bill, it is my hope that you ensure we have the strongest and 

most effective military to keep our country safe. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify before you. May God 

bless you, may God bless the United States of America and our 

military. Thank you. 

[The written statement of Congressman Williams follows:] 
22

Rep. Roger Williams 

Member Day Testimony 

House Appropriations Committee 

Subcommittee on Defense 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, Members of the 

Subcommittee, I thank you for allowing me to testify before you today about some 

of my priorities for the FY' 18 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. 

But first, Madam Chair, I would like to congratulate you on your 

chairmanship of this prestigious subcommittee. The funding of our nation's 

military and national security could not be in better or more capable hands- I am 

proud to call you my friend. 

The single most important duty for Congress is to provide for our national 

defense. Our troops deserve to have the resources they need to be the very best in 

the world and to protect our country and our way of life. As a Member of 

Congress whose district includes Ft. Hood, I know that "The Great Place" is the 

gold standard for the Army, the Department of Defense and our nation's overall 

national security posture. It is my hope that this subcommittee will aggressively 

fund our military personnel and pay account to cover the base requirements as well 

as OCO/GWOT requirements. I oppose any troop reductions and fully support an 

additional pay raise for our troops. 

I want to express my support for the F-35. As the only 5th generation 

aircraft in production I would urge this subcommittee to support an investment in 

F-35 production tooling to ensure that the program can support full rate production 

of 80 F-35As, 36 F-35Bs and 30 F-35Cs in 2021. The investment required is $16.4 

million per jet. In order to help address the critical need to maintain air 

superiority and support a ramp up to full rate production, I urge the committee to 

support a production ramp of60 F-35As, 24 F-35Bs, and 12 F-35Cs in FY18. This 

production ramp would continue to restore the previously planned F-35 

procurement. To address readiness of the fleet and ensure as more aircraft become 

operational that the correct spares are available, I encourage an investment in 

spares that would support $272 million to improve spares performance, and 

another $562 million for additional spares procurement in the FY18 budget. 

Readiness investment in spares is required to ensure that we can keep these 5th 

generation aircraft flying. More than 200 aircraft are flying today. The program 

supports more than 1,400, suppliers, more than 45,000 direct jobs and another 

125,000 indirect jobs in the US. 

I also support the third multi-year procurement for the V -22 Osprey. It is 

my hope that the committee consider the $1.25 billion dollars already saved by the 
23

first two multi-year procurements over year-to-year procurement pricing. 

Identified requirements for additional aircraft by all of the services should be 

incorporated into this multi-year procurement plan to the maximum extent possible 

so that aircraft's unit cost is the lowest possible. Not only does this contribute to 

further savings for the US taxpayer, but also makes the aircraft more affordable to 

our foreign partners, thus helping sustain our critically important aerospace 

industrial base. 

Madam Chair, our country is facing unprecedented threats here at home and 

abroad from radical Islamic terrorists, Russia, North Korea and China to name a 

few. As you make the difficult funding decisions for the FY' 18 Department of 

Defense Appropriations bill, it is my hope that you ensure we have the strongest 

and most effective military to keep our country safe. Thank you again for allowing 

me to testify before you today. God bless you and God bless the United States of 

America. 
24

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILSON

Mr. WILSON. Fellow Members of Congress, what an honor to be 

here. This is a pleasant surprise, Madam Chair, for you to be here 

and equally to see what a stellar bipartisan membership you have. 

So I am just very honored to be in everyone’s presence today. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to meet with you. First, I would 

like to thank Chairwoman Kay Granger for her leadership as chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. As 

we face limited resources, I am especially grateful to the chairwoman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee for advocating on behalf of our national security. 

I am speaking today as both a Member of Congress from South 

Carolina’s Second Congressional District and also as chairman of 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. The Second 

Congressional District is home to Fort Jackson, the largest initial 

entry training facility of the U.S. Army. Fort Jackson expertly 

trains tens of thousands of soldiers each year, approximately 53 

percent of the Army’s basic combat training load and 56 percent of 

women entering the Army. 

The base also trains thousands of soldiers in their adjutant general, finance, postal, and chaplain schools. Additionally, Fort Jackson supports thousands of Active Duty military, civilian employees, 

military family members, and veteran services. And I know personally as a former member of the Guard I trained at Fort Jackson. 

I have three sons in the Army Guard who have trained at Fort 

Jackson. And so it is a facility that I know firsthand how important 

it is. 

There is no question that the Second Congressional District is 

possibly impacted by servicemembers stationed at Fort Jackson, 

just as there is no question we uphold our reputation as a strong 

military friendly community. I encourage you to continue your support of the unique missions at Fort Jackson and across South Carolina.

As chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Readiness, I am grateful for the opportunity to ensure our soldiers, 

sailors, and airmen and marines have the training, equipment, and 

resources they need to complete their mission. That means, hopefully, appropriating the Thornberry-McCain proposal of $640 billion 

to defense spending so we can begin the much needed resourcing 

of our troops. 

As chairman of Readiness, I have heard testimony from each 

branch outlining the negative impacts of sequestration and the material effect it has had on each branch. We currently have the 

smallest Air Force since it was created in 1947, the smallest Navy 

since 1917, and the smallest Army since before World War II. Yet 

today, we are facing growing threats or capabilities from Iran, 

North Korea, China, Russia, and Islamic terrorists. The facts are 

clear, for too long we have asked our military to do too much with 
25

too few resources, forcing difficult decisions and delaying critical 

maintenance priorities. This is not sustainable and directly limits 

our military’s ability in current and future conflicts. 

I appreciate the President’s promotion of additional personnel. I 

respectfully urge the chairwoman and committee to support a level 

of funding that will adequately provide for our military and national defense. Threats around the world are increasing, sadly, as 

our military funding has degraded through the harmful policy of 

defense sequestration. We must change course to promote peace 

through strength. 

The first priority of the Federal Government is to do and provide 

for common defense, to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. 

The government I urge, therefore, support for the Armed Services 

Committee Chairman Mack Thornberry and also Senate Chairman 

John McCain’s call for the defense budget of $640 billion for fiscal 

year 2018. 

I would like to thank everyone here for your attention and your 

service on behalf of the American people. I have actually seen it 

firsthand visiting with our personnel in Jordan with Congressman 

Cuellar. And I know what extraordinary people there are here. So 

thank you for your service. 

[The written statement of Congressman Wilson follows:] 
26

Defense Appropriations Testimony 

Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) 

March 9, 2017 

I am grateful for the opportunity to meet with you today. First, I would like to 

thank Chairwoman Kay Granger for her leadership as Chairwoman of the 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. As we face limited 

resources, I am especially grateful to the Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and 

Members of the Subcommittee for advocating on behalf of our national 

security. 

I am speaking to you today as both the Congressman from South Carolina's 

Second Congressional District, and also as the Chairman of the House Armed 

Services Subcommittee on Readiness. 

The Second Congressional District is home to Fort Jackson, the largest initial 

entry training facility in the U.S. Army. Fort Jackson expertly trains tens of 

thousands of soldiers each year, approximately 53 percent of the Army's Basic 

Combat Training load, and 56 percent of women entering the Army. The base 

also trains thousands of soldiers in their Adjutant General, finance, postal, and 

chaplain schools. Additionally, Fort Jackson supports thousands of active duty 

military, civilian employees, military family members, and veteran's services. 

There is no question that the Second Congressional District is positively 

impacted by service members stationed here, just as there is no question we 

hold up to our reputation as a strong, military-friendly community. 

I encourage you to continue your support of the unique missions at Fort 

Jackson and across South Carolina. 

As Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, I am 

tasked with the responsibility of ensuring our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 

Marines have the training, equipment, and resources they need to complete 

their mission. That means appropriating $640 billion to defense spending so 

that we can begin the much needed process ofresourcing our troops. 

As Chairman of Readiness, I have heard testimony from each service branch 

outlining the negative impacts of defense sequestration and the material effect 

it has had on each branch. We currently have the smallest Air Force since 

1947, the smallest Navy since 1917, and smallest Army since before World 

War II. Yet, today, our troops are deployed in more than 150 countries around 

the world. 
27

Defense Appropriations Testimony 

Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) 

March 9, 2017 

The facts are clear. For too long, we've asked our military to do too much with 

too few resources-forcing difficult decisions and delaying critical 

maintenance priorities. This is not sustainable and directly limits our 

military's ability in current and future conflicts. 

I respectfully urge the Chairwoman and the committee to support a level of 

funding that will adequately provide for our military and national defense. 

Threats around the world are increasing as our military funding has degraded 

through the harmful policy of defense sequestration. We must change course 

to promote peace through strength. 

The first priority of the federal government is to provide for the common 

defense, and I support Armed Services Chairmen Mac Thornberry and John 

McCain in calling for a defense budget of $640 billion for fiscal year 2018. 

Thank you. 
28

The subcommittee welcomes the gentlewoman from Arizona. You 

are recognized for 5 minutes. The lights in front of us will show, 

when it goes from green to yellow, that means you have 1 more 

minute.

Ms.MCSALLY. Great. Thank you. 

Ms.GRANGER. Thank you so much. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MARTHA McSALLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN MCSALLY

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you Chairman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky and members of the committee. Thanks for inviting 

me here today. 

I would like to open by asking for your continued support for the 

A–10 Warthog. I was an A–10 pilot and I commanded the 354th 

Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. I have flown 325 combat missions myself in the A–10. I can 

tell you firsthand when the American troops are on the ground, 

under fire, on the move, often in very complex circumstances, the 

sound of the A–10 overhead is a sound of them being able to live 

to fight for another day and get home to their families. It is a very 

important asset for our troops, and we have got to keep it flying 

until we have a proven tested replacement for it. And I appreciate 

this committee’s support in the past and in the bill that we passed 

yesterday for this critical asset. 

Only the A–10 has the lethality, the loiter time, the survivability 

to provide closer support and combat search and rescue. It is another important mission that often gets overlooked. If a pilot has 

been shot down or we have somebody isolated, it is the A–10 that 

shows up to provide locating the individual, communicating, protecting them, running the entire search and rescue operation, to include escorting the helicopters in to pick them up. And that often 

gets overlooked to the closer support mission. There is no other 

asset in our inventory in any of the services that provide this capability, which is a strategic capability to keep our covenant that we 

are going to bring our troops home if they are ever shot down in 

harm’s way. 

So again, we have got to keep this asset flying. We have already 

put the equivalent of four A–10 squadrons in the boneyard over the 

last several years. We are down to only nine remaining, which is 

four Active Duty and five in the Guard and Reserves. And these 

squadrons are smaller than the ones we have had before. The 

squadron I commanded had 24 A–10s. The current squadrons, most 

of them have 18. So we just have a smaller capability, and we are 

really at the floor with 283 airplanes in the inventory and we believe that that is where it needs to stay. 

Right now, we have got the A–10s. The squadron I commanded 

is over in Turkey and is kicking butt in the fight against ISIS. 

They are going to be exceeding all records from the history of that 

squadron in weapons employment in that critical counterterrorism 
29

fight. They are in South Korea providing critical anti-armor capability, right there south of the DMZ. They were deployed for the 

European Reassurance Initiative last year. Again, first time since 

we have had the A–10, and we have no A–10s in the European theater. So now, they are deploying back to work with our allies in the 

face of Russian aggression. And last year, they were also deployed 

to the Philippines. So that’s four different unique theaters. And 

again, with only 4, 8, 10 Active Duty squadrons left that are operational, and we really are at the absolute minimum capability and 

we would like to keep it there. 

The fiscal year 2017—fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 

NDAA and DOD appropriations keeps a minimum of 283 A–10s flying, which includes 171 operational. That then adds training and 

test requirements and, again, this is really a minimum capability. 

In the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, we also require a side-by-side 

comparative test between the A–10 and the F–35. In close air support and combat search and rescue, and say we can’t retire one 

more A–10 until we are done with that and we get a full report 

to Congress. Now, let me say I am a strong advocate of F–35, I love 

the F–35. We need a fifth generation fighter with that capability. 

As an airman, I understand what it is going to bring to air superiority. But I believe we need both of these capabilities, this high end 

F–35, fifth generation fighter, plus the ability of an attack airplane 

like the A–10, and we shouldn’t have to choose between the two. 

So the support that we have gotten from this committee in the 

past includes also a very critical requirement for upgrading the 

wings of the A–10. In order to keep it flying, we have got to rebuild 

some of the wings structurally so they can keep flying well into the 

2030s, which the Air Force has finally agreed that they want to 

keep it flying into the 2030s. Only 173 of the 283 have had their 

wings rebuilt. So there is 110 left in the fleet that haven’t been rewinged. And if we do nothing, they are going to start being grounded in static displays. So we have got to get that going again. 

Now, the bill we passed last night has $20 million in it to plant 

the seed for us to continue with this rewinging. We had $100 million in the original bill, it was $20 million yesterday, but I think 

that is a good start to show, hey, we are serious about keeping this 

asset flying and so we have got to continue to invest in that. And 

I appreciate this committee’s support so that we can rewing the remainder of the 110. 

I know I am running out of time, but I would also like to share 

my support for the Tomahawk, the AMRAAM, the SM-3 missiles. 

These missiles are developed in my district at Raytheon. They are 

critical for our homeland defense. Tomahawk is often the first missiles we fire into combat zones. And when I was running counterterrorism operations in Africa, often it was our weapon of choice to 

be able to—when Intel came together for us to be able to take out 

the bad guys. So continued funding for those critical missile programs is something I would really appreciate. 

Also important for our troops and all our services is the electronic warfare. The electronic proving grounds is at Fort 

Huachuca—and I know I am running out of time—so please continue your support for EW and also remotely piloted aircraft. So 
30

thanks for the opportunity to testify before you today and for all 

the work you do. And thanks for hearing my considerations. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman McSally follows:] 
31

Statement of Rep. Martha MeSally (AZ-02) 

Before the House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

March 9, 2017 
32

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, Members of the 

Committee: Thank you for inviting me here today. 

I would like to open by asking for your continued support for the A -10 

Warthog. I was an A-10 pilot and commanded the 354th Fighter 

Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. I flew 

over 300 combat hours in the A-10, and I can tell you firsthand that 

when American troops are in complex firefights in close proximity to the 

enemy, or if a pilot needs to be rescued behind enemy lines, there is no 

better sound overhead than the A-1 0. 

Only the A-10 has the lethality, loiter time, and survivability to provide 

premier Close Air Support, Combat Search and Rescue support, and 

Forward Air Control-Airborne capabilities for the Air Force. We have 

already put the equivalent of 4 squadrons in the boneyard over the last 

few years, and we should not retire one more A-1 0 until we have a 

legitimate replacement. 

There are only four active duty and five guard/reserve A-1 0 units left in 

the Air Force inventory, and each squadron has fewer airplanes than 

before. A-1 Os remain stationed in S. Korea ready to provide critical antiarmor capability and they are currently kicking ass against ISIS in Iraq 

and Syria. For the first time since the A-10 was created, we have no 

assets stationed in NATO's theater, so they are also rotationally 

deploying as a key part of the European Reassurance Initiative during a 

time of increased Russian aggression. Last year, A -1 Os also deployed to 

the Philippines to enhance U.S. military assets in the region performing 

operations such as air and maritime domain awareness, personnel 

recovery, combating piracy, and assuring that all nations have freedom 

of navigation and flight. Due to the Warthog's unique criticality in all 

these theaters, the FY16 and FY17 NOAA and DoD appropriations bills 

kept the fleet at 283 aircraft minimum. 
33

The FY17 NDAA also required a side by side comparative test ofthe F35 and the A-10 in Close Air Support and Combat Search and Rescue. 

Now let me be clear, as an Airman, I am a strong advocate of the F-35 

and the crucial 5th generation fighter capabilities it brings to our military 

and Allies. But I believe we should not require the F -35 to replace the 

niche capabilities ofthe A-10. Our Air Force desperately needs both. 

Until we have a tested replacement for all ofthe A-lO's unique 

capabilities without increasing risk to our troops, I request full funding 

for the A -10 fleet. 

This support includes finishing the wing enhancements. We have 

purchased 173 Enhanced Wing Assemblies for the fleet of283 aircraft, 

and are on track to complete the installation this year. My amendment 

passed in the original House version of the DoD appropriations bill for 

$100m to begin re-winging the remaining 110 aircraft in the fleet. The 

FY17 defense appropriations bill we passed out of the House yesterday 

contains $20 million for this purpose, which I think is a good step 

towards preserving the fleet. I ask your support to finish re-winging the 

fleet, which allows the entire A-10 fleet to fly well into the 2030s. That 

would also give the Air Force time to present Congress with a long-term 

plan for its attack mission, whether that's to sustain and continually 

modernize the current fleet or to field a next-generation replacement. 

I would also like to share my support for Tomahawk, AMRAAM, and 

SM-3 missiles. These missiles are developed in my district and are 

critical for national and homeland defense. When I was running counter 

terrorism ops in Africa, Tomahawk missiles were our most flexible 

responsive option for attacks where intelligence often comes together in 

a fleeting window. They are also typically the first weapon fired in 

major combat operations. Our Tomahawk stockpiles are running low in 

the continuing battle against ISIS, and we must plan ahead to make sure 

we have these missiles when we need them. Our inventory of 

AMRAAM, our premier air-to-air missile, is short of the Department's 

inventory objective. The SM-3 is the most tested, and most successful, 

missile defense system we have. The Tomahawk, AMRAAM, and SM-
34

3 are critical to our national security in an uncertain time, whether 

attacking ISIS or providing state-of-the-art missile defense. I ask that 

you fully fund these important missile systems. 

I'd like to address electronic warfare, or EW. Every combatant 

commander and service chief has told us they need to continue to grow 

their EW capability and capacity. I ask for your support as the services 

work together in this area. Our near-peer competitors have also been 

investing in EW, and we must keep our advantage by investing in more 

electronic capabilities like improved airborne electronic attack, avionics, 

and radar. Fort Huachuca, in my district, has taken proactive steps at the 

state and federal level to ensure pristine EW testing and training 

conditions to further our EW capabilities and speed fielding of new 

technology and equipment. I ask your support for all necessary 

research-and-development, testing, and procurement of advanced 

electronic warfare capabilities. 

Finally, I want to address opportunities to grow the nation's capability 

and capacity with Remotely Piloted Aircraft, or RP As. RP As have value 

both at home and abroad. Domestic agencies use them to fight fires, 

patrol our borders, and catch human and drug traffickers. The nation 

uses RP As abroad for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, 

and in the fight against violent extremists. Fort Huachuca is the largest 

trainer of RP A pilots in the world, and boasts a strong working 

relationship with other federal partners, such as Customs and Border 

Protection. We must continue to develop RPA capability and capacity 

to meet the growing global need. I ask for you to fully fund the RPA 

missions and allow us to leverage a national security asset like Fort 

Huachuca. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the 

Subcommittee today. These issues are very important to myself and my 

district, and I appreciate your attention to these requests. 
35

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much. Thank you for your service, 

first of all. Thank you for the good job you are doing here in Congress. And we have your written testimony also for the record as 

we move through the bill. Thank you. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Appreciate your 

being here. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. PATRICK MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking 

Member Visclosky. That is a tough act to follow, as you all know 

that. We have great respect for my colleague and her service. And 

I thank you for the work that you are doing on this committee 

along with your colleagues. 

I came before the subcommittee to discuss two particular 

rotocraft programs that are critical to our warfighters and to maintaining the strength of the American defense industrial base. The 

V–22 Osprey is the expeditionary platform of choice for the Marine 

Corps and continues to be a workhorse for our Air Force Special 

Operations Command. 

The V–22’s one-of-a-kind capability allows for mission flexibility 

and enable our warfighters to operate safely in the most austere 

and dangerous environments. I am pleased the Navy will join the 

ranks of V–22 operators as it begins procurement of CMV–22s this 

year for its carrier on board delivery mission. 

It has come to my attention that the fiscal year 2018 budget will 

request a third multiyear procurement contracting authority. And 

as you well know, these longer contracts allow for stable—proven 

programs like the V–22 to promote supplier and manufacturing efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale and encourage investment and cost saving initiatives. 

The previous 2 multiyear contracts with the V–22 program saved taxpayers over $1 billion. And while protecting taxpayer dollars, 

these contracts have also ensured that our warfighters have the resources necessary to carry—to protect our Nation’s interests. It is 

for these reasons why I encourage the Air Force to take advantage 

of the multiyear procurement contract to procure additional CV– 

22s for its long-range personnel recovery mission. The Air Force 

leadership has suggested that CV–22s make sense for the mission 

because of the superior range in speed, and adding them to the 

multiyear contract will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. 

The budget should also reflect the development efforts to create 

a common configuration for the diverse MV–22 models. The fiscal 

year 2018 program will improve fleet readiness and insert technology as M–22s upgrade from block B configuration to a block C 

configuration.

And as the subcommittee considers the totality of the V–22 Osprey program, I would ask that you support the multiyear procure-
36

ment and common configuration effort and encourage the Air Force 

to add CV–22s in its multiyear procurement contract. 

I would also like to discuss the Army’s CH–47 Chinook and the 

U.S. Special Operations Command MH–47 variant. Both the CH– 

47 and the MH–47 aircraft continue to perform well in combat theaters. They fly over three times the normal peacetime operating 

tempo, while maintaining readiness rates that are above the Army 

standard. And fiscal year 2017 is the last year of the current 5-year 

procurement contract for the Chinook, which has saved U.S. Taxpayers another nearly $1 billion. And due to budget constraints, 

only 22 aircraft were requested in the President’s fiscal year 2017 

budget. This is five fewer aircraft than were called for in the 

multiyear. And while I am grateful for the subcommittee generously adding five Chinooks to restore cuts in the fiscal year 2017 

budget, unfortunately they are not in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill that was filed on March 2nd. And I would respectfully 

request the subcommittee consider adding them in 2018. 

And while we do no have the President’s 2018 defense budget 

yet, it is anticipated that we will request 13 aircraft: Nine CH–47s 

for the Army and four MH–47s for SOCOM. The Army’s invested 

funding in a block II modernization plan to improve capability and 

increase commonality between variants. 

As the committee considers the Chinook program, I encourage 

you to support the budget request for the procurement of the additional 13 aircraft as well as block H modernization efforts. These 

two priorities, the V–22 Osprey and the CH–47 Chinook will help 

the warfighter as well as workers that supply the manpower, parts, 

and expertise to build such capable aircraft. I will support a fiscal 

year 2018 budget that reflects the importance to our Armed Forces 

that these priorities can provide. 

I thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The written statement of Congressman Meehan follows:] 
37

Testimony to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (HAC-D) 

Representative Patrick Meehan (P A-07) 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Yisclosky, and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to begin 

by thanking you for offering Members this opportunity to discuss national security priorities through this 

Member Day hearing. Formerly, under the leadership of now full Committee Chairman Frelinghuysen, 

this Subcommittee has a history of putting our Nation's security first. I personally appreciate the 

opportunity to weigh in on issues for the upcoming budget and look forward to working with you 

Chairwoman Granger in your new role. It would appear that the Subcommittee is offto a great start. 

Without having the details ofthe FY20 18 budget, I come before the Subcommittee to discuss two 

particular rotorcraft programs that are critical to our warfighters and to maintaining the strength of the 

American defense industrial base. 

The Y-22 Osprey is the expeditionary platform of choice for the Marine Corps, and continues to be a 

workhorse for our Air Force Special Operations Command. The V-22's one-of-a-kind capabilities allow 

for mission flexibility and enable our warfighters to operate safely in the most austere and dangerous 

environments. I am pleased that the Navy will join the ranks of V -22 operators as it begins procurement 

of CMV -22s this year for its carrier on board delivery (COD) mission. Serving as a logistics hub for 

aircraft carriers, the CMV-22 will transform deck operations and support for the carrier strike fleet in the 

COD mission. 

It has come to my attention that the FY2018 budget will request a third multiyear procurement contracting 

authority. These longer contracts for stable and proven programs like the Y-22 promote supplier and 

manufacturing efficiency, take advantage of economies of scale and encourage investment in cost savings 

initiatives. The previous two multiyear contracts for the Y-22 program saved taxpayers over $1 billion. 

While protecting taxpayer dollars, these contracts have also ensured that our warfighters have the 

resources necessary to protect our nation's interests here and abroad. It's for these reasons why I'd 

encourage the Air l'orce to take advantage of the multiyear procurement contract to procure additional 

CV-22s for its Long Range Personnel Recovery Mission. Air Force leadership have suggested that CV22s make sense for the mission because of superior range and speed. The Air Force needs to be decisive 

to add them to the multiyear procurement contract, which will save taxpayers tens of millions in 

procurement costs. 

The budget should also reflect the development efforts to create a common configuration of the diverse 

MV-22 models. The FY2018 program will improve fleet readiness and insert technology as MV-22s 

upgrade from a Block B configuration to a Block C configuration. As the Subcommittee considers the 

totality of the Y-22 Osprey program, I'd ask that you support the multiyear procurement and common 

configuration effort, and encourage the Air Force to add CY-22s in the multiyear procurement contract 

for the Long Range Personnel Recovery Mission. 

I'd also like to discuss the CH-47 Chinook, the Army's only heavy lift helicopter which performs a wide 

range of combat, logistical and humanitarian missions. The MH-47 variant provides key capabilities to 

the U.S. Special Operations Command. Both the CH-4 7 and the MH-4 7 aircraft continue to perform well 

in combat theaters. They fly over three times the normal peacetime operating tempo while maintaining 

readiness rates above the Army standard. 

FY2017 happens to be the last year ofthe current five-year procurement contract for the Chinook. Much 

like the Osprey, this multi-year contract saved U.S. taxpayers nearly $1 billion when compared with 
38

single-year contracts. Due to budget constraints in the Army, only 22 aircraft were requested in the 

President's FY 2017 budget. This is five fewer aircraft than were called for in the multiyear. 1 am grateful 

that the Subcommittee generously added five Chinooks to restore aircraft cuts in the FY20 17 budget. 

Unfortunately, they are not in the FY2017 Defense Appropriations bill that was filed on March 2, 2017. 1 

would respectfully request that the Subcommittee consider adding them in FY2018. 

While we do not have the President's FY20 18 defense budget yet, it's anticipated that it will request 13 

aircraft: nine CH-47s for the Army and four MH-47s for SOCOM. The Army is in a year of transition for 

the Chinook program. It has invested funding in a Block Jl modernization plan to improve the payload 

capability, increase commonality between SOCOM and conventional forces and establish a baseline 

configuration for future system upgrades. As the Subcommittee considers the Chinook program, I 

encourage you to support the Budget Request for the procurement of the additional 13 aircraft as well as 

research for the Block II modernization effort. 

These two priorities. the V-22 Osprey and the CH-47 Chinook, will help the warfighter as well as the 

workers that supply the manpower, parts and expertise to build such capable aircraft. 1 will support a 

Fiscal Year 2018 budget that reflects the importance to our armed forces that these priorities can provide. 

Thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify. 
39

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you very much 

for your testimony. We have written as well as what you said 

today.

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from California. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. JIMMY PANETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN PANETTA

Mr. PANETTA. Thank you very much, Chairman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky. Good morning. I hope I don’t disappoint you 

this morning. I am not actually talking about hardware, military 

hardware, but I am talking about something that I feel is just as 

important, and that is the education of our military members. 

I represent the central coast of California. You may know it for 

its beautiful environment or its bountiful agriculture, but also it actually has a booming defense presence as well. Although for most 

of the 20th century, that area was known for Fort Ord and its 

fighting 7th Infantry. But now, rather than being known for training, how to drive a tank or fly a plane or shoot a gun, which we 

still do at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts there, but we are 

known for our military training and how to speak a foreign language, cyber warfare, fly a drone, and to be leaders in the 21st century of warfare. 

We are known for our military institutions, like the Navy postgraduate school, which I will here on out refer to as NPS, and the 

Defense Language Institute, which I will also refer to from now on 

as DLI in my comments. These are part of 13 Defense equities that 

are located in my district. And it is an industry that leads to an 

employment of over 15,000 people and generates more than $1.3 

billion for the local economy. 

So today, that is why I am here, to respectfully ask all of you 

to include report language to ensure that any new BRAC round 

captures the intellectual capacity of installations in my district, 

like NPS and DOI. 

Previously, my predecessor, Congressman Sam Farr, made these 

same types of requests that are consistent with Representative 

Adam Smith’s bill H.R. 753. That is a bill that is cosponsored by 

Ranking Member Visclosky. In that bill, I would like to highlight 

section 6, which defines military value criteria as ‘‘the ability to 

support educational requirements that enhance the success of 

members of the Armed Forces in their military career fields and 

the impact on operational readiness of the total force of the Department, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.’’

As you know, the COBRA models give weight to bases that have 

traditional military assets, like runaways and hangars. But there 

is not any established criteria on how to quantify intellectual capacity. Today, the 21st century military force must focus on DOD 

educational institutions because it is that type of education and 
40

training that I believe are integral to our Nation’s security and our 

Nation’s military readiness. 

The Navy postgraduate school is a prime example of that type of 

education to prepare our future leaders. It has a foreign affairs 

graduate school, it provides training in cyber warfare and how to 

fly drones and about satellites as well. It is clear that when those 

students graduate, they are prepared to lead in the future of warfare.

Another critical part of the NPS education is the center for civil 

missile relations. That is a place where the focus is on relationships with other nations, including enhancing democratic civil-military relations, supporting defense reform, and teaching institution 

building, peace building operations, and how to combat terrorism. 

I have no doubt that an investment in the NPS and similar types 

of institutions is a prime investment, not only in our military, but 

in our civil military relations around the world. 

Having served with the Special Forces unit in Afghanistan as a 

Naval intelligence officer, I know how important advanced education and foreign language training is to doing our duties and carrying out our mission. Students at the Defense Language Institute, 

DLI, are not only taught how to be proficient in a number of languages, but the school teaches them to understand the cultural and 

regional nuances of a duty assignment. 

Two weeks ago, I had the fortunate opportunity to visit DLI and 

was given my first command briefing. But I have to say that the 

highlight of that visit was the time I spent in a classroom with six 

students in their Farsi language class. And it was unbelievable 

that in the short period of time that these six students, who they 

did not look Middle Eastern, they were from Ohio and Florida and 

California, but what was amazing to see is how comfortable they 

were in speaking that language. It was unbelievable, and it actually gave me a lot of hope. And I hope it gives you hope in our military personnel and their ability to carry out their mission. 

Now, on a separate topic, I know how difficult military service 

can be, not only to a servicemember but on his family. As I said, 

I served in Afghanistan, but I was a reservist who was mobilized 

and deployed for a yearlong assignment, and it is nothing compared to the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that I saw and 

met who were on multiple deployments and separated from their 

family multiple times for multiple months at a time. That is why 

I will be submitting to you bill language that expands the pool of 

qualified marriage and family therapists in order to increase access 

to mental health providers for our Active Duty military personnel. 

As you know, a great deal of education and training goes into 

getting our servicemembers ready to serve and deploy anywhere in 

the world. Based on education and training that takes place at installations like the NPS and the DLI, I am confident, and you 

should be confident, that investments not only in our military 

hardware and training but in the education of our military members can only make us more prepared and ultimately more safe. 

Thank you, and I look forward to working with you as we develop the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill. 

[The written statement of Congressman Panetta follows:] 
41

jiMMY PANETTA 

Congress of tbc ~htitcb ~tatcs 

:U;ouur of :1.'\cprrsrntattbrs 

V:itlast)mgton, D<C 20513-0020 

Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Honorable Jimmy Panetta CA-20 

March 6, 2017 

Though I am a new member of Congress, I fully understand the responsibility faced by 

the Appropriations Committee and its c!itical role in the functioning of the United States 

government. I proudly represent a region along the central coast of California that has a robust 

defense presence. While we arc best known for the Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense 

Language Institute, there are 13 other defense equities located in Monterey County, CA that have 

a combined workforce of over 15,000 and $1.4 billion in budget authority. 

I urge my colleagues to include report language, as they have in the past at the request of 

my predecessor, Rep. Sam Farr, to ensure that any new BRAC round captures the inte-llectual 

capacity of installations like NPS and DLL This request is consistent with Rep. Adam Smith's 

bill, HR753, that is cosponsored by the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky. Section 6 of the bill 

defines military value criteria as ''the ability to support educational requirements that enhance the 

success of members of the Armed Forces in their military career fields, and the impact on 

operational readiness of the total force of the Department, including the impact on joint 

wartighting. training and readiness." 
42

The reason this language is so important is that the previous COBRA models give weight 

to bases that have traditional military assets like runways or hangers, but there has not been 

established criteria to quantify intellectual capacity. If we intend to have a world class military 

f~xce for the 21" Century, we need to invest in our Department of Defense educational 

institutions. Both DLI and NPS have been on previous BRAC rounds, so l know firsthand the 

impact of the process- on the schools, the community and the military mission. First and 

foremost is the importance of the military mission. And I tinnly believe education and training 

are integral to our nation's national security and readiness. 

I believe we have a solemn obligation to ensure our military personnel have greater 

access to mental health services. My predecessor, Sam Farr, secured bill language in the FY 17 

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill for VA to accept additional accreditation 

programs for Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs) ifthey meet rigorous requirements 

established in the hilL lt is my understanding the Department recognizes the same limited MFT 

programs as the VA did before the Farr fix. I will be submitting the same bill language to the 

Committee to expand the pool of qualified MFTs to increase access to mental health providers 

for our military personnel and I ask for your support. 

For the remainder of my testimony, I would like to refer to the Op-Ed that appeared in the 

March 3 Washington Post by Michelle Flournoy, who was the fanner Undersecretary of Defense 

for Policy from 2009 to 2012, and ask that it be submitted for the record. 
43

She cogently lays out five reasons that a $56 billion increase in defense spending could make 

sense, if it is spent wisely. The prism for evaluating that increase is readiness, force stiUcture 

and modemization. She questions whether deterrence and alliance capabilities are being 

strengthened. She states that "Critical to the United States' ability to deter aggression and 

prevent contlict in regions where we have vital interests is deploying U.S. military forces 

forward and helping allies and partners build their own defense capacity." 

I am proud to say that helping our allies and partners build their own defense capacity is a 

core mission ofthc Center for Civil Military Relations (CCMR), located within NPS. CCMR 

builds partner capacity, improves interagency and international coordination, and increases 

cooperation by providing Allies and Patiners with the educational tools necessary to meet the 

challenges of the future. These challenges include: enhancing democratic civil-military 

relations, supporting defense reform and institution building, improving peacekeeping and 

peacebuilding operations, and combating terrorism. She goes on to state that these types of 

investments are relatively small in dollars, but "are dispropm1ionately important to reducing the 

risk of more costs U.S. military engagements.'' I encourage the Committee to invest wisely in 

capabilities that strengthen democratic civil-military relations around the world. 

Her third prism of evaluation questions whether the budget keeps faith with our military 

personnel. She asks whether "it improves education and professional development?" Having 

been a Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer in Afghanistan, I'm here to tell you that advanced 

education in regional issues and foreign language training would have helped me do my job 

better. Understanding the cultural and regional nuances of your duty assi!,'llment and having a 
44

basic understanding of the spoken language can mean the difference between life and death on 

the battlefield. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward to working with you as you 

develop the FY18 Defense Appropriations bill. 
45

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much. Thanks for testifying today 

and thank you for your service. It is very helpful that we have so 

many who have served, and so they can speak from experience 

about what is needed now. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PANETTA. Understood, ma’am. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Rhode Island. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking 

Member Visclosky and members for the committee, for providing 

me this opportunity to testify before you on matters of importance 

and priority to Rhode Island and the Nation as a whole. I serve as 

a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, so I 

wish to bring several matters before you today as you formulate 

the fiscal year 2018 defense appropriation bill. 

First, one of my highest priorities is ensuring robust funding for 

several programs under the Defense health program, specifically 

Spinal Cord Injury Research Program, or SCIRP as it is known. 

SCIRP was established by Congress under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program to advance research innovative 

technologies to regenerate and repair damaged spinal cords, as well 

as improve rehabilitative therapies. Studies have identified a 

marked increase in the rate of combat related spine trauma among 

casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the incidents of spinal injuries among combat casualties in the global war on terrorism are 

among the highest in American military medical history. 

Research into spinal cord injury treatment is producing a wealth 

of discoveries that are making the repair and regeneration of 

nerves in the spinal cord in particular a potentially not only likely 

but attainable goal. Major improvements in emergency and acute 

care have improved overall survival rates. However, the devastating nature of these injuries imparts substantial disability, 

borne by wounded servicemembers, their families, and the American healthcare system. 

Remarkable advancements in treatment are now ripe for further 

development, including clinical trials, but these next steps will only 

be achieved if we continue our support for the program through robust funding and larger individual research grant awards. 

Second, we must ensure, on another topic, that we continue to 

support vital submarine programs at the highest levels possible, 

particularly the Virginia class, Virginia payload module, moored 

training ship, and Columbia class programs, all of which maintain 

our dominance in the undersea domain and provide the day-to-day 

nuclear deterrent as part of the triad. 

As you know, the Columbia class SSBN program is the Navy’s 

highest acquisition priority and is being designed by our Nation’s 

best and brightest to have a longer service life, better operational 
46

availability, and better survivability than its predecessors, all at a 

reasonable cost and with the most advanced capabilities available. 

The need is urgent, members of the committee. The current Ohio 

class force will begin retirement in 2027 and must be replaced. The 

Columbia class program is out of margin in its timeline, and we 

must continue to support this program at the highest levels possible lest we fall behind schedule and suffer cost overruns. 

For this reason, it is vital the committee support advanced procurement funds for these programs to support acquisition of long 

lead time material and advance manufacturing efforts so that we 

can maintain the on-time deliveries of our submarines to support 

our Navy’s operational needs and minimize the projected shortfalls 

of fast attack submarines starting in the mid-2020s. 

Third, I urge your support for the rapid development, prototyping, and fielding of new and advanced technologies. New tools 

are being deployed at record speed, on a larger scale, and with a 

cost-effectiveness that will exploit our enduring advantages over 

our competitors. We never want to send our warfighters into a fair 

fight, and it is these advanced technologies that make sure that 

our warfighters continue to be effective and save. 

Technologies such as directed energy, hypersonics, electronic 

warfare, and autonomous systems are truly game-changing tools 

for our arsenal. And these technologies are at the forefront of the 

third offset strategy. Too often, capable improvement directed energy weapon systems languish in perpetual research and development. As these systems reach their maturity and risk mitigation 

techniques are applied, we must provide our military with tactical 

and strategic advantages wherever and whenever possible. 

Finally, as we have seen over the past decade, cyber intrusions 

into American networks and systems have become more prevalent 

and more deleterious than ever before. I have been encouraged by 

the Department of Defense’s efforts to develop a unified cybersecurity strategy and solidify cyberspace doctrine in order to protect our 

Nation against the many threats that we face today. The Department is well positioned to capitalize on these activities, thanks to 

the recent elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to its own combatant 

command as well as its Cyber Mission Force development. Great 

strides have been made to strengthen their persistent training environment for our service branches so that they have more opportunities to put fingers to keyboard in realistic conflict scenarios, but 

we must continue to fund this effort. 

While joint exercises such as cyber guard and cyber flag are critical in training our cyber warriors, we must ensure there are more 

opportunities to train for the missions yet to come. These investments deserve our continued support and we must work tirelessly 

to ensure that the Department of Defense resourced appropriately 

to defend against adversarial threats. 

So let me close by saying, I want to thank you very much for receiving my testimony and taking my request into consideration for 

fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations bill. These investments are 

critical in providing for our collective national security and I encourage their inclusion. 

[The written statement of Congressman Langevin follows:] 
47

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Rep .. James R. Langevin (RI-02) 

Testimony-March 9, 2016 

Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, for allowing 

Members outside the Appropriations Committee to testify on matters of importance and priority. 

I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, and I wish to bring several matters before you 

for consideration as the Fiscal Year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill is formulated. 

First, one of my highest priorities is ensuring robust funding for several programs under 

the Defense Health Program, specifically, the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program (SCIRP). 

SCIRP was established by Congress under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research 

Program to advance research and innovative technologies to regenerate and repair damaged 

spinal cords, as well as improve rehabilitation therapies. 

Studies have identified a marked increase in the rate of combat-related spine trauma 

among casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a study published in the September 2012 

issue of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, the incidence of spinal injuries among combat 

casualties in the Global War on Terrorism are among the highest in American military medical 

history. 

Research into spinal cord injury treatment is producing a wealth of discoveries that are 

making the repair and regeneration of the spinal cord a potentially attainable goal. Major 

improvements in emergency and acute care have improved overall survival rates; however, the 
48

devastating nature of these injuries imparts substantial disability, borne by wounded service 

members, their families, and the American health care system. 

The societal costs of spinal cord injuries in terms of health care utilization, disability 

payments, and lost income arc disproportionately high for this particular patient population 

compared to those suffering from other medical conditions. According to information published 

by the Reeve Foundation, developing therapies for individuals with a spinal cord injury and 

preventing new cases would save the United States as much as $400 billion on future direct and 

indirect lifetime costs. Remarkable advancements in treatment are now ripe for further 

development, including clinical trials, but these next steps will only be achieved if we continue 

robust investment in the Spinal Cord Injury Research program and larger individual grant 

awards. 

Additionally, I hope you will provide ample support for the various additional 

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) programs, all of which provide 

critical care through the Department of Defense to our men and women in uniform, as well as 

our citizens across the country. Such programs include the (1) Trauma Clinical Research 

Program; (2) Multiple Sclerosis Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program; (3) 

Tuberous Sclerosis Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program; ( 4) Ovarian Cancer 

Research Program; (5) ALS Research Program; (6) Breast Cancer in Congressionally Directed 

Medical Research Program; and (7) Pediatric Brain Tumor Research. 

Second, we must ensure that we continue to support our vital submarine programs at the 

highest levels possible, particularly the (I) VIRGINIA class; (2) Virginia Payload Module; (3) 

Moored Training Ship; and (4) COLUMBIA class programs, all of which maintain our 
49

dominance in the undersea domain and provide the day-to-day nuclear deterrent as part of the 

triad. 

As you know, the COLUMBIA class SSBN program is the Navy's highest acquisition 

priority and is being designed by our nation's best and brightest to have a longer service life, 

better operational availability, and improved survivability than its predecessors- all at a 

reasonable cost and with the most advanced capabilities available. The need is urgent: the current 

OHIO class force will begin retirement in 2027 and must be replaced. The COLUMBIA class 

program is out of margin in its time line, and we must continue to support this program at the 

highest levels possible lest we fall behind schedule and suffer cost overruns. 

For this reason, it is also vital the Committee support Advanced Procurement funds for 

these programs to support procurement of long lead time material and advanced manufacturing 

efforts, so that we can maintain the on-time deliveries of our submarines to support our Navy's 

operational needs and te minimize the projected shortfall of fast attack submarines starting in the 

mid-2020s. 

Third, I urge your support for the rapid development, prototyping, and fielding and 

integration of new and advanced technologies. New tools are being at record speed, on a larger 

scale, and with a cost-effectiveness that will exploit our enduring advantages over our 

competitors. Technologies such as directed energy and hypersonics are truly game-changing 

tools for our arsenal, and these technologies are at the forefront of the Third Offset Strategy. 

Each military department has a marquee program in this area demonstrating military 

utility that must be supported, including(!) the Air Force's Counter-electronics High Power 

Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP); (2) the Army's High Energy Laser Mobile 

Demonstrator (HELMD); and (3) the Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS) that is currently 
50

deployed aboard the USS PONCE in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the Department of 

Defense's Non-Lethal Weapons Program, housed at the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate 

at MCB Quantico, continues to provide vital escalation-of-force options in order to minimize 

civilian casualties and reduce collateral damage in places of interest across the world. 

Too often, capable and proven directed energy weapon systems languish in perpetual 

research and development. As these systems reach their maturity and risk-mitigation techniques 

are applied, we must provide our military with tactical and strategic advantages wherever and 

whenever appropriate. 

Next-generation weapon capabilities like directed energy are needed now and in the 

future to address the rising number of threats facing our country. I therefore urge this Committee 

to dedicate sufficient resources for developing physical prototypes of directed energy weapon 

systems to enable those men and women in the fight to fully explore the doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leader development, personnel, facilities, and policy (DOTMLPF-P) necessary 

for the eventual use of matured directed energy weapon systems. 

Finally, as we have seen over the past decade, cyber intrusions into American networks 

and systems have become more prevalent and more deleterious than ever before. I have been 

encouraged by the Department of Defense's efforts to develop a unified cybersecurity strategy 

and solidify cyberspace doctrine in order to protect our nation against the many threats we face 

today. The Department is well positioned to capitalize on these activities thanks to the recent 

elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to its own combatant command, as well as its Cyber Mission 

Force development. Great strides have been made to strengthen the Persistent Training 

Environment (PTE) for our service branches so that they have more opportunities to put fingers 

to keyboard in realistic conflict scenarios, but we must continue to fund this effort. While joint 
51

exercises such as Cyber Guard and Cyber Flag are critical in training our cyber warriors, we 

must ensure there are more opportunities to train for the missions yet to come. These investments 

deserve our continued support, and we must work tirelessly to ensure that the Department of 

Defense is resourced appropriately to defend against adversarial threats. 

I want to thank you once again for receiving my testimony and taking my requests into 

consideration tor the Fiscal Year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill. These investments are 

critical in providing for our collective national security, and I encourage their inclusion. 
52

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for being with us and thank you for 

your words. We have a written copy of your testimony. Thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentlelady from Hawaii. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. It will show on this 

light green meaning speak. When it goes to yellow it means you 

have got one more minute. Glad to have you here. Thank you. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF HAWAII 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman Granger—I don’t see our ranking member—and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I assume that my written testimony will be part of the record and for your consideration. 

As you know, I am the Congresswoman for the Congressional 

District 1 from the State of Hawaii, which means all the services 

are located in my district. It is an amazing situation, 17 miles will 

have everything in one place. 

One of the interesting things that has happened since the releasing of our statement is the fact that the President has now said 

that he is calling for an increase of $54 billion, albeit unspecified 

at this time, in defense spending. Everyone agrees, especially those 

of us in Hawaii, that the increase is needed; however, the question 

is how. 

One of the most critical points for myself is that the pivot to Asia 

Pacific continues to remain foremost and a concern of all of us and 

one that we would put our money where our mouth is. There is no 

question whether people are willing to say it openly or not, Russia, 

China, North Korea are major concerns and they are all in the Asia 

Pacific.

One of, I believe, our commitments in terms of the FSA, which 

the Department of the Navy has conducted, is the fact that we are 

in the need of building a fleet. However, one of the things that we 

all tend to forget is that in building the fleet, we must have people 

who can maintain it. So it is paramount for us to look at the 

health, welfare of our public shipyards. I don’t think there is any 

question that the public shipyards and our employees there, we 

must covet them and we must always have them ready so that we 

don’t have the ups and downs that we face with the budgetary constraints. They are the backbone for all of us so we must remain 

committed to them. 

We know that the plan is that 60 percent of our maritime force 

will be in Asia Pacific. I have said it constantly: Asia Pacific is an 

air and seapower. I think that, with all due respect for those on 

the East Coast, you don’t quite understand how large the Pacific 

is. The AOR of the PACOM is 55 percent of the Earth’s surface. 

You have the three greatest economies of the world, and almost 50 
53

percent of the population is in that area of the world. That is why 

we must remain focused on the Asia Pacific pivot. 

We must keep healthy the PACOM headquarters, which is located also in my district. And we ask that consideration be given 

for the USARPAC 4-star command, because it is a great statement 

for our allies in the region that we in fact are committed to that. 

USARPAC is U.S. Army Pacific. 

We must also be very receptive and able to respond to our allies’ 

issues. One of the most successful and coveted roles that we play 

in Asia Pacific is in the area of HADR, and we must also continue 

to remain committed to do that. That is where we are welcome in 

all regions of the Pacific. 

We also have to, basically, stay very true to our environmental 

remediation and protection. You may be aware of this, but one of 

the things that we face in Hawaii is that we have had the fuel 

tanks, which have kept the Pacific since World War II, we have 

had leaks. Luckily, so far, it hasn’t been into our water system, 

which as you can imagine is islands. They must be protected. But 

we ask continued support in ensuring that the remediation will 

continue.

It is so important that we remain committed to this region. The 

threats that our country will face will come from this region as 

well. So we ask that you give serious consideration and with more 

details in our written submittal that the Asia Pacific remain our 

primary concern and also, also that we continue with the pivot to 

that region, because when you look at the statistics is where the 

economies are, where the people are, and where our threats are, it 

is in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Thank you very much. I stand for any questions, and Mr. Ranking Member, nice to see you. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman Hanabusa follows:] 
54

Written Testimony 

The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01) 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My testimony 

highlights several Defense programs and initiatives that are vital to our military readiness and 

continued engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. 

Last week, the Administration released a budget blueprint calling for $54 billion in 

unspecified increases to defense spending. While there are areas in the Department of Defense 

(DOD) where investment is needed, the key is to invest wisely to maintain our global operational 

presence and technological advantage, counteract Russia's and China's growing maritime forces 

and confront increasingly complex threats including, but not limited to, North Korea, Iran, Iraq 

and Syria. 

Our first priority should be to end the federal hiring freeze on the DOD civilian 

workforce. Our DOD civilians are critical to our warfighting efforts and our military readiness 

depends on them. 

DOD civilians play an especially critical role in our four public shipyards, where 

significant investments are needed. The Navy's proposed fleet buildup to 355 ships will likely 

generate a healthy debate in this subcommittee and in the House Committee on Armed Services 

(HASC). However, it does us no good to have more ships if the fleet cannot be properly serviced 

and maintained according to schedule. If our shipyards arc not fully staffed, equipped and 

functioning, our fleet readiness will suffer and our ability to restore and improve our operational 

readiness around the world will be compromised. 

Page 1 of5 
55

As important as our investments in shipbuilding will be, they must be matched by 

commensurate investments in our shipyards and maintenance facilities. New technologies 

present new opportunities to reduce costs (material and labor) and respond more quickly to 

operational needs on a 24/7 basis. For example, additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3-

D printing, is changing the way industry thinks about manufacturing, with alternatives to 

traditional casting and machining on the horizon. These new technologies should be explored 

and, where appropriate, incorporated into our shipyards and bases for depot-level maintenance 

and repair. Thus, l request this committee allocate robust funding to Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy, as well as Operations and Maintenance, Navy, at a level sufficient to meet the 

full operational needs of our four public shipyards: Pearl Harbor, Puget Sound, Portsmouth, and 

Norfolk. I would also like to restate the importance oflifting the federal hiring freeze for all 

civilians at our four public shipyards. Finally, I would urge this subcommittee to leverage 

federal funds by strongly considering public-private partnerships that would achieve the 

operational needs of our shipyards in a manner that is responsive and fiscally prudent. For 

example, public-private partnerships could be used to construct and operate shipyard dry docks 

for submarines and other surface ships, including those dry docks with forward deployment 

capabilities. 

Consistent with the Navy's most recent Force Structure Assessment, maintaining a 

maritime focus on the Asia-Pacific region should continue to be a top priority. Currently, sixty 

percent (60%) of the Navy's fleet is assigned to the Pacific and a similar or greater proportion of 

new ships should be assigned to the Pacific as well. I respectfully urge this subcommittee to 

support keeping the Pacific Fleet's Budget Support Office separate and apart from the Fleet 

Forces Command Budget Support Office, so the Pacific Fleet retains the flexibility to respond 

Page 2 of5 
56

rapidly to changing events in the Asia-Pacific region. This high level of readiness will enable 

the Pacific Fleet to project force in support of our many allies in the region and maintain the free 

flow of commerce in Southeast Asia and the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. 

As we continue our diplomatic, economic and military rebalance in the Asia-Pacific, our 

military partners are anticipating that additional investments will be needed to maximize troop 

readiness and to help counter the regional threats posed by China and North Korea. Pacific 

Command, which is headquartered in my district, has highlighted several priority areas. These 

include procurement of advanced munitions to make up for critical shortfalls; maintaining air 

superiority through Fourth Generation and Fifth Generation fighter integration and advanced 

missile defense capabilities; continuing to upgrade and harden our cybersecurity investments; 

improving the digital communications capabilities of our allies and partners; and upgrading our 

fleet of attack submarines to further our undersea dominance and improve Anti-Access/ Area 

Denial strategies. We must also continue to develop and integrate new technologies so that the 

advantage over our adversaries remains qualitative as well as quantitative. One of the best ways 

to do this is to maintain our commitment to the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), the 

world's largest instrumented multi-environmental range capable of supported surface, subsurface, 

air and space operations on a simultaneous basis. The training, test and evaluation missions that 

take place at PMRF are critical to our worldwide missile defense efforts, from the Korean 

Peninsula to Eastern Europe. 

In order to continue developing our partnerships in the Pacific, we also need to increase 

investments in joint and multi-national interoperability efforts and systems. We should also 

increase cross-cultural educational opportunities for our officers in all services. I urge this 

subcommittee to continue to support U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC)'s Pacific Pathways 

Page 3 ofS 
57

program, in which Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers conduct training 

exercises with military partners from across Southeast Asia. A similar program, Pacific 

Partnership--a multilateral, multi-service mission--, focuses on humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief (HADR). Born out of the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami that devastated Southeast 

Asia, Pacific Partnership both builds local capacity in the region and improves PACOM's 

readiness and HADR expertise. 

I also highlight the importance of maintaining U.S. Army Pacific Headquarters at the 4 

Star Level. In order for the rebalance to be successful, our partners must know we are 

committed to the future of the region. In a region where rank and prestige are culturally 

significant, changing USARPAC from a 4 Star Command to a 3 Star Command would send the 

wrong signal. Similarly, we must be responsive to our allies' concerns and help share 

responsibilities wherever we can. In response to Okinawan protests against Marine Corps Air 

Station Futcnma, the U.S. and Japan reached an agreement to relocate the base to the lesspopulated Henoko area. The Marine Corps also plans to move 4,000 marines from Okinawa to 

Guam, to move 2, 700 marines from Okinawa to Hawaii and to move 2,500 marines to Darwin, 

Australia, by 2020. This rotational force structure, which I strongly urge this subcommittee to 

support, both broadens our presence in the Pacific and strengthens our relationship with two of 

our key treaty allies. 

Additionally, I support robust defense funding for much-needed environmental 

remediation projects. In January 2014, Oahu experienced a fuel leak at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel 

Storage Facility, which has a capacity of 250 million gallons offuel and serves as the "last gas 

station" for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard operations in the Western 

Pacific. According to the Navy, approximately 27,000 gallons of jet fuel was released from one 

Page 4 of5 
58

of the underground tanks, in close proximity to local aquifers used by both the civilian and 

military communities. Thankfully, vigorous testing continues to show that drinking water 

remains safe. However, this incident demonstrates the need for extreme environmental 

vigilance around our national strategic assets, especially those that date from the World War II 

era and before, like Red Hill. While the cost of upgrading and modernizing the Red Hill facility 

will be high, it pales in comparison to the cost of a catastrophic fuel leak into Oahu's water 

supply. Our Navy partners arc committed to ensuring the best practicable solution that keeps our 

drinking water safe, our environment protected and our anned forces ready to fight. 

I similarly urge this subcommittee to continue supporting the Readiness and 

Environmental Protection Initiative (REP!). Encroachment on military installations, ranges, and 

airspace as a result of urban growth and loss of habitat continues to be a major and growing 

threat to military readiness. REP! funding, combined with funding from state and NGO partners, 

prevents this encroachment through acquisition of interests in real property from willing 

landowners, thereby ensuring the continued viability of key installations and training operations 

while also conserving important habitat. By supporting this initiative, we can empower our 

Armed Forces to continue to be good stewards of the land and good neighbors to local 

communities. 

In conclusion, the resources allocated by this subcommittee will be vital to ensuring the 

readiness of our military, to defending our national interests and to promoting regional and 

global stability. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and I look forward to 

working with you in support of our nation's defense priorities. 

Page 5 ofS 
59

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. Mr. Visclosky has a question.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your testimony. And often, we rightly are focused on those in military uniform, but I do appreciate you bringing up the contribution that 

DOD civilian employees play as well. Thank you so much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chair, any other questions for me? 

Ms. GRANGER. No questions. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from New York. You will have 5 minutes. The lights in front of me 

will show green to speak. When it turns to yellow, it means you 

have got 1 minute left. Thank you, and welcome for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2016. 

WITNESS

HON. THOMAS R. SUOZZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN SUOZZI

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you so much. It is the first time I have done 

this. I am excited to be here. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this 

opportunity and the time to request funding to help facilitate the 

cleanup of the Bethpage Plume, a significant contamination of our 

drinking water that was discovered over 40 years ago but has not 

been properly contained or treated. 

The U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman are the responsible parties, and we are asking them to do their part to help clean up this 

plume, which is the result of their activities. It is currently in my 

district, but it is moving, the plume is moving south into our colleague Peter King’s district. We need to take immediate action because Long Island relies on a sole source aquifer for our drinking 

water. Put simply, this is the only source of drinking water for our 

constituents.

Prior to World War II and in the postwar era, Bethpage was the 

military and defense industry hub of Long Island. Long Island has 

produced the aircraft that helped carry the Allies to victory during 

World War II and developed the technology that ushered in the jet 

era, and they helped to win the war and put a man on the moon. 

The Navy, Northrop Grumman, and the people of Long Island 

are proud of this legacy, but this is also a legacy of pollution. My 

constituents are concerned that those who have profited the most, 

as well as their own government, are failing to properly mitigate 

and clean up the environmental impacts of manufacturing, modern 

aviation, and aerospace technology. 

I represent the Third Congressional District of New York, which 

stretches from northeastern Queens, along Long Island’s North 

Shore, and throughout Nassau County into Suffolk County. I am 

a lifelong resident of the district, and along with my family and 

friends and neighbors, we have waited for a long time for the re-
60

sponsible parties to step up and assume responsibility and truly 

address the issue. 

Instead, we have received studies, reports, and remedial efforts 

while responsibility is litigated and liability is shielded. Meanwhile, 

the plume spreads, now covering an area 2 miles wide and 3 miles 

long, and as mentioned earlier, it is travelling south to the neighborhoods and towns on Long Island’s South Shore, where Peter 

King represents. 

The Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations may seem like an 

odd place to speak about environmental issues, but the funding to 

help clean up the plume is subject to the annual appropriations of 

the Defense Environmental Restoration Account of the Navy. Congressional funding is currently insufficient to address the Bethpage 

Plume, let alone thousands of sites and hundreds of locations scattered across the country that are the Navy’s responsibility to lead 

the cleanup efforts. 

Representatives from the Navy have told me it would take an es- timated $4 billion to clean up every site, but Congress continually 

authorizes and appropriates only pennies on the dollar. Furthermore, the Navy cannot prioritize the sites and must spread funding 

across sites and locations. 

On its face this may seem like a good idea, but this approach 

forces the Navy to engage in remedial efforts instead of comprehensively addressing projects with high cleanup costs. Engaging in 

these smaller efforts without addressing the issue, as occurs in 

Bethpage, will cost the taxpayers more in the long run because it 

fails to address the underlying issue. 

We have a responsibility from the Federal Government to our 

local water authorities to work with all stakeholders to ensure 

clean drinking water and where appropriate hold those accountable 

for contaminating the water supply. Nowhere is this truer than 

when contaminants in the water stem from government-related activity.

In this case, the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman are the responsible parties. The Navy must have the necessary funding to 

lead the cleanup efforts, and we must hold Northrop Grumman accountable and require them to fully contribute their share. 

And I request that the committee fully appropriate authorized 

amounts and look forward to working with you and other colleagues to address this and similar issues with necessary and appropriate funding measures. 

Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. I can’t believe you 

have to do all these different hearings. It is really amazing. So 

thank you so much for the good work. 

[The written statement of Congressman Suozzi follows:] 
61

Congressman Thomas R. Suozzi 

Prepared Remarks: 

House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Member Day 

Thursday, March gth 2017 

Good morning Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity, and the time, to discuss a critical issue to many 

of my constituents, as well as some of yours, and an issue many of our colleagues are dealing 

with in their districts across the country. 

Americans deserve and must have access to clean, safe drinking water. In the wake of 

Flint, Michigan, and other similar incidents across the country, our constituents are rightfully 

concerned about their local water supply. From local newspapers to national television, they 

learn lead that lead has been found in a school's drinking fountains, a new carcinogen was 

discovered downstream from a chemical plant or, as is the case on Long Island, contaminated 

drinking water stemming from government and defense contractor activity. I'm referring to the 

Bethpage Plume, a toxic plume, which originated at former U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman 

manufacturing sites, and has contaminated an aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water 

for millions of people on Long Island. 

During World War II, and in the post war era, Long Island was a military and defense 

industry hub. Long Islanders produced the aircraft that helped lead the Allies to victory and 

worked on the technology that ushered in the jet era and sent Americans into space. We are 

proud of our contributions to the nation's defense and exploration, from the Revolutionary 
62

War, through World War II to the present day. But, my constituents are also concerned that 

those that have profited the most, as well as their own government, are failing to properly 

mitigate and clean up the environmental impacts of manufacturing sophisticated weapons 

systems and modern aviation technology. 

I represent New York's third Congressional district, which stretches from northeastern 

Queens, along Long Island's north shore, through Nassau County and into Suffolk County. I am 

also a lifelong resident of the district and, along with my family, friends and neighbors, we have 

waited over forty years for the responsible parties to step up, assume responsibility and truly 

address the issue. Instead we've received studies, reports and remedial efforts while 

responsibility is litigated and liability is shielded. Meanwhile, the plume spreads- now covering 

an area 2 miles wide and 3 miles long- and is traveling south into our colleague Peter King's 

district on Long Island's south shore. 

The Defense subcommittee on appropriations may seem like an odd place to speak 

about environmental issues, but the funding to help clean up the plume is subject to annual 

appropriations to the Defense Environmental Restoration Account of the Navy. Congressional 

funding is currently insufficient to address the Bethpage plume, let alone the thousand plus 

sites, at hundreds of locations scattered around the country. Representatives from the Navy 

have told me it would take an estimated $4 billion dollars to clean up every site, but Congress 

continually authorizes and appropriates pennies on the dollar. Furthermore, the Navy cannot 

prioritize sites and must spread funding across sites and locations. On its face, this may seem 

like a good idea, but this approach forces the Navy to engage in remedial efforts instead of 

2 
63

comprehensively addressing project with high cleanup costs. Engaging in remedial efforts, 

without fully addressing the issue, will cost taxpayers more in the long run. 

We have a responsibility, from the federal government to local water authorities, to 

work with all stakeholders to ensure access to clean drinking water and, where appropriate, 

hold those accountable for contaminating the water supply. Nowhere is this truer than when 

contaminants in the water stem from government related activity. I request that the committee 

fully appropriate authorized amounts and I look forward to working with you and our 

colleagues to fully address this and similar issues with necessary and appropriate funding levels. 

3 
64

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much. Mr. Visclosky has some comments to make. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Just a comment. Representing Gary, Indiana, 

East Chicago, Indiana, and other industrial areas, we suffer from 

the same problem of a 100-, 120-year industrial legacy. It is not 

odd that you brought this problem up. We have not done a good 

enough job as a Nation, and certainly I look forward to working 

with you. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you so much for that comment. I appreciate 

that help. Thank you. 

Mr. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, other members of the committee. 

Thank you so much, Ms. Roby. 

Mr. Carter, thank you so much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Florida. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MATT GAETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GAETZ

Mr. GAETZ. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Visclosky. I bring you good tidings from the Budget Committee, and 

I thank you for loaning the incredible talents of Mr. Womack to us 

on occasion. I want to thank you for providing me and other Members of the House with the opportunity to testify to the subcommittee on issues we believe to be critical to our Nation’s security.

I am referring to the U.S. Special Operations Command’s basic 

research into warfighter performance and resilience in extreme environments. I feel strongly that to enable the continued supremacy 

of U.S. Special Forces in the 21st century, our warriors need to be 

the most physically fit, optimally performing, and resilient to extreme environments of any force ever assembled. 

SOCOM has repeatedly recognized these requirements through 

programmatic documentation and broad agency announcements for 

research areas of interest. But an extremely austere budget environment has prevented full funding of these critical requirements. 

When viewed across the Future Years Defense Plan, the SOF Technology Development PE has been underfunded over the past 3 

years by an average of more than $6 million per year. 

In its 2017 President’s budget request to Congress, Special Oper- ations Command estimated needing $34.5 million in fiscal year 

2018 for SOF Technology Development. That is almost $10 million 

less than was programmed in fiscal year 2016. According to the 

2017 budget request, this project provides an investment strategy 

for SOCOM to link technology opportunities with capability deficiencies and objectives in technology that thrust into areas including human performance around endurance. 
65

Proposed research areas in support of those SOCOM requirements include sustaining optimal human performance in austere 

training and operational environments, identifying meaningful 

interactions between pharmaceutical and nutritional supplements, 

and establishing heart rate variability for potential measuring of 

psychological and physical readiness and stress. Also, researching 

and applying methods to accurately measure nutritional status, 

and finally, developing technologies that enhance physiological performance, including greater mental acuity, increased strength and 

endurance, and tolerance to extreme environments. 

This research is of particular interest to me beyond its impact on 

warfighting capability and doing what is right for national security. 

As you know, I have several military communities within my district that will benefit directly from this research. I also feel strongly that the health benefits of this research in my district, it is a 

large retired military community, and to the American civilian population at large, will ultimately be very significant. 

Additional funding is urgently needed in fiscal year 2018 for competitively bid research to augment Special Operations Forces’ training and performance. As you begin work on fiscal year 2018 defense appropriations, I respectfully request that your committee appropriate $39 million for the Special Operations Forces Technology 

Development line, a generic program increase of $4.5 million for 

competitively bid research to develop and transition technologies 

that provide asymmetric training and performance advantage to 

our most elite special operators. 

This funding will guarantee the development of important technologies and research capabilities to address the existing SOCOM 

requirements. Let me reiterate, if appropriated by Congress, this 

additional funding will be competitively awarded and address requirements currently established by the Department of Defense. 

I commend you, Madam Chair, for having this hearing, and I 

urge you and the subcommittee to look closely at this issue as you 

develop the Defense Appropriations bill for the upcoming year. 

Thank you so much for your time, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to address your subcommittee. 

[The written statement of Congressman Gaetz follows:] 
66

STATEMENT OF 

MATT GAETZ (FL-01) 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ON 

MARCH 9, 2017 

1 
67

Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for providing me and other Members of the House with the opportunity 

to testify to the Subcommittee on issues we believe to be critical to our national 

security. 

I'm referring to the U. S. Special Operations Command's basic research into 

warfighter performance and resilience in extreme environments as planned for fiscal 

year 2018 as shown in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request to Congress 

within the Special Operations Forces Technology Development line. This important 

research conducted in the USSOCOM Science and Technology, Human 

Performance Office is aimed at providing greater asymmetric advantage for our 

Nation's most elite Special Operations Forces. 

I feel strongly that to enable the continued supremacy of U.S. Special 

Operations Forces in the 21st century our warriors need to be the most physically fit, 

optimally performing and resilient to extreme environments of any force ever 

assembled. USSOCOM has repeatedly recognized these requirements through 

programmatic documentation and broad agency announcements for research areas 

of interest, but an extremely austere budget environment has prevented full funding 

of these critical requirements. When viewed across the FYDP (Future Years 

Defense Plan- pronounced f-eye'dip), the SOF Technology Development PE has 

been underfunded over the past three years by an average of more than $6m per year. 

In its 2017 President's budget request to Congress, Special Operations Command 

estimated needing $34.5 million in fiscal year 2018 for SOF Technology 

Development; that's almost $10m less than was programmed in FY16. 

According to the 2017 budget request, this project provides an investment strategy 

for USSOCOM to link technology opportunities with capability deficiencies and 

objectives in technology thrust areas that include human performance and 

endurance. Proposed research areas in support of these SOCOM requirements 

include: 

• Sustaining optimal human performance in austere training and operational 

environments; 

• Identifying meaningful interactions between pharmaceutical and nutritional 

supplements; 

• Establishing heart rate variability's potential for measuring psychological and 

physical readiness and stress; 

2 
68

• Researching and applying methods to accurately measure nutritional status; 

and 

• Developing technologies that enhance physiological perfonnance, including 

greater mental acuity, increased strength and endurance, and tolerance to 

environmental extremes. 

This research is of particular interest to me - beyond the future of this critical 

warfighting capability and doing what is right for our national security. As you know 

I have several military communities within my district that will benefit directly from 

this research. I also feel strongly that the health benefits of this research to my 

district's large retired military community, and to America's civilian population at 

large, will ultimately be significant. 

We haven't yet seen the FY18 President's budget request, but if funded to existing, 

FY17 request levels, it will limit the development and transition of these 

technologies that will provide advantages for our Nation's Special Operations 

Forces. 

Additional funding is urgently needed in fiscal year 2018 for competitively bid 

research to augment Special Operations Forces' training and perfonnance. As you 

begin work on the fiscal year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill, I respectfully 

request that your committee appropriate $39m for the Special Operations Forces 

Technology Development line, a generic program increase of $4.5m, for 

competitively bid research to develop and transition technologies that provide 

asymmetric training and perfonnance advantage to our most elite special operators. 

This funding will help guarantee the development of important technologies and 

research capabilities to address existing SOCOM requirements. Let me reiterate: if 

appropriated by Congress, this additional funding will be competitively awarded and 

address requirements currently established by the Department of Defense. 

I commend you, Chairwoman Granger for having this hearing and I urge you 

and the Subcommittee to look closely at this issue as you develop the Defense 

Appropriations bill this year. Thank you very much for your time today, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important research with the 

Subcommittee. 

3 
69

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your 

taking the time to do this. 

Mr. GAETZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Missouri. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. WM. LACY CLAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MISSOURI 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Visclosky, as well as the other members of the committee. It is an 

honor to be with you today offering support for the men and women 

in our Armed Forces. This is the third year in a row that I have 

testified, and I appreciate the opportunity to let my voice and that 

of my constituents be heard. Even without the benefit of the fiscal 

year 2018 budget yet, it is important to let you know our priorities. 

Last year I testified in front of the subcommittee about the 

Navy’s tactical aviation shortfall and supported the chief of naval 

operations’ call for more strike fighters to fill that requirement. 

This subcommittee responded by adding both F/A–18E/F Super 

Hornets and F–35Cs in its markup. Since then it has become well 

known that the Navy and Marine Corps are facing readiness challenges to more than half of its aviation fleet. Significant delays in 

maintenance and sustainment of legacy aircraft have created a 

readiness crisis. On top of that, higher than expected utilization 

rates of the Super Hornets has only exacerbated the strike fighter 

shortfall. This trend needs to be reversed quickly. 

The near-term solution to this challenge is twofold. First, procure 

additional F/A18–E/F Super Hornets with upgraded capabilities to 

meet the threats we face in the 2020s and beyond. The Block III 

Super Hornet will complement the F–35C by bringing enhanced 

networking capability, extended range, and increased number of 

weapons into battle. I believe that the Navy’s budget will show an 

investment in these modernized aircraft and how they can support 

carrier operations for decades to come. 

Second, the Navy should invest in sustainment of the existing 

fleet of Super Hornets, a plan that the service has worked on but 

will finally implement in the upcoming budget. Extending the life 

and capabilities of these older aircraft, paired with new Super Hornets, will immediately help fill the strike fighter gap. 

After several years of congressional support, I expect the Navy 

to take action to budget for these solutions. Congress has provided 

a life preserver to the Navy, but it is time for the Navy to step up. 

St. Louis, my home town, is one of the Nation’s premier homes 

for tactical aviation, an area of expertise that I know the chairwoman knows a great deal about in her own district. I am proud 

that my district is the home of the Super Hornet, and the men and 

women that work on the aircraft are proud for what they do for the 

warfighter. Their efforts are in service to the Navy and to their 

country. They also understand the critical role that Congress plays 
70

in ensuring that the Navy has the most capable and cost-effective 

fleet of aircraft. 

I hope that the fiscal year 2018 budget submission includes the 

procurement of at least 24 new Super Hornets and that the subcommittee can support them in your markup. The strike fighter 

shortfall is a serious issue that can and should be addressed, and 

I look forward to working with you throughout the year, and I have 

been a strong vote yes for the work that this subcommittee has 

done each year. 

Thank you for offering me this opportunity to discuss our security priorities. 

[The written statement of Congressman Clay follows:] 
71

Representative Wm. Lacy Clay- Missouri, 1st District 

Testimony to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (HACD) 

Thursday, March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, it is an honor to be with you 

today offering support for the men and women in our am1ed forces. This is the third year in a 

row that I have testified, and I appreciate the opportunity to let my voice and that of my 

constituents be heard. Even without the benefit of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget yet, it is important 

to let you know my priorities. 

Last year. I testified in front of this Subcommittee about the Navy's tactical aviation 

shortfall, and supported the Chief of Naval Operations call for more strike fighters to fill that 

requirement. This Subcommittee responded by adding both F/ A-18E/F Super Hornets and F35Cs in its markup. Since then, it has become well known that the Navy and Marine Corps are 

facing readiness challenges to more than half of its aviation fleet. Signiticant delays in 

maintenance and sustainment oflegacy aircraft have created a readiness crisis. On top of that, 

higher than expected utilization rates of the Super Hornet has only exacerbated the strike fighter 

shortfall. This trend needs to be reversed quickly. 

The near-tenn solution to this challenge is twofold. First, procure additional F/ A-18E/F 

Super Hornets with upgraded capabilities to meet the threats we face in the 2020s and beyond. 

The Block III Super Hornet will complement the F-35C by bringing enhanced networking 

capability, extended range and increased number of weapons into battle. I believe that the 

Navy's budget will show an investment in these modernized aircraft and how they can support 

carrier operations for decades to come. Second, the Navy should invest in sustainment of the 
72

existing fleet of Super Hornets, a plan that the service has worked on, but will finally implement 

in the upcoming budget, Extending the life and capabilities of these older aircraft, paired with 

new Super Hornets, will immediately help fill the strike fighter gap. 

After several years of congressional support, I expect theN avy to take action to budget 

for these solutions. Congress has provided a life preserver to the Navy, but it is time for the 

Navy to step up. 

St. Louis is one of the Nation's premier homes for tactical aviation, an area of expertise 

that I know the Chairwoman knows a great deal about in her own district. I'm proud that my 

district is the home of the Super Hornet, and the men and women that work on the aircraft are 

proud for what they do for the warfighter. Their efforts are in service to the Navy and to their 

country. They also understand the critical role that Congress plays in ensuring that the Navy has 

the most capable and cost effective fleet of aircraft. 

I hope that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget submission includes the procurement of at least 

24 new Super Hornets, and that the Subcommittee can support them in your markup. The strike 

fighter shortfall is a serious issue that can and should be addressed. I look forward to working 

with you throughout the year, and I have been a strong vote yes for the work that this 

subcommittee has done each year. 

Thank you for offering this opportunity to discuss my national security priorities. 
73

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much for appearing and, for the 

third time, reminding us of what we need to do with our military 

and our equipment. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CLAY. Thanks Madam Chair. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentlewoman from New Mexico. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN LUJAN GRISHAM

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and 

Ranking Member Visclosky and of course members of the subcommittee. I am also delighted to be here and appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the Army’s AN/PDR–75A Personal Dosimeter Radiac Set. These measure and collect radiation 

exposure data in order to reduce health risks for the brave men 

and women who put themselves in harm’s way. 

This program is critical to the security, safety, and well-being of 

American servicemembers who are exposed to radioactive weapons 

systems, devices, and materials on a daily basis. It also ensures 

that we are prepared for a broad range of contingencies that could 

expose our soldiers to potentially high levels of radiation, including 

the use of a dirty bomb. Without accurate data, we have no way 

of assessing and reducing radiation exposure health risks, including acute radiation sickness and cancer. 

The new Radiac set replaces old, obsolete systems being used by 

the Army since the 1960s. The outdated systems cannot measure 

the range of dose presented by current scenarios or provide a legal 

dose of record capability, or, frankly, what is occurring over the 

lifetime of exposures. 

The new system meets the Department of Defense standards and 

includes a personal dosimeter, which resembles a wristwatch, that 

a soldier wears and a small, 5-pound reader that provides a legal 

record of radiation exposure for each soldier. Now, this recorded information is kept as part of the soldier’s medical record and provides the soldier with a comprehensive record of radiation exposure 

over his or her entire career. 

And while not part of my remarks, radiation exposure also 

causes a change in DNA which actually gets passed on to future 

generations. It is critical that we provide our men and women with 

not only the information related to these exposures, but the opportunity to mitigate those and deal with issues for their entire families.

This detail is extremely helpful to both the soldier and the Department of Veterans Affairs once the soldier seeks medical care 

upon leaving the service because cancer risks, of course, increase 

as one’s total lifetime dose increases. Recent news reports have 

highlighted current problems facing soldiers and veterans seeking 
74

treatment at the VA whose radiation exposure was not recorded or 

tracked.

Unfortunately, this spans across exposures at Pacific island nuclear test sites in the 1950s, in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, 

around the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and via depleted uranium 

use in current operations. These examples demonstrate that the 

need and application for these Radiac sets is wide ranging, and the 

AN/PDR–75A device removes any doubt and provides a legal record 

of all exposure during a soldier’s career of service to our Nation. 

Now, the Army began purchasing new Radiac sets in 2012 with 

procurement dollars, but due largely to budgetary constraints, decided to pause production and fielding until 2020. Prudently, the 

Army Reserve and Army National Guard use National Guard and 

Reserve equipment account funds to field Radiac sets to 100 percent of their soldiers and are 100 percent mission ready. The bad 

news: Unfortunately, that is not the case with the active Army, 

which has since placed the shortfall of Radiac sets on its unfunded 

requirement list and remains only 50 percent mission ready. 

The current active Army shortfall stands at 2,323 Radiac sets, 

which of course places these soldiers at risk. The active Army 

needs an estimated 26 million over the next 2 years to complete 

fielding the newest, most capable systems to our Nation’s soldiers. 

One further point of consideration, Madam Chairwoman, the 

Army-proposed pause in production will have a profound negative 

impact on the industrial base for this central piece of equipment. 

Shutting down and then restarting the production lines increases 

future production costs and, of course, jeopardizes the development 

of the state-of-the-art technology and leads to the loss of a highly 

skilled and proficient workforce. 

We can’t wait, quite frankly, until 2020 to resume production of 

these items. Funding and fielding the items in fiscal year 2018 improves Army readiness, stabilizes the industrial base, and most importantly, protects the safety and welfare of our Nation’s soldiers. 

I thank the committee for inviting me to appear today and of 

course for your consideration of providing support and funding for 

this vital Army program in fiscal year 2018 and beyond. Thank you 

very much. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman Lujan Grisham follows:]
75

Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01) Statement, 

House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense 

Member's Day Hearing, March 91

h, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members of the 

Defense Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you 

today about the Army's AN/PDR-75A Personal Dosimeter Radiac Set, 

which measures radiation exposure in order to reduce health risks for the 

brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way. This 

program is critical to the security, safety, and well-being of American 

service members who are exposed to radioactive weapon systems, 

devices, and material on a daily basis. It also ensures that we are 

prepared for a broad range of contingencies that could expose our 

soldiers to potentially high levels of radiation, including the use of a 

"dirty" bomb. Without accurate data, we will have no way of assessing 

and reducing radiation exposure health risks, including acute radiation 

sickness and cancer. 

The AN/PDR-75A Radiac set replaces old, obsolete systems being used 

by the Army since the 1960s. The outdated systems could not measure 

the range of dose presented by current scenarios or provide a legal dose 

of record capability. The new system meets DOD standards and 

includes a personal dosimeter, which resembles a wristwatch that a 

soldier wears and a small, five pound reader that provides a legal record 

of radiation exposure for each soldier. This recorded information is kept 

as part of the soldier's medical record and provides a soldier with a 

comprehensive record of radiation exposure over his or her entire career. 

This detail is extremely helpful to both the soldier and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs once the soldier seeks medical care upon leaving the 

service, because cancer risk increases as one's total lifetime doses 

1 
76

increase. Recent news reports have highlighted current problems facing 

soldiers and veterans seeking treatment at the VA whose radiation 

exposure was not recorded or tracked. Unfortunately this spans across 

exposure at Pacific island nuclear test sites in the 1950's, in Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm, around the Fukushima nuclear disaster and via 

depleted Uranium use in current operations. These examples 

demonstrate that the need and application for these Radiac Sets is wide 

ranging. The AN/PDR-75A removes any doubt and provides a legal 

record of all exposure during a soldier's career of service to our nation. 

The Army began purchasing new Radiac Sets in 2012 with procurement 

dollars, but due largely to budgetary constraints, decided to pause 

production and fielding until 2020. Prudently, the Army Reserve and 

Army National Guard used National Guard and Reserve Equipment 

Account (NGREA) funds to field Radiac sets to 100% of their soldiers 

and are 100% mission ready. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the 

Active Army, which has since placed the shortfall of Radiac Sets on its 

Unfunded Requirements List and remains only 50% mission ready. 

The current Active Army shortfall stands at 2,323 AN/PDR-75A Radiac 

Sets (Personal Dosimeters), which places soldiers at risk. The Active 

Army needs an estimated $26M over the next two years to complete 

fielding the newest, most capable systems to our nation's soldiers. 

One further point of consideration, the Army's proposed pause in 

production will have a profound negative impact on the industrial base 

for this critical piece of equipment. Shutting down and then restarting 

the production line increases future production costs, jeopardizes the 

development of state-of-the-art technology, and leads to the loss of a 

highly skilled and proficient workforce. 

2 
77

We cannot wait until2020 to resume production of these critical items. 

Funding and fielding these items in FY18 improves Army readiness, 

stabilizes the industrial base, and most importantly protects the safety 

and welfare of our nation's soldiers. I thank the Committee for inviting 

me to appear here today and for your consideration of providing support 

and funding for this vital Army program in FY20 18 and beyond. 

Thank you. 

3 
78

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank 

you for your remarks. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017.

WITNESS

HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking 

Member Visclosky, members of the subcommittee. I am here before 

you to talk about one thing first and a couple of other things that 

are near and dear to my heart. 

The first one is the Army has got four divisions of Gray Eagles. 

Gray Eagles is the MQ–9 Reaper. That is what the Army calls it. 

They call it Gray Eagle instead of the MQ–9 Reaper, which is the 

armed predator that can carry 500-pound bombs, Hellfires, and do 

ISR. They are 3 airplanes short per four divisions, for a total of 12 

planes short. 

The shortfall in division-level intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets impacts the training and the readiness of both 

the deploying unit, as well as the units that are forced to surrender 

aircraft to fill the resourcing shortfall. So what you have is you 

have units that aren’t going to be deploying borrowing planes from 

the units that just got back. So the units that just got back can’t 

even train up on their planes because they don’t have them because they had to give them to the guys that are going overseas. 

So what I am requesting right now in the fiscal year 2018 Department of Defense Appropriations Act is an acquisition of 12, 

and, again, 12 is 3 airplanes per division for the four divisions in 

the Army that do this. It is $195 million in the Aircraft Procurement, Army appropriation account so that all Army companies 

have their full allowance of Gray Eagle systems and related ground 

support equipment. 

That is the first thing. And I think this is one of those things 

that I think, when it comes to Predators, whether it is the Navy, 

Army, Marine Corps, they always want more, but in this case, they 

are not at what they are supposed to have in the first place. So 

they are not asking for extra. They just want to be at their full 

complement.

Number two, things that I would just like to say that aren’t specific things that I am requesting that you take a look at, somebody 

smart said if you control the ocean, you control the world. And 

nowadays if you control space, you control the ocean. I think we 

need to look at you, the Appropriations Committee—and, by the 

way, it is interesting coming here as opposed to talking to each of 

you begging for things as us authorizers do on the Armed Services 

Committee.

Two things. The Coast Guard-Navy matrix needs to be fixed. I 

know Coast Guard isn’t Navy, but the fact that we have so few 
79

Navy ships, and you have Coast Guard now doing Navy things because the Coast Guard is a U.S. military service with dual roles, 

I think that is really important for the Nation. I think if you look 

at, like, the top three things we should do as a Nation defensewise, Navy and Coast Guard are one of those things. 

The second thing are out-of-the-box ways to look at missile defense—out-of-the-box ways. We have THAAD. We have all these 

different intercept things. We are able to shoot down multiple projectiles coming in from space that we have to track. The time to 

hit missiles is when they are taking off, nuclear missiles. You are 

going to have North Korea, the Iranians now. 

Nuclear ICBMs will become ubiquitous, I think, in 25 or 30 

years, and short-range a lot sooner than that. The time to hit them 

is when they are slow, when there are big plumes of fire and they 

are taking off to go into space, that is when you do that. 

There are ways to do this that are not billion-dollar programs, 

line item by the Army or the Air Force. There are out-of-the-box 

ways to do it. And I would beg of you to look at these different 

ways that we can shoot down our enemies’ missiles as they launch 

when it is the easiest time to hit them, because, again, they are 

going slow, they are taking off, and it is not that hard to hit one 

and blow it up when they are taking off. 

With that, thank you for all that you do, and I look forward to 

having a more robust defense budget this year. Thank you all. 

[The written statement of Congressman Hunter follows:] 
80

STATEMENT OF 

REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (CA-50) 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

MARCH 9, 2017 

1 
81

Good morning Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members of the 

Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testifY to the 

Subcommittee on issues that are important to our national security. 

Account: 

Line Item: 

Aircraft Procurement, Army 

MQ-1 UAV 

P-1 Line3 

I would like to bring to your attention the U.S. Army Gray Eagle, which is a mediumaltitude, long endurance unmanned aerial vehicle. Currently, Gray Eagle Companies are 

authorized 12 MQ-1 C Gray Eagle aircraft per Company. Due to resourcing limitations, only 9 

aircraft per company have been fielded. To achieve full operational capability, units must 

borrow 3 aircraft from non-deploying units to bring them to the full U.S Forces Command Table 

of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) Authorization for deployment. This shortfall in 

Division-level Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets impacts the training 

and readiness of both a deploying unit as well as units that are forced to surrender aircraft to fill 

the resourcing shortfall. 

DOD assessments determined that Gray Eagle units at Division level required 12 aircraft 

to adequately meet operational requirements, supported in the Consolidated Programming 

Document. Due to limited funding, the Army was forced to either fully field fewer units or 

partially field each Company. This strategy supported Division requirements to integrate and 

train Maneuver and Intelligence units with organic assets, although with a limited number of 

aircraft. Risk was accepted to both the organizational training base and to the "train as you 

fight" philosophy. 

2 
82

The high demand for Gray Eagle units to support ISR missions in multiple theaters has 

driven unit deployments to a high operational tempo. Commanders have demanded full 

equipment allowance for deployed units, while units not deploying supply three aircraft from 

their already reduced assets to ensure deployed Companies have the full complement of aircraft. 

As more units are deployed and combat losses are experienced, additional aircraft must be taken 

from non-deployed units. 

This places increased stress on non-deployed units to meet both individual and collective 

training requirements. Non-deployed units are likely to experience a lack of adequate resources 

to conduct 100% of their maintenance and flight operations training mandates. 

Gray Eagle units must have their full authorization of equipment to build the skills 

needed to support full spectrum operations upon deployment. Partially fielded units with full 

TO&E Authorizations have additional concerns beyond current operations. For example, Non 

Commissioned Officers, leaders and staff are not adequately challenged if they do not have to 

account for, sustain, and repair a full complement of aircraft. If this situation continues, it will 

affect the long-term quality of Army Unmanned Aerial Systems units, as well their ability to 

train, maintain and operate at the levels expected of all Army Aviation units. 

To fully equip Gray Eagle Companies to their full TO&E for Aircraft, Ground Support 

Equipment, Ground Data Terminals and Ground Control Systems, three additional Gray Eagle 

Extended Range (GE-ER) aircraft are needed per division. The additional acquisition of 12 

improved Gray Eagle aircraft in fiscal year 2018 also supports the industrial based through 2021. 

I recognize that your Subcommittee bas a tough job to balance many urgent requirements 

with very limited funding resources. I urge your Subcommittee, as you mark up the Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 to look at this very important requirement and provide 

3 
83

$195 million in the Aircraft Procurement, Army appropriation account so that all Army 

companies have their full allowance of Gray Eagle systems and related ground support 

equipment. 

I would like to bring another important issue to your attention, long range acoustic 

hailing devices, which allow service members to effectively determine the intent of a person, 

crowd or vehicle at a safe distance and attempt to deter them before escalating to the use of lethal 

force and keeping the warfighter out of harm's way. These hailing devices are a proven nonlethal deterrent and are already in use in the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Reserves, and 

National Guard. In 2009, the Army validated a requirement for 6,350 units but a Program of 

Record wasn't established until2015. The overall requirement has been reduced to 3,773 as the 

size of the Army has been reduced but to date, the Army has procured less than 50 ofthcse 

potentially life-saving devices via the Program of Record even though the cost to buy out the 

entire requirement would only be $80M. Funding for this was included in the FY17 President's 

budget request in Other Procurement, Army, and I thank the Committee for their strong support 

of that request. The FY17 President's Budget request also indicated planned funding in FY18 

but, inexplicably, at a lower rate of procurement quantities than planned for FY17. I request the 

support of the Committee for expediting the procurement and fielding of this critical capability. 

Thank you again for the opportunity for me to bring these important issues to the 

Subcommittee's attention. 

4 
84

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your words. 

We appreciate it very much. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Ohio. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. STEVE STIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF OHIO 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking 

Member Visclosky and all the members of the subcommittee. I am 

here to testify today about the Technology Transition Program, 

that during fiscal year 2018 the Air Force has requested $497.7 

million.

And only $87.4 million of that, 18 percent, is set aside for technologies other than advanced engine development; $410 million is 

exclusively ramped off, 82 percent, roped off for engine development. That is an insufficient amount for all the other things that 

need to happen. It will cause some critical Air Force technology development needs. 

And in addition, there are now opportunities for the Air Force to 

partner with State universities, national laboratories, medium and 

small businesses, to identify novel technologies and concepts on 100 

percent cost-shared basis, which could leverage dollars better. And 

the Air Force’s 2018 budget estimate does not allow for the service 

to take advantage of these opportunities. And I think that we 

should change that and allow that to happen. 

I strongly urge the subcommittee to provide a program increase of $15 million for fiscal year 2018 for the Technology Transition 

Program when it marks up the Defense Appropriations Act of 2018 

and specifically allow cost-match technology transition to be fully 

competitively awarded by the Air Force, so it would be on a competitive basis. 

I think this will fund a diverse portfolio of capabilities to enable 

multiple combinations of air-to-space to cyberspace operations in 

all environments, even in highly contested as well as permissive 

environments. It will ensure that new concepts and capabilities to 

counter increasing technology and proliferation of anti-access and 

area denial threats, and to include multidomain approaches and 

systems that can be rapidly modified when adversaries adapt their 

defenses. It will also ensure tailored forward presence from small, 

resilient bases, and it will algorithm as opposed to hardware-based 

human-computer interface systems that will work with humans to 

provide predictive analysis and assist in rapid multidomain courses 

of action. It will allow big data analytics and testing that will help 

improve our Nation’s defense and allow the Air Force to see the entire operating picture. 

I thank you for the opportunity, and I hope you will consider increasing the TTP by $15 million, which is a mere 3 percent, and 

ensuring specific language that allows cost-matched technology 
85

transition to be fully awarded competitively by the Air Force. 

Thank you very much. 

[The written statement of Congressman Stivers follows:] 
86

Testimony by Representative Steve Stivers (OH-15) 

Before the House Subcommittee on Defense House Committee on Appropriations 

March 9, 2017 

Good morning Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members of the 

Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me and other Members of the House with the 

opportunity to testify to the Subcommittee on issues that are important to our national security. 

The Air Force estimated needing $497.7 million for its Technology Transition Program 

(TTP) during fiscal year 2018, in its fiscal year 2017 RDT &E President's budget request to 

Congress. This program is in the Advanced Component Development and Prototypes budget 

activity for efforts to evaluate integrated technologies, representative modes or prototype systems 

in a high fidelity and realistic operating environment. Of this amount, Only $87.4 million {! 

mere 18 percent) is set aside for all other technologies relevant to the diverse Air Force 

mission set, while the vast majority, $410.3 million (82 percent) is dedicated tor advanced 

engine development. 

The Technology Transition Program (TTP) in the Air Force's budget provides funding to 

demonstrate and/or experiment with technologies and concepts to enable or accelerate their 

transition to acquisition programs of record and operational use. It addresses the gap that exists 

between when a technology or concept is first developed and demonstrated to when it can be 

successfully acquired and implemented as an operational capability. TTP bridges that gap by 

providing funding and enabling integration and demonstration to continue beyond the laboratory. 

It also allows acquisition program managers and warfighters to prototype, integrate, demonstrate, 

and experiment with candidate technologies and assess them in an operational environment in 

partnership with PEOs, schools, simulation facilities, and development planning organizations. 

TTP includes research and development funds for the following transition activities: 
87

(I) experimentation campaigns to support Air Superiority 2030+ promising, high-priority 

concepts and technologies in an operational environment, 

(2) prototyping to lower acquisition risk by raising the technology readiness level and assessing 

implications to CONOPS, tactics, techniques, and procedures; 

(3) performing pre-acquisition systems engineering to facilitate transition of concepts and 

technologies from a demonstration program into acquisition programs of record; 

(4) assessing external interface requirements of candidate concepts, technologies, and 

demonstration projects to better understand true engineering costs resulting from insertion of 

new technologies into the AF enterprise architecture; and 

(5) capturing data through information technology tools and databases to help formulate 

technology transition acquisition strategies and gather proposals for technology and prototype 

development that have the potential for application to the performance of Department of Defense 

missions. 

The $87.4 million estimated for technology transition of non-engine technologies 

during fiscal year 2018 is insufficient to address critical Air Force technology development 

and insertion needs. 

In addition, there are now opportunities emerging for the Air Force to team with states, 

universities, national laboratories, and small and medium businesses to identify novel 

technologies and concepts on a 100 percent cost-shared basis. The Air Force's FY 2018 

budget estimate does not allow the service to take advantage of these opportunities, particularly 

due to the skew towards aircraft engine development. 

2 
88

The Air Force is particularly interested in new systems-of-systems research, mixing lowtech and high-tech assets into a synergistic and more combat-effective framework. Additional 

funds are urgently needed in FY18 to rapidly evaluate new system-of-system solutions and 

develop the trust methodologies required to provide rapid, cost effective, flight qualified, and 

reliable mission solutions for a wide range of DOD high/low mission operations. The focus of 

this effort would be on scalable and modular technologies using additive manufacturing solutions 

which could be deployed in multiple defense applications across a variety of platforms, 

technologies, and varying terrain and weather conditions. 

Critical to these flexible systems-of-systems solutions are the capabilities to facilitate 

manned-unmanned teaming. These concepts can have the added benefit of extending the 

useful life of existing fleets of fourth generation fighters and weapons. The exponential grov.1h 

of the commercial unmanned aerial vehicle sector is facilitating the creation of novel, low-cost 

concepts of employment that create new opportunities for current Air Force aerospace systems. 

Commercial interests and a large and active open source community have enabled rapid 

improvement of unmanned capabilities in general, which should be properly integrated and could 

rapidly enhance U.S. warfighter effectiveness and increase cost effectively enhance. These 

emerging systems will enhance operational flexibility in multiple mission environments to 

include ISR, electronic warfare, kinetic and cyber weapon delivery. 

I strongly urge the Subcommittee to provide a generic program increase of $15.0 

million to the Air Force's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Technology Transition 

Program when it marks up its Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018--

specifically for cost-matched technology transition that can be fully competitively awarded 

by the Air Force. This funding will support research, development, system performance 

3 
89

modeling and simulation, additive manufacturing, demonstrations and rapid evaluation of 

system-of-systems prototypes and would allow fully cost-matched investments in: 

A diverse portfolio of capabilities that enable multiple combinations of air-to-space 

to- cyberspace operations in all environmental conditions and in highly-contested 

and permissive environments. 

• New concepts and capabilities to counter the increasing technology and proliferation 

of anti-access and area denial threats, to include multi-domain approaches and 

systems that can be rapidly modified when adversaries adapt their defenses. 

• Tailored forward presence from small, resilient bases, using dispersal, warning, 

active and passive defenses, rapid repair capabilities, and streamlined logistics 

through the usc of additive manufacturing. 

• Algorithm-based (as opposed to hardware-based) human-computer interface 

systems that work with humans to provide predictive analysis, and assist in rapid, 

multi-domain course of action development by providing Big Data analytics, 

emulation, and testing, as well as present easily visualized information through a 

tailorablc, user-defined operating picture. 

Thank you again for the opportunity for me to bring this important issue to the 

Subcommittee's attention today. 

4 
90

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your 

remarks. I just returned from a short trip to California looking at 

some of those exact issues. Thank you. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from Alabama. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. The lights in front of 

you show when you can start. When it hits yellow, it means you 

have got 1 minute. Thank you so much. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member 

Visclosky, and distinguished members of this committee. It is my 

pleasure to appear before this committee once again to testify on 

two issues important to our national security: the Littoral Combat 

Ship and the Expeditionary Fast Transport, or EPF, which was formerly known as the Joint High Speed Vessel. 

I would be remiss if I did not begin by thanking the committee 

for its support for three LCS’s in the 2017 Defense Appropriations 

bill that passed the House yesterday. Continuing to fund three 

LCS’s in fiscal year 2018 is important to the Navy, the program, 

the industrial base, and American taxpayers. 

Because of concentrated efforts by the Navy and the shipyards, 

construction deficiencies have been identified and implemented, reducing each ship by almost a half million man-hours. This, as I am 

sure the committee knows, equates to a significant cost savings of 

somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. The shipyards in 

Marinette, Wisconsin, and Mobile, Alabama, have been extremely 

clear, these savings can only be achieved by continuing a hot production line and maintaining a skilled workforce. 

The Trump administration is faced with overcoming some significant hurts. Decisions were made in the past administration which 

puts the future of our Naval fleet at risk. For example, the Navy 

has been and continues to be steadfast that their requirement for 

small surface combatants is still 52 ships. Despite the Navy leadership’s articulation of this need, former Secretary of Defense Ash 

Carter attempted to decrease the number of LCS’s from 52 total 

ships down to 40 and required down select to a single shipyard in 

fiscal year 2019. 

The Navy’s Force Structure Analysis, which was completed just 

this last year, articulates the need for a 355-ship Navy and maintains the requirement for 52 Littoral Combat Ships. The only 

means to produce the desired number of small surface combatants 

is to continue building at least three LCS’s per year. 

The Navy is advancing strategic concepts to maintain of sea 

lanes by using distributed lethality. The USS Coronado is currently 

outfitted with an antiship missile defense system and an over-thehorizon missile system. These added capabilities, combined with 

the speed of the LCS, enables the Navy at low cost to reshape the 
91

Russian and Chinese calculus of our forces in places such as the 

South China Sea. 

I was fortunate to attend the 2016 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, 

which is the world’s largest naval exercise, with participants from 

over 25 nations, including the Chinese. The USS Coronado conducted exercises at RIMPAC that demonstrated to the world the 

capabilities of the LCS, and I can tell you for a fact our adversaries 

were present and were closely watching the capabilities of that 

ship.

Following RIMPAC, the Coronado replaced the USS Fort Worth 

on a rotational deployment to Singapore. I visited Singapore just 

2 weeks ago and met with the admiral that employs these ships, 

and he stressed to me that the requests from our partner nations 

to work with the LCS are in higher demand than we have ships 

available. He indicated to me that he needs more LCS’s in theater 

as soon as possible. 

Next, I would like to share my support for the Expeditionary 

Fast Transport, commonly known as the EPF. The EPF is a shallow-draft, high-speed catamaran, which is a small amphibious vessel used for intra-theater support of personnel, equipment, and 

supplies.

I have talked to combatant commanders, the Marine Corps, and 

the Military Sealift Command about the EPF, and each has 

stressed its important and unique capabilities. These ships are 

making an impact around the world. They have operated in 

PACOM for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, 

SOUTHCOM for counterdrug missions, and EUCOM for antipiracy 

missions.

As we meet, the USNS Trenton is forward deployed to Naval 

Forces Europe-Africa Command’s area of operation, performing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. The EPF is 

currently in serial production with a stable and highly trained 

workforce. We are benefitting from the efficiencies gained through 

the construction of the initial eight vessels. 

At roughly $225 million per ship, the EPF is a fraction of what 

other shipbuilding programs cost. In order to ensure the capability 

to build these ships and maintain such an affordable price, we need 

to keep the production line open and meet the stated requirements 

of a total of 18 vessels. Unfortunately, without further procurement 

in fiscal year 2018, this line will close. 

Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on these two valuable ships and 

the state of shipbuilding with the subcommittee. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The written statement of Congressman Byrne follows:] 
92

Appropriations Member Day Statement 

Defense Subcommittee 

Representative Bradley Byrne 

Alabama's First District 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the 

committee; it is my pleasure to appear before this Committee once again this year 

to testify on two issues important to our national security: the Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) program and the Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) formerly known as the 

Joint High Speed Vessel program. 

I would be remiss if I did not begin by thanking the Committee for its support of a 

third LCS in the Fiscal Year 2017 Defense Appropriations bill we are considering 

this week. 

I am here to articulate why funding three LCS in Fiscal Year 2018 is so important 

to the Navy, the program, the industrial base, and American tax payers. 

Three LCS is the minimum sustainable number required to produce these ships and 

achieve a 40% reduction in man-hours. Because of concentrated efforts by the 

Navy and the shipyards, construction efficiencies have been identified and 
93

implemented reducing each ship by almost a half million man-hours. This, as I am 

sure the Committee knows, equates to a significant cost savings of 15-20%. These 

savings can only be achieved by continuing a hot production line and maintaining a 

skilled workforce. The shipyards in Marinette, Wisconsin and Mobile, Alabama 

have been extremely clear that three ships is the minimum number to create cost 

and time savings to complete each ship. 

The Trump Administration is faced with overcoming significant hurdles set in 

place by the Obama Administration. Decisions were made which put the future of 

our naval fleet at risk. For example the Navy has been and continues to be 

steadfast that their requirement for small surface combatants is still 52 ships. 

Despite the Navy Leadership's miiculation of this need, former Secretary of 

Defense Ash Carter attempted to decrease the number of LCS from 52 total ships 

down to 40 and require a down select to a single shipyard in Fiscal Year 2019. 

The Navy's Force Structure Analysis, which was completed late last year, 

articulates the need for a 355 ship Navy and maintains the requirement for 52 

Littoral Combat Ships. Furthermore, three separate alternative studies aimed at 

reconstituting our Navy with an optimized fleet have been completed over the past 

few weeks. Each one of these studies identifies the need for a larger naval fleet 
94

and call for an increase in small surface combatants over the current 30-year 

shipbuilding plan. The only means to produce the desired number of small surface 

combatants is to continue building at least 3 LCS per year. 

The Navy is advancing strategic concepts to maintain control of sea lanes by using 

distributed lethality and flexibility. The LCS, specifically the USS Coronado, is 

outfitted with an anti-ship missile defense system and over-the-horizon missile 

systems. These added capabilities now require our adversaries to pay much closer 

attention to the location of the LCS. The combined speed and lethality ofLCS 

enables the Navy, at a low cost, to reshape the Russian and Chinese calculus of our 

forces in places such as the South China Sea. 

The USS Coronado participated in the 2016 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, the 

world's largest naval exercise with participants from over 25 nations including the 

Chinese. I was fortunate to attend RIMP AC and go aboard the USS Coronado as 

she conducted exercises that demonstrated to the world just how capable the LCS. 

The sailors and officers of Coronado were proud of their ship and confident in the 

capabilities LCS brings to the fight and trust me our adversaries were watching. 
95

Following RIMPAC, the Coronado replaced the USS Forth Worth on a rotational 

deployment to Singapore. The LCS are perfect for the Asia-Pacific region because 

these are shallow draft vessels capable of can get to places larger surface ships 

often cannot get to in that very important part of the world. I visited Singapore just 

two weeks ago and met with the Admiral that employs these ships, and he stressed 

to me that the requests from our partner nations to work with the LCS are in higher 

demand than we have ships available. He indicated that he needs more LCS in 

theater as soon as possible. 

Just last month, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Admiral 

Moran, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, stated "The Navy is smaller today than 

it has been in the last 99 years." This is at a time when our adversaries have been 

investing in their navies for the past few decades. I urge this committee to fund a 

355 ship Navy and to recognize that the LCS is an essential component of our 

future fleet and critical to the success of Navy. 

Next, I'd like to share my support for the Expeditionary Fast Transport commonly 

known as the EPF. The EPF is a shallow draft, high-speed catamaran small 

amphibious vessel used for the intra-theater support of personnel, equipment and 

supplies. I've talked to Combatant Commanders, the Marine Corps, and the 
96

Military Sealift Command about the EPF, and each have stressed its importance 

and unique capabilities. 

These ships are making an impact around the world. They have participated in 

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief following the tsunamis in India and 

Japan. They have operated in SOUTHCOM for the counter-drug mission, in 

EUCOM for anti-piracy missions, and in P ACOM for theater security operations. 

As we meet, the USNS Trenton is forward deployed to Naval Forces EuropeAfrica Command's area of operation, performing intelligence, surveillance and 

reconnaissance missions. Last month, USNS Spearhead deployed with an 

embarked medical team to conduct civil-military operations where a variety of 

medical services will be provided to over 15,000 people. 

Clearly, these vessels are effectively filling critical roles for all Combatant 

Commanders. The stated requirement for the number of these ships is 18, but to 

this point 8 have been delivered and another 4 are under contract. The Department 

of Defense places a premium on the ability of U.S. military forces to deploy 

quickly to a full spectrum of engagements. The EPF has demonstrated the ability 

to effectively support these needs and more. 
97

The EPF is currently in serial production with a stable and highly trained work 

force. We are benefiting from the efficiencies gained through the construction of 

the initial eight vessels. In order to ensure the capability to build these ships, and 

maintain such an affordable price, we need to keep the production line open. 

Unfortunately, without further procurement in Fiscal Year 2018, this line will 

close. 

The EPF program provides the Navy with a very affordable and capable ship. At 

roughly $225 million per ship, the EPF is a fraction of what other shipbuilding 

programs cost. The program has clearly matured into what can only be considered 

efficient, serial production. As we work toward a Navy of355 ships, we must 

capitalize on low-cost, high production product lines. 

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had multiple opportunities 

to go aboard both classes of vessels. I have been able to follow these vessels from 

construction to commissioning ceremonies to training exercises to day-to-day 

operations. I have seen them as they operate forward deployed in South East Asia. 

I have talked to the fine sailors who operate these vessels and the Navy Operators 

that utilize these assets for strategic purposes. The feedback I get from the fleet 
98

has consistently been that they need more Littoral Combat Ships and more 

Expeditionary Fast Transports. 

Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my 

thoughts on these two valuable ships and the state of shipbuilding with the 

Subcommittee. 
99

Ms. GRANGER. I have no questions, but I share your appreciation 

for Littoral Combat Ships. I am the sponsor of the USS Fort Worth 

and watched that competition. There is more to go with that. So 

thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you. Good to be with you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from California. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. PAUL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN COOK

Mr. COOK. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Visclosky, members of the Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you this morning to testify on an issue 

important to our national security. 

Many, many years ago I was a platoon commander. I was the 

most dangerous weapon in the world, a second lieutenant with a 

map and a compass and a radio man who followed behind me, you 

know, usually trying to keep me out of trouble. 

Today’s warfighter tracks his mission enemy using radio and digital communications on multiple platforms. We expect them to bear 

this burden, the weight of the equipment, while still becoming a 

faster, more agile, and more lethal fighting force than ever before. 

We owe these combat leaders and their troops a simpler system to 

make the best use of all this information that they are receiving. 

The Army Geospatial Center is the office responsible for the development of the system that I am talking about. They create 

standards shared by all Army platforms to provide a single operating picture for the commander. By combining multiple intelligence sources on one device, a commander can spend more time 

making combat decisions and less time sorting through data and 

trying to figure out what to do when there are mortars, machine 

gun fire, everything going on at once. An additional $4 million is needed in fiscal year 2018 to finish 

development efforts and get the software to the troops. These funds 

would provide necessary hardware, software, personnel to ensure 

the technology is combat ready. This program can be found under 

Army’s Technical Information Activities in R-1, Romeo-1, line 155. 

The modern battlefield can change quickly, and our troops need 

access to the most accurate, up-to-date information to make informed tactical decisions. It is essential that our intelligence provide a clear, concise picture to the commander and the warfighter. 

Our troops have always been leaders in battlefield management, 

but we cannot assume that this will always be the case. This program will enhance our troops’ ability to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. Timely access to accurate information will help 

our commanders to bring our troops home safely. 

If somebody that existed in the world of Jurassic Park where the 

systems we had were crude, to say the least, and which was 1967, 

1968, the times have changed, but the basic mission is the same: 
100

carry out what we are supposed to do and make sure that we take 

care of the troops once again and bring them all back home alive. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The written statement of Congressman Cook follows:] 
101

The Honorable Paul Cook (CA-08) 

Good morning Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and 

Members of the Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you this morning to testifY on an issue important to our 

national security. 

In today's Digital Age, our troops have access to more information than 

ever before. Intelligence can be sent into the field by radio, cell phone, email, data link, or satellite. The problem becomes how our service members 

can organize and make use of this information before going into battle. 

Multiple communications devices and an increasing need for power to 

operate those devices are weighing down our troops and slowing down our 

missions. Centralizing all of this information and making it useable to the 

warfighter will mean shorter, safer, successful missions and more soldiers 

coming home alive. 

The Army Geospatial Center is the office responsible for all geospatial 

intelligence mapping. They are creating standards, common across all Army 

platforms that will receive intelligence feeds, to create a single, standardized 

operating picture for a commander, free from conflicting information. With 
102

one common overlay, a commander can spend more time making decisions 

and less time de-conflicting data. 

An additional $4 million is needed in fiscal year 2018 to finish 

development efforts and push this product into the field. These funds would 

provide necessary hardware, software, and personnel to complete this critical 

technology. This program can be found under "Army's Technical 

Information Activities" in R-1, line 155. My request would bring the 

appropriation to a total of $36.7 million. 

Close air support, or a moving battalion of tanks can and re-shape the 

battlefield in a matter of minutes. It is essential that our intelligence tools 

provide one common picture to the commander and the soldiers in the field, 

allowing our troops to share intelligence in real time. This competitivelyawarded program will provide the Army a tool that visualizes all critical 

intelligence in overlay and allows commanders to make informed decision 

before they send our troops into harm's way. 

I thank this subcommittee for its time, its hard work on this year's 

appropriations bill, and for your consideration of my request to help protect 

our troops. 
103

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for appearing, and thank you for your 

remarks. We appreciate it very much. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentlelady 

from American Samoa. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DELEGATE RADEWAGEN

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Talofa, taeoa manuia. Good morning, Chairman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I come to support additional 

funds for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation, NGREA, so that the Reserve can purchase Modular Small 

Arms Ranges, MSARs. 

American Samoa is the only U.S. Soil in the Southern Hemisphere, lying approximately 2,500 miles south of Hawaii. We may 

be far from the mainland, but we love the United States, as demonstrated by the rate our sons and daughters enlist in the military, 

the highest in the United States, a fact that we are proud of. The 

U.S. Army Reserve website states: ‘‘The Army recruiting station in 

Pago Pago is ranked number one in recruitment out of the 885 

Army recruiting stations and centers under the U.S. Army Recruiting Command.’’ 

American Samoa has been and continues to be an important 

strategic location for the United States for 117 years now, providing the only U.S. deep seaport in that part of the world, and is 

home to a U.S. Army Reserve unit. 

Currently stationed in American Samoa, we have two infantry 

companies of 200-plus soldiers that belong to the 100th Battalion 

of the 442nd Infantry, the most decorated unit of its size in the entire Army. They are warriors, knowledgeable professionals, 

tactically and technically proficient soldiers, and they are great role 

models for our community. Even our late member, my predecessor, 

Representative Eni Faleomavaega, served with this unit in Vietnam and as a reservist. 

Most families back home have many members that are serving 

or have served in the Army Reserve in the Pacific, and many community leaders are current or former members as well. These soldiers have and will continue to be called upon to perform dangerous missions in remote locations around the globe, and we want 

to provide the best possible training and equipment to ensure that 

they return home safely to their families and community. 

I am here today as their voice in Congress to solicit your support 

in making sure our soldiers are provided the best equipment and 

training tools to allow them to be trained and ready to deploy into 

harm’s way when called upon to protect our way of life. 

The Army Reserve Command is asking us in Congress for funding for a containerized small arms range for their units. To this 

end, both General Brown, commanding general for the U.S. Army 
104

Pacific, and Brigadier General Curda, commanding general, 9th 

Mission Support Command, have called on Congress for additional 

funds to purchase Modular Small Arms Ranges for Reserve units. 

The Modular Small Arms Range is a containerized facility and 

not an open or outdoor live fire range. There is no live fire range 

on American Samoa because Army safety standards for live fire 

ranges prohibit the construction of an open air live fire range. This 

is largely due to our islands’ terrain and population density. It is 

next to impossible to conduct live fire and ensure public safety on 

an open air range. The closest small arms range is in Hawaii, 2,500 

miles away. 

As it stands, in order for our Army Reserve units to be combat 

ready, they must fly to Hawaii, 5 hours away, to train and qualify 

on their individually assigned weapons. The cost to send 200-plus 

soldiers to Hawaii and the logistics to support them is upwards of 

$1.2 million annually. Modular Small Arms Range will save the 

Army and our taxpayers millions of dollars in the future while allowing our soldiers to be trained at home. 

As you know, marksmanship is a perishable skill, and our soldiers’ lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers depend on their 

ability to properly engage a target. Simple functions such as changing a magazine or sighting in a target can become monumental 

when the stress and frustration of combat is added. Live fire training and consistent weapons training ensure that the soldier has the 

muscle memory to perform these critical functions when under 

stressful combat situations. 

Ensuring that our soldiers are ready to fight is one of my top priorities, and I urge you to consider this request for a Modular Small 

Arms Range for our Army Reserve units. 

Thank you for your time. Fa’afetai tele lava. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The written statement of Delegate Radewagen follows:] 
105

Testimony in Support of Additional Funds for the Army Reserves 

Rep. Aumua Amata Radewagen (AS- At Large} 

Subcommittee on Defense, H-140, March 9, 2017, 11:20 am 

Talofa, taeoa manuia; Good morning Chairman Granger and Ranking Member 

Visclosky; and thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I come to 

support additional funds for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment 

Appropriation (NGREA), so that the Reserve can purchase Modular Small Arms 

Ranges (MSARs). 

American Samoa is the only U.S. soil in the Southern Hemisphere, lying 

approximately 2,500 miles south of Hawaii. We may be far from the mainland but 

we love the U.S., as demonstrated by the rate our sons and daughters enlist in the 

military, the highest in the United States, a fact that we are very proud of. The 

U.S. Army Reserve website states "The Army Recruiting Station in Pago Pago is 

ranked #1 in recruitment out of the 885 Army recruiting stations and centers 

under the U.S. Army Recruiting Command." 

American Samoa has been and continues to be an important strategic location for 

the United States for 117 years now, providing the only U.S. deep sea port in that 

part of the world; and is home to a U.S. Army Reserve unit. 

Currently stationed in American Samoa, we have two Infantry companies of 200+ 

Soldiers that belong to the 1001

h Battalion of the 442nd Infantry, the most 

decorated unit of its size in the entire Army. They are warriors, knowledgeable 

professionals, tactically and technically proficient Soldiers and they are great role 

models for our community; even our late member, Rep. Eni Faleomavaega served 

with this unit, in Vietnam and as a reservist. Most families back home have many 

members that are serving or have served in the Army Reserves in the Pacific, and 

many community leaders are current or former members as well. These citizen 

Soldiers have and will continue to be called upon to perform dangerous missions 

in remote locations around the globe, and we want to provide the best possible 

training and equipment to ensure that they return home safely to their families 

and community. 

I am here today as their voice in Congress to solicit your support in making sure 

our Soldiers are provided the best equipment and training tools, to allow them to 
106

be trained and ready to deploy into harm's way when called upon to protect our 

way of life. 

The Army Reserve Command is asking us in Congress for funding for a 

containerized small arms range for their units. To this end, both Gen. Brown, 

Commanding General for U.S. Army Pacific, and BGen. Curda, Commanding 

General, gth Mission Support Command; have called on Congress for additional 

funds to purchase Modular Small Arms Ranges for Reserve units. 

The Modular Small Arms Range is a containerized facility and not an open or 

outdoor live fire range. There is no live fire range on American Samoa because 

Army safety standards for live fire ranges prohibit the construction of an open air 

live fire range. This is largely due to our island's terrain and population density, it 

is next to impossible to conduct live fire and ensure public safety on an open air 

range. The closest small arms range is in Hawaii. 

As it stands, in order for our Army Reserve units to be combat ready, they must fly 

to Hawaii, 5 hours away, to train and qualify on their individually assigned 

weapons. The cost to send 200 plus Soldiers to Hawaii and the logistics to support 

them is upwards of 1.2 million dollars annually. Modular Small Arms Range will 

save the Army and our taxpayers millions of dollars in the future while allowing 

our Soldiers to be trained at home. 

Marksmanship is a perishable skill and our Soldiers' lives and the lives of their 

fellow soldiers depend on their ability to properly engage a target. Simple 

functions such as changing a magazine or sighting in a target can become 

monumental when the stress and frustration of combat is added. Live-fire training 

and consistent weapons training ensure that the Soldier has the muscle-memory 

to perform these critical functions when under stressful combat situations. 

Ensuring that our Soldiers are ready to fight is one of my top priorities and I urge 

you to consider this request for a modular small arms range for our Army Reserve 

units. Thank you for your time. 

Fa'afetai tele lava, I yield back the balance of my time. 
107

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank 

you for your remarks. 

Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman from California. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. TED LIEU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN LIEU

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, as well as the members of the subcommittee and 

your staff, for the hard work you do to help protect America. 

I served on Active Duty, and I fully support giving our armed 

services the resources they need to execute their missions. But as 

this subcommittee knows, the Navy has had a strike fighter shortfall for a number of years. And, in fact, it was this subcommittee 

that led on this issue for the last 2 years. 

You have generously funded additional tactical aviation, both F– 

18 Super Hornets and F–35s, that address one of the Navy’s biggest challenges. However, the magnitude of the Navy’s shortfall is 

so large that single-year solutions are not the ultimate answer, instead requiring ongoing, long-term procurement and modernization 

of the current fleet. I am hopeful that the fiscal year 2018 budget 

request will demonstrate our sustained commitment to addressing 

this shortfall. 

The Super Hornet is the Navy’s workhorse for its aircraft carriers throughout the world. However, even though it has been operational since the early 2000s, the aircraft was originally designed 

with the foresight to upgrade its capabilities to meet emerging requirements and threats. 

The fiscal year 2018 budget should support the introduction of 

the Block III Super Hornet to the fleet. The Block III Super Hornet 

will be based on the same air frame as the current Block II aircraft 

that is the Navy’s most lethal strike fighter. But the new features 

of Block III will make it relevant well into the 2040s. Those capabilities include increased range, networking capability with other 

Navy aircraft, longer-range sensors that identify the enemy from 

farther away, new cockpits, and improved stealth. 

Block III Super Hornets offer cost-effective ways to complement 

the F–35, EA–18G, and E–2D as they operate together in the air 

wing.

As you may know, California’s 33rd District is a critical hub for 

aerospace design, engineering, and manufacturing. I work in both 

military and civilian capacities with Los Angeles Air Force Base, 

which is surrounded by a unique and incredible array of institutions and companies focused on space and aerospace ranging from 

the federally funded research and development center, the Aerospace Corporation, to world-class universities. 

Nearby the base, some of the largest components of the Super 

Hornet are built by the hardworking men and women of the district, including the fuselage and components of the radars. The con-
108

tinuation of Super Hornet production is not only vital for the 

warfighter, but it sustains manufacturing for a proud and incredibly skilled American workforce. 

I understand you have a number of interests to consider as you 

review the fiscal year 2018 budget. I believe, however, that the 

Super Hornet is vital to addressing the Navy’s strike fighter shortfall.

Thank you very much for your past support and for the work 

that you are doing for the men and women in uniform. I appreciate 

you letting me testify. 

[The written statement of Congressman Lieu follows:] 
109

Representative Ted Lieu (CA-33) 

Testimony to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (HAC-D) 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members of the 

Subcommittee and staff, thank you for having me here today to talk about the Navy's strike 

fighter shortfa II. 

As this Subcommittee knows, the Navy's strike fighter shortfall is an issue that Congress 

has taken the lead on for the last two years. You have generously funded additional tactical 

aviation both F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35s- that address one of the service's biggest 

challenges. However, the magnitude of the Navy's shortfall is so large that single-year solutions 

are not the ultimate answer, instead requiring ongoing, long-term procurement and 

modernization of the current fleet. I'm hopeful that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request will 

demonstrate the Navy's sustained commitment to addressing tactical aviation. 

The Super Hornet is the Navy's workhorse off its aircraft carriers throughout the 

world. However, even though it has been operational since the early 2000s, the aircraft was 

originally designed with the foresight to upgrade its capabilities to meet emerging requirements 

and threats. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget should support the introduction of the Block [II Super 

Hornet to the fleet. The Block Ill Super Hornet will be based on the same airframe as the current 

Block II aircraft that is the Navy's most lethal strike fighter. But the new features will make it 

relevant well into the 2040s. Those capabilities include increased range, networking capability 

with other Navy aircraft, longer-range sensors to identify the enemy from farther away, new 

cockpits, and improved stealth. Block Ill Super Hornets offer cost effective ways to complement 

F-35, EA-180 and E-20 as they operate together in the air wing. 

As you may know, California's 33rd District is a critical hub for aerospace design, 

engineering and manufacturing. l work in both military and civilian capacities with Los Angeles 

Air Force Base, which is surrounded by a unique and incredible array of institutions and 

companies focused on space and aerospace, ranging from the federally-funded research and 

development center Aerospace Corporation to world-class universities. Nearby the base, some of 

the largest components of the Super Hornet are built by the hard working men and women of my 

district, including the fuselage and components of the radars. So the continuation of Super 

Hornet production is not only vital for the warfighter, but it sustains manufacturing for a proud 

and incredibly skilled workforce. 

I understand that you have a number of interests to consider as you review the Fiscal 

Year 2018 budget. I believe, however, that the Super Hornet is vital to addressing the Navy's 

strike tighter shortfall. The Navy's request should include these aircraft, and I ask that the 

Subcommittee support them in its markup. 

Thank you very much for your past support, and for the work that you are doing for the 

men and women in uniform. Your work is critical to our national security. 
110

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you for your service, and thank you for 

your remarks here today. Your experience is very helpful. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Oregon. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017 

WITNESS

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF OREGON 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Visclosky, 

members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to spend 

a couple moments with you this morning. 

You folks have one of the most difficult tasks in Congress. We 

have talked about it before. Other people can conjure things up and 

be aspirational, but you folks have to allocate the dollars. 

And there is a seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of opportunities 

to deal with our military. We struggle to maintain entitlement benefits for military personnel. We need to invest in safety improvements, command and control structure. There is a danger of 

hollowing out conventional forces. 

And against all these requirements, there are some things that 

loom large that I hope the committee can help. First and foremost, 

I think it is past time to take a hard look at the trillion-dollar commitment that is made for enhancing our nuclear commitment over 

the next several decades. It will inevitably crowd out other Air 

Force and Navy conventional priorities for instance. You can’t wish 

this away. 

We have an administration that is seeking to prioritize the fight 

against the Islamic State and terrorism, and this trillion dollars is 

not going to help us at all. 

We have an administration that is looking to reset relationships, 

evidently, with Russia. Well, here is an opportunity to maintain 

our philosophy in terms of trying to reduce and scale down nuclear 

weapons.

The New START treaty level of 1,550 weapons is far in excess 

of what our experts say we need for deterrence, at least one-third 

more, according to the 2013 President’s military advisers. And this 

isn’t theoretical. I mean, these are expensive, and they commit us 

to long-term expenses. 

And, unfortunately, we have a terrible record of tracking what 

the actual cost is as opposed to estimates. Last month, the CBO released its latest report projecting the cost of our nuclear forces for 

the next 10 years. The cost estimate for the next decade is $400 

billion, which is 15 percent higher than the previous year’s estimate.

My hope is that the committee, given your responsibilities, can 

help us push for looking at some alternatives, scaling some things 

down, having new weapon systems, the new nuclear-armed cruise 

missile, the B61, the weapons in design and production that are 

going to push those estimates even further in the future. 
111

I think it is past time to evaluate the need to replace our landbased missiles. Thanks to New START we are down to 440, but the 

replacement project for Minuteman III ICBMs is as much as $100 

billion. Do we really need that scale for the triad? It goes with the 

bombers. It goes with the nuclear-armed submarines. 

And I think that there is an opportunity for us to actually deal 

with the communities where they are located. And I know there is 

a pushback for people who have those facilities, and they don’t 

want to lose economic activity. But we could allocate a significant 

amount of the savings back to those communities. They would be 

better off. There would be more jobs, there would be more economic 

activity, and there would be long-term savings for the country, and 

we would be safer. 

I hope that you give us an opportunity to know what we are getting into. The committee is uniquely positioned to at least insist 

that there be real cost estimates. You deserve no less as you are 

making these difficult allocation problems because they are going 

to haunt the people who are in your position in 2 years and in 4 

years if we don’t do a good job of knowing what we are getting into. 

Again, I know you have got a difficult task. There are many 

things we all want to do for our military, for our veterans, and we 

are trying to deal with budget deficits and long-term activities. But 

I hope looking carefully at these items will give us all the tools we 

need as Members of Congress, and especially you on this committee, to know what we are getting into and to be able to meet 

those commitments in the long-term. 

I really appreciate your courtesy. I appreciate what you are 

doing, listening to some of us with our ideas about how to do the 

job, and wish you the best in being able to balance those going forward.

[The written statement of Congressman Blumenauer follows:] 
112

To: Earl 

From: Kelsey 

RE: Testifying at Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 

Time: II :35arn-ll :45am 

Location: H-140, Capitol 

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has scheduled a hearing to take Member 

testimony on the Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2018. Each Member will have 5 

minutes for oral remarks. You are on the schedule to begin speaking at II :35AM. 

Word Count: 592 

Talking Points: 

• I have always acknowledged that your job- deciding how 

exactly to fund national security -- is one of the most difficult 

tasks in Congress. This year, in particular, I can imagine the 

job will be all the more difficult. 

• As you know, the new Administration has pledged to increase 

defense spending with a $30 billion defense supplemental 

request for this Fiscal Year, and most concerning, with a $54 

billion boost above budget caps for next year offset by cuts to 

discretionary spending. 

• In contrast, a majority of Americans do not support increased 

defense spending. 

TPs Prepared By Kelsey Page I of 5 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 

LAST PRINTED ON (3:52PM, 03/07117) 
113

• And, many of my Republican colJeagues share my concerns 

with slashing funding to the State Department and our foreign 

assistance programs. They too understand that American 

diplomacy and soft power is critical to our national security. 

• The President has calJed our military, "badly depleted." Wen, 

the U.S. has the largest military in the world and spends more 

on defense than the next seven countries combined. 

• But I do fear that his claim will become ever more 

substantiated as we continue the escalation of nuclear weapons 

proliferation and maintenance spending. 

• There simply isn't enough money to pursue this modernization 

while providing our conventional forces and personnel with 

what they need. 

• The Administration is pushing for this dramatic increase 

without a clear strategy. They say they prioritize the fight 

against the Islamic State and terrorism, but how are nuclear 

weapons going to help us with that? 

TPs Prepared By Kelsey Page 2 of5 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 

LAST PRINTED ON (3:52PM, 03/07/17) 
114

• We have far more of these weapons than we need for 

deterrence. They won't help us deal with the strategic 

challenges we face and their price tag keeps going up. 

• Just last month, CBO came out with their latest report 

projecting the costs of U.S. nuclear forces for the next ten 

years. The cost estimate is now $400 billion- 15% higher than 

CBO's 2015 estimate. 

• Beyond that timeframe, we're still going to spend over a 

trillion dollars in the next 30 years on this nuclear escalation. 

• I truly think there are opportunities here for rational 

reevaluation, with the new nuclear-armed cruise missile, or 

with the plan to replace our land-based missiles. 

• An independent Pentagon cost estimate prepared by the Office 

of Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation has valued the 

replacement project for the Minuteman III ICBMs at as much 

as $100 billion. 

TPs Prepared By Kelsey Page 3 of5 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 

LAST PRINTED ON (3:52PM, 03/07/17) 
115

• This is a huge increase from the $61 billion estimate the 

Department of Defense offered last summer for the 

replacement project. 

• Meanwhile, experts argue that it is possible to extend the life of 

the Minuteman III beyond 2030, and at less cost than the 

replacement program. 

• How many ICBMs do we actually need? Let's start a real 

conversation about this. 

• The U.S. has moved from 454 to 440, in part thanks to the New 

START limits. Let's accelerate. 

• Let's get rid of a squadron, close a base, and look at allocating 

some of these savings back to the communities that have lost 

these facilities. 

• We're going to have to prioritize here. 

TPs Prepared By Kelsey Page 4 of5 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 

LAST PRINTED ON (3:52PM, 03/07/17) 
116

• We need to maintain entitlement benefits for military 

personnel. We need money for force readiness and training. 

We need to invest in safety improvements and in a robust 

command-and-control infrastructure. 

• We do not need more than 4,000 nuclear weapons for 

deterrence purposes. 

• Again, I appreciate the tough job you have. As you work with 

your colleagues on Armed Services and the Energy and Water 

Subcommittee to oversee proposals on nuclear weapons from 

the Administration, I hope you will help us have an honest 

conversation about fiscal responsibility. 

• We must maintain appropriate priorities for the military 

strength and defense of our country. 

TPs Prepared By Kelsey Page 5 of 5 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 

LAST PRINTED ON (3:52PM, 03/07/17) 
117

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

I believe your testimony really evidences why I want to thank 

the Chairwoman again for holding this hearing. You talked about 

our difficult task. You had a very difficult night, and you still saw 

fit to show up today. Given your commitment, I appreciate it. 

The area you talk about is very difficult, and I am very concerned about the impact kinetic weapons, speed of some of our 

weapons, and other issues have on that nuclear enterprise. I also 

have emphasized to the administration that because there is a 

change, this is a perfect opportunity to assess the triad because too 

often both parties have been very reflexive that, no, we need three. 

And maybe we do. But we ought to have a serious examination 

about that issue, I would absolutely agree with you. 

The final thing I would point out is on the cost of this endeavor, 

and, unfortunately, our difficult task is there are other bulges coming up here on the budget with other systems, is Mr. Smith, who 

is ranking on Armed Services, and I sent a letter to the Congressional Budget Office this week asking for them to do a study and 

examination of what the 30-year cost is going to be. 

I am very proud that this subcommittee in report language for 

our bill 417, and the conference report was passed by the House 

yesterday, asked DOD for a similar assessment as far as what the 

costs were going forward. 

So you do raise a very significant and important issue as far as 

policy, but also the cost impact for the subcommittee to consider. 

I appreciate it very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You are the only thing that could get me going 

this morning. 

Ms. GRANGER. We have one more witness, Mr. Franks, and he 

is on his way here. 

This concludes the morning portion of the subcommittee’s Member Hearing Day. We appreciate our—well, sorry. We had some 

misinformation, and we are really glad to see you standing up. 

Mr. FRANKS. Madam Chair, will you forgive me? 

Ms. GRANGER. Next, the subcommittee welcomes the gentleman 

from Arizona. Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. And this 

light will show green, which means you can start. When it goes to 

yellow, it means you have got 1 more minute. And we are anxious 

to hear what you have got to say. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANKS

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. And I apologize, Madam Chair, for 

the lateness. They had to drag me out of a classified briefing. So 

I am sorry. 
118

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. But I would first like to thank you, Chairwoman 

Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, for the opportunity to add 

my voice to those of the many others concerned about the crisis facing our military. 

Madam Chairwoman, you are no doubt aware that our guardian 

class has consistently set before us the devastation that sequestration has wrought upon our military and the doubt it has cast upon 

our ability to defeat existing and emerging threats, let alone deter 

them.

For my part, I am here to try to alert you today to the dangerous 

state of our Nation’s missile defense capabilities and what the 

Obama years have done to our ability to deter and defeat the deadliest weapons known to mankind. 

North Korea has evolved from an eccentric regional problem with 

a nuclear weapons issue into an extremely dangerous nuclear 

threat to America. They are very close to mastering the physics required to range the entire continental United States, and they are 

able to threaten our forces in the Pacific. And just yesterday, the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a briefing which laid bare the 

nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities of the Kim dynasty. 

I cannot discuss, of course, the details of what we learned in this 

open forum, but the growing threat posed by North Korea is shocking, and I urge you, Madam Chairwoman, to bring the Missile Defense Agency and the CIA to brief you and the members of this 

committee on the nature of this growing threat. 

Furthermore, President Obama’s policies placed Iran, the world’s 

largest financier and enabler of terrorism, on track to legally build 

a nuclear weapons capability within the confines of the JCPOA. 

Unlike the Soviet threat, nuclear jihad cannot be deterred by the 

fear of retaliation. It is an existential threat to the peace and security of the entire human family. 

While the Obama administration debated whether or not we 

should develop and maintain missile defense against such threats, 

our near-peer adversaries, who never had such qualms, were working tirelessly to exploit weaknesses in our missile defense architecture.

Under President Obama, the MDA’s budget was cut drastically 

below the Bush administration’s planned $9 billion-plus budget, 

even as China and Russia were rapidly developing and testing 

high-flying, high-speed maneuvering weapons, including hypersonic 

glide vehicles, Madam Chairwoman. 

These weapons present an entirely new capability we must 

counter, as they are specifically designed to exploit the gaps and 

the seams in our existing missile defense architecture, thus defeating the systems we currently have in place. These new weapons are 

capable of travelling more than a mile per second and fly at flat 

or nonballistic trajectories to prevent our missile defense systems 

from tracking them. The threat has outpaced us, and we must invest the appropriate resources to defend against the new threats or 

lose our ability to deter potential adversaries. 

There are a number of specific measures which Congress must 

pursue if we are able to remain capable of defeating, let alone deterring, our near-peer adversaries. To this end, I urge the com-
119

mittee to support the development and deployment of a multimission space sensor layer. This capability is a massive force multiplier for our entire missile defense architecture and is absolutely 

essential to allow us to accurately identify and target the newest 

and most advanced missile threats. 

In recent years, directed-energy technology has matured to such 

a degree that were this committee able to invest in some of the 

most promising directed-energy programs, especially boost-phase 

defense, we would see some game-changing capability developed in 

the next few years. 

Thus, directed-energy programs will allow us to complete what 

the Reagan administration began and allow the United States to 

leapfrog the missile defense threat. 

I hope this committee will continue to fund the RKV and also 

provide resources requested by the MDA for the MOKV, which will 

ensure our midcourse defense is capable of meeting the most advanced nuclear threat. 

And finally, I would urge the members of the committee to not 

cut the MDA budget item Special Programs—MDA Technology. 

This program is critical to our homeland defense. But given the nature of the program, I cannot get into greater specifics in an open 

forum. I would encourage all of you to receive a brief from the Missile Defense Agency on the program before any decision is made to 

cut funding below the requested amount. 

The threats to our homeland and our deployed forces from irrational regimes armed with nuclear weapons are real and growing, 

and we must respond by investing the resources in our missile defense architecture to ensure we are capable of mitigating these 

threats.

In order to revitalize our military to build a missile defense architecture capable of meeting identified emerging threats, we require a budget top line of $640 billion. 

Madam Chair, I am out of time, so may history judge that this 

Congress was one that did all that it could to protect the innocent 

in our own generation and to further ensure that American generations yet unborn will continue to walk in the sunlight of freedom. 

Thank you, and God bless you. 

[The written statement of Congressman Franks follows:] 
120

Testimony to Appropriations Cmt by Congressman Trent Franks 3/9/2017 

I would first like to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Yisclosky for the 

opportunity to add my voice to those of many others concerned about the crisis facing our 

military. 

Mme. Chairwoman, as you are no doubt aware, our guardian class has consistently set before us 

the devastation Sequestration has wrought upon our military, and the doubt it has cast upon our 

ability to defeat existing and emerging threats, let alone deter them. 

For my part, I am here today to alert you to the dangerous state of our nation's missile defense 

capabilities, and what the Obama years have done to our abi I ity to deter and defeat the deadliest 

weapons known to humanity. 

North Korea has evolved from an eccentric regional problem with nuclear weapons, into an 

extremely dangerous nuclear threat to America. They are very close to mastering the physics 

required to range the entire continental United States and are able to threaten our forces in the 

Pacific. Just yesterday, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a briefing which laid bare the 

nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities of the Kim Dynasty: I cannot discuss the details of what 

we learned in an open forum, but the growing threat posed by North Korea is shocking and I 

urge you, Mme. Chairwoman, to bring in the Missile Defense Agency and the CIA to brief you 

and the Members of this Committee on the nature of this growing threat. 

Furthermore, President Obama's policies placed Iran, the world's largest financier and enabler of 

terrorism, on track to legally build a nuclear weapons capability within the confines of the 

JCPOA. Unlike the Soviet threat, nuclear Jihad cannot be deterred by fear of retaliation. It is an 

existential threat to the peace and security of the entire human family. 

While the Obama administration debated whether or not we should develop and maintain a 

missile defense against such threats, our near-peer adversaries- who never had any such qualms 

-were working tirelessly to exploit weaknesses in our missile defense architecture. 

Under President Obama, the MDA's budget was cut drastically below the Bush Administration's 

planned $9 Billion+ budget even as China and Russia were rapidly developing and test-flying 

High-Speed Maneuvering Weapons (HSMWs) including hypersonic glide vehicles. These 
121

weapons present an entirely new capability we must counter as they are specifically designed to 

exploit the "gaps" and "seams" in our existing missile defense architecture, thus defeating the 

systems we currently have in place. 

These new weapons are capable of traveling more than 1 mile per second, and fly at a flat (nonballistic) trajectory to prevent our missile defense systems from tracking them. The threat has 

out-paced us and we must invest the appropriate resources to defend against the new threats or 

lose our ability to deter potential adversaries. 

There are a number of specific measures which Congress must pursue if we are to remain 

capable of defeating, let alone deterring, our near-peer adversaries. To this end, I urge this 

Committee to support the development and deployment of a multi-mission space sensor layer. 

This capability is a massive force multiplier for our entire missile defense architecture and is 

absolutely essential to allow us to accurately identify and target the newest and most advanced 

missile threats. 

In recent years Directed Energy technology has matured to such a degree that were this 

Committee were to invest in some of the most promising Directed Energy programs- especially 

Boost-Phase defense- we would see some game-changing capabilities developed in the next few 

years. These Directed Energy programs will allows us to complete what the Reagan 

Administration began and allow the United States to "leapfrog" the missile threat. 

I hope this Committee will continue funding of the RKV and also provide resources requested by 

the MDA for the MOKV, which will ensure our Mid-Course Defense is capable of meeting the 

most advanced nuclear threats. 

Finally, I urge the Members of the Committee to not cut the MDA budget item "Special 

Programs- MDA Technology." This program is critical to our Homeland defense, but given the 

nature of the program 1 cannot get into greater specifics in an open forum. I encourage all of you 

to receive a brief from the Missile Defense Agency on the program before any decision is made 

to cut funding below the requested amount. 
122

The threats to our Homeland and our deployed forces from irrational regimes armed with nuclear 

weapons are real and growing, and we must respond by investing the resources in our missile 

defense architecture to ensure we are capable of mitigating these threats. 

In order to revitalize our military- to build a missile defense architecture capable of meeting 

identified emerging threats- we require a defense budget top line of $640 Billion. 

The $603 Billion topline, visits a modest 3% increase above Mr. Obama's projected FYI8 

defense budget of$584 Billion, and, if we intend solve our readiness crisis, a budget of this size 

it will force us to underfund key strategic capabilities. If we are to Make America Safe Again, a 

3% increase will not suffice. Furthermore, an MDA budget of anything less than $8 Billion flies 

in face of the increasingly dangerous threat environment we are facing, and I implore the 

Members of this Committee to fund our missile defense programs commensurate to this growing 

threat. 

May history judge that this Congress was one that did all that could be done protect the innocent 

in our own generation and to further ensure that American generations yet unborn will continue 

to walk in the sunlight of freedom. Thank you and God bless you all. 

IJN ... 
123

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you, Mr. Franks, and thank you for your 

continuing concern. You have been there since you came to Congress, and we take it very seriously. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you all. 

Ms. GRANGER. This concludes the morning portion of the subcommittee’s Members Hearing Day. We appreciate our colleagues’ 

testimony here today. The subcommittee will reconvene at 1 o’clock 

today to complete the hearing. The subcommittee stands in recess 

until 1 o’clock. 

[Recess.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. CALVERT [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee is continuing in open hearing, allowing Members of the House to provide the subcommittee with their input on 

how to address the challenges and needs facing our military. 

This morning—or this afternoon, we were fortunate to hear from 

2 dozen colleagues we listened to this morning, and we look forward to hearing from more of our colleagues now. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Visclosky, the ranking 

member, for any comments he would like to make. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you for holding the hearing. I appreciate 

hearing from our colleagues, and want their input before we start 

down with the supplemental in fiscal year 2018. So again, I appreciate very much you calling this to order. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And out of respect for members’ time, 

we will strictly adhere to the 5-minute clock. The timer in front of 

you will change from green to yellow when you have 1 minute remaining to conclude your statement. Your full written statement 

will be made part of the record. 

And at this time, we welcome the gentleman from Louisiana, 

Mike Johnson, for your testimony. You are recognized. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Visclosky and members of the committee. I appreciate you giving 

me the opportunity today to provide input for the fiscal year 2018 

defense appropriations. 

I am excited to advocate today about maintaining a strategic 

edge in reinforcing our national defense needs within the Defense 

appropriations budget, and I will speak fast. 

I have the high honor of representing the Fourth Congressional 

District of Louisiana, which we are proud to say is home of Fort 

Polk and the Barksdale Air Force Base, two major military installations. As I am sure you know, Fort Polk is home to the Joint 

Readiness Training Center and Barksdale is home to our Global 
124

Strike Command. These are two vital installations to our Nation 

and our national security interests around the world. 

I am extremely pleased that President Trump has promised to 

ensure our brave men and women in uniform have all the resources they need to accomplish their mission. As we begin to rebuild our military strength, I will work vigorously to protect these 

missions and ensure our national security is fully maintained, as 

I know you will as well. 

The role of nuclear weapons continues to play an integral role in 

the strategies of Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and China. 

In fact, according to many reports, these countries are increasing 

their reliance on and modernizing their capabilities: Land, air, and 

sea-based nuclear forces. At the same time, it is clear that Iran has 

not given up its nuclear ambitions, to say the least. 

Furthermore, there is open evidence that Russia’s doctrine contemplates the use of nuclear weapons to gain advantage in crisis. 

Consequently, the need for a strong, capable U.S. nuclear umbrella 

is growing. But over the course of only 4 years, from 2010 to 2014, 

the military budget was cut 21 percent. This happened despite the 

fact that the world was growing more dangerous and the stage was 

set for a number of Russian and Chinese aggressions against 

neighbors and the U.S. through cyber attacks, information warfare, 

and kinetic actions. 

Due to today’s time constraints, I will focus primarily on two 

areas that I think are in desperate need of attention within the fiscal year 2018 Defense appropriations budget: Our U.S. Air Force 

and our Army components. 

First, the nuclear enterprise. I would like to offer my support for 

the President’s stated plan to prioritize our nuclear enterprise 

through modernizing our deterrent capabilities in the upcoming 

Defense budget. Thankfully, despite ideological differences, Congress has taken a clear stand on expressing support to the longterm commitment of Barksdale Air Force Base, which is home to 

the U.S. Global Strike Command, and responsible for the majority 

of the nuclear triad and enterprise. 

I want to highlight the important and good work being carried 

out by the Air Force. This includes the decision to elevate Global 

Strike Command to a 4-star command, an effort that has already 

begun to demonstrate important rewards. Unfortunately, I was discouraged to see that some recent budgets fell short of fully addressing items for specific Air Force needs related to improvements at 

Global Strike Command. That is why I asked it in the budget before us today, the committee strongly consider working to fund advancements absolutely necessary to upgrade and maintain the 

technological edge over America’s adversaries. 

A few areas in critical need of funding are upgrading nuclear 

communications facilities, addressing the challenges of a B–52 reengine, and the future of the B–21, among others. Specifically, 

today, I would like to highlight three important areas related to ensuring our nuclear enterprise receives the necessary attention in 

the upcoming budget. Moving forward, I look forward to working 

with you, the committee and its members, to address these items. 

Number one, ongoing challenges with our Nation’s aging fleets, 

including a B–52 reengine. Earlier this year, debate over whether 
125

to replace the TF33 engine reignited, pardon the pun there, after 

a B–52 from Minot Air Force Base lost an engine during training. 

Former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James characterized the 

mishap as, quote, ‘‘a catastrophic engine failure,’’ unquote, and it 

was. The challenges in maintaining the aging weapons and a robust nuclear enterprise infrastructure is the second thing, and the 

needs related to developing critical weapon storage and maintenance facility areas. 

There are ongoing much needed upgrades to our nuclear command, control, and communications, the NC3, something I am 

thankful the Air Force has begun working on and which I know 

this committee has engaged in as well. 

And lastly, improving to fund a robust set of capabilities and options. As you know, the top requirement for nuclear forces is to 

maintain a survivable and ready nuclear force that is capable of deterring our enemy, and if necessary, surviving a surprise attack. 

Given today’s foreign climate, the need to keep a close watch on 

this is as important as ever in order to assure our allies and maintain our own defense against hostile nations. 

Members of this committee are well aware of the activity Global 

Strike Command overseas in its involvement in a wide array of 

strategic deterrence, global strike, and combat support in a direct 

fashion. The Bomber Command, eighth Air Force, is in charge of 

our aging fleet, and Missile Command, 20th Air Force, is in charge 

of the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, which are 

critical to our deterrence and global strategy. As Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently stated when speaking about maintaining a safe and secure nuclear deterrent, quote, ‘‘We must ensure 

a war that can never be won will never be fought,’’ unquote. 

In the event that maintaining a capable and robust nuclear option would not suffice enough to justify attention, these assets also 

play a major role in our ongoing fight as the terrorist states continue to grow and expand beyond the threats to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, 

and Nigeria. Global Strike Command has played an important role 

in our national security strategy to address new and emerging 

kinds of threats. 

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman will timely conclude your remarks. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Am I out of time? Well, I will submit the written 

remarks to the record, as you mentioned. And a lot of that is about 

Fort Polk Army Base and our needs there, the Joint Readiness 

Training Center and their ongoing growth and opportunity. 

[The written statement of Congressman Johnson follows:] 
126

Testimony of Congressman Mike Johnson (LA-04) 

Submitted to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 

March 8, 2017 

Thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the committee, I 

appreciate you giving me this opportunity today to provide input for the fiscal year 2018 Defense 

Appropriations. I am excited to advocate today about maintaining a strategic edge and 

reinforcing our national defense needs. 

I have the high honor representing the 4'h Congressional District of Louisiana, which is home to 

Ft. Polk and Barksdale Air Force Base. As I'm sure you know, Fort Polk is home to the Joint 

Readiness Training Center and Barksdale is home to the Global Strike Command- two vital 

military installations to our nation and our national security interests around the world. 

I am extremely pleased, that President Trump has promised to ensure our brave men and women 

in unifonn have the resources they need to accomplish their mission. As we begin to rebuild our 

military strength, I hope to work vigorously to protect these missions to ensure our national 

security is fully maintained. 

The role of nuclear weapons continues to play a role in the strategies of Russia, North Korea, 

Pakistan, India, and China- in fact according to may reports, these countries are increasing their 

reliance on and modernizing their capabilities (land, air, and sea-based nuclear forces). At the 

same time, it is clear that Iran has not given up its nuclear ambitions. 

In fact, there is open evidence that Russia doctrine contemplates the usc of nuclear weapons to 

gain advantage in crisis. Therefore, not surprisingly the need for a strong, capable, U.S. nuclear 

umbrella is growing. Despite the fact, over the course of four years, 2010 to 2014, the military 

1 
127

budget was cut 21% while the world grew more dangerous and set the stage for a number of 

Russian and Chinese aggressions against neighbors and the United States both through cyber, 

information, and kinetic methods. Due to today's time constrains, I will focus primarily on two 

areas that I think arc in continued need of attention. Our United States Air Force and Army 

components. 

Nuclear EnterpriseI would like to offer my support for the President's stated plan to prioritize our nuclear enterprise 

though modernizing our deterrent capabilities in the upcoming defense budget. Thankfully, 

despite ideologically different positions, Congress has taken clear stand on expressing its support 

to the long-term commitment of Barksdale Air Force Base, which is home to U.S. Global Strike 

Command and is responsible for the majority of the Nuclear Triad and Enterprise. 

First, I want to recognize the important and good work being carried out by the Air Force, 

including the decision to elevate Global Strike Command to a four-star Command, an effort that 

has already begun to demonstrate important rewards. Unfortunately, I was discouraged to see 

that some recent budgets, fell short of fully addressing items for specific Air Force needs related 

to improvements at Global Strike Command. However, In the budget before us today, I would 

ask that the committee strongly consider working to fund advancements necessary to upgrade 

and maintain a technological edge over America's adversaries. 

A few examples of areas the Air Force needs additional funding in order to have maintain a 

strategic edge in its robust capabilities include upgrading nuclear communications facilities, 

addressing the challenges of a B-52 Re-enginc, and the future of the B-21, among others. 

Specifically, today 1 would like to highlight three important areas related to ensuring our nuclear 

2 
128

enterprise receives the necessary attention in this upcoming Fiscal Year's budget. Moving 

forward I look forward to working with the Committee and its members to address: 

I. Address ongoing challenges with our nations Aging Fleets, which includes a B-52 Reengine/ and challenges in maintaining aging weapons and a robust Nuclear Enterprise 

Infrastructure, including needs related to developing critical W capons Storage and 

Maintenance Facility areas. 

2. Much needed upgrades to our Nuclear Command, Control & Communication's (NC3), 

something the Air Force has begun working on and which I know this committee has 

already begun to engage in. 

3. Lastly, is improving robust capabilities. The top requirement for nuclear forces is to 

maintain survivable, and ready nuclear force that is capable of deterring our enemy and if 

necessary surviving a surprise attack. Given today's foreign climate, the need to keep our 

eye on this is as present as ever for both assuring our allies as well as maintaining our 

own defense, against hostile nations. 

As members of this committee you are well aware of the activity Global Strike Command 

oversees providing a wide array of strategic deterrence, global strike and direct combat support. 

The Bomber Command, 8th AF in charge of our aging fleet, and Missile Command, 20thAF in 

charge of the United States Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's), are critical to our 

deterrence and global strategy. Given their importance, it is vital to ensure that needs are being 

met appropriately in order to adequately achieve mission requirements and ensure robust 

capabilities are maintained. 

3 
129

As Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently stated when speaking about maintaining a safe 

and secure nuclear deterrent, "we must ensure a war that can never be won will never be 

fought. .. " In the event that maintaining a capable and robust nuclear option was not suffice 

enough to justify attention, these assets also play a major role in our ongoing fight as terror states 

continue to grow and expand beyond threats to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Nigera- Global Strike 

Command has played an important role in our national security strategy to address new and 

emerging kinds of threats. 

A few short examples of why these should be prioritized, specifically, Global Strike Command is 

supporting missions around the world using B-1 's B-52's and B-2's to support international 

missions including: 

I. Operation Inherent Resolve for U.S. Central Command, Joint Interagency Task Force 

South (JIATF South) (counter-trafficking) for U.S. Southern Command; 

2. Operation Odyssey Lightning Exercises such as JUST HAMMER for U.S. Africa 

Command; 

3. In addition to the above, Global Strike Command is responsible for daily Bomber 

Assurance and Deterrence Missions in U.S. European Command; and Continuous 

Bomber Presence Exercises in U.S. Pacific Command. 

Army 

Lastly I would also like to speak briefly about the needs of our U.S. Anny. In the past two 

months, I have held a number of meetings with corresponded with to top Anny officials, 

4 
130

Previous budget plans were forcing the Army to shrink at an unrealistic pace, to the lowest levels 

in 50 years, and arc threatening to seriously impact our nations long term ability to carry the fight 

forward. These changes were not only impacting the top-line end-strength numbers but were also 

impacting the Army's ability to meet the demands placed on them. 

I am proud to represent Fort Polk, Army base which has continued to solidify its footprint as a 

multi-pronged home for military affairs with vitally important state of the art Joint Reserve 

Training Center (JRTC), and contains units that serve invaluable training for Advise and Assist 

roles as well. The JRTC provides soldiers the training and flexibility necessary to carry out the 

demands placed on them, and win. The exercise scenarios learned here replicate many of the 

unique situations and challenges a unit may face while deployed. However, in addition, Fort Polk 

is the only Combat Training Center that also trains and deploys combat units, making it uniquely 

suited for a number of upcoming Army plans. 

I hope to work with members of this committee to ensure that as we and the Army reverse recent 

misguided force structure cuts that it is done with the right information and uses the proper 

methodology to maximize existing resources and appropriate facilities, including existing 

training units and facilities related to Brigade Combat Team (BCT) activities, before any 

decisions on changes are made. 

Moving forward, I hope the members here today will agree to work allow me to work alongside 

you to address the challenges facing our nation. I look forward to continuing to do everything I 

can support these critical items in terms of military construction needs and force structure. 

Again Madam Chair, I appreciate this opportunity to show my support for our men and women in 

uniform, and I yield back. 

5 
131

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, your full remarks will be entered into the record. And we have a copy of those remarks and we 

will be looking at that. I certainly appreciate your testimony here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Claudia Tenney from New York. 

Good afternoon. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017.

WITNESS

HON. CLAUDIA TENNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN TENNEY

Ms. TENNEY. Thank you Mr. Calvert, Ranking Member Visclosky, 

and other members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I 

thank you for providing me with this important opportunity to testify.

As the mother of an Active Duty marine officer and a Member 

of Congress representing New York’s 22nd Congressional District, 

I take my constitutional responsibility to provide for our common 

defense very seriously. I thank you for your support, for your ongoing support of our servicemen and -women, and I am deeply appreciative of your steadfast commitment to a strong and robust national defense. 

As this subcommittee begins consideration of the fiscal year 2018 

Department of Defense appropriations bill, it is my distinct honor 

to testify in support of the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate in Rome, New York, also known as Rome Lab. 

Rome Lab has for decades stood at the forefront of advanced cyber 

research and development projects within the Air Force. Today, 

Rome Lab leads a wide range of critical missions that are vital to 

deploying a 21st century force. Ensuring that our military has the 

tools and resources to dominate in cyberspace is among Rome Lab’s 

chief missions. 

On today’s high-tech battlefields, our country’s superiority in 

cyberspace is critical. Rome Lab provides full spectrum support for 

cyberspace operations, equipping our operators with the agility to 

disrupt and deny cyber attacks and the resiliency to fight through 

and recover from intrusions. 

Rome Lab is also leading the fight to maintain command and 

control superiority both to the battlefield and in cyberspace. Rome 

Lab continues to push the boundaries in developing sophisticated 

technologies that effectively integrate resilient and robust commanding control systems. The advancements made by Rome Lab 

have provided our military with greater situational awareness 

through improved unified planning systems and enhanced mission 

focus autonomy. Ensuring secure and effective communications and 

reliable connectivity are also vital components of Rome Lab’s mission.

In battle stations that are increasingly congested, Rome Lab provides the warfighter with mobile and secure communications. On 

the ground, Rome Lab facilitates the deployment of technologies 

that allow our servicemen and -women to securely share informa-
132

tion. In the air, Rome Lab has pioneered technologies to provide 

mission responsive battle space communication abilities across 

multiple domains. 

Perhaps most impressive is Rome Lab’s ability to adapt to emerging challenges. For example, in the arena of unmanned aerial systems, UAS, Rome Lab is poised for significant contributions. As 

this committee knows, the threat posed by the proliferation of UAS 

is growing and varied. There are countless examples of small UAS 

posing serious threats to our servicemen and -women in Iraq, with 

ISIS increasingly relying on these relatively inexpensive tools. 

With expertise in cyberspace, command and control, communications and connectivity, and with the continued support of this subcommittee, Rome Lab will lead the charge to find innovative ways 

of detecting, identifying, and disabling potentially hostile UASs. 

Rome Lab’s advancements extend well beyond the Air Force. In fiscal year 2015, Rome Lab leveraged more than $1 billion in funding from its non-Air Force defense partners. This additional funding has helped Rome Lab serve the critical and otherwise unmet 

research needs of the Department of Defense. Ultimately, the 

stronger Rome Lab’s foundation is, the stronger our national defense will be. 

This subcommittee has recognized the vital importance of Rome 

Lab providing increased funding over the last several fiscal years. 

In the fiscal year 2017 bill passed just this week, the House provided Rome Lab $5 million more in funding than was requested by 

the President, which marked a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 

2016. This work, supported by the funding, is vital to maintaining 

Rome Lab’s dynamic set of research and development capabilities. 

I strongly encourage this subcommittee to maintain the funding or 

to increase it accordingly to reflect new and evolving missions. 

I would again like to express my appreciation for the opportunity 

to provide my testimony this afternoon. I look forward to working 

with you and other members of this subcommittee to ensure that 

our Nation’s military remains ready to confront the challenges of 

the 21st century. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman Tenney follows:] 
133

CLAUDIA TENNEY HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMlTIEE 

22N00tSTIHCT,NEWYOfiK 

WEBSITE: 

(!Congress of tbe mtntteb ~tates 

~ougc of ll\cprcgcntatibtg 

mtasbington, 1Dilt 

Sueco~MITI<~oNFINAt-jCJ.o.tiNsrrrurtoNs 

ANOCONSU~RCR~DIT 

Tenney.House.Gov 

The Honorable Kay Granger 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Defense 

House Committee on Appropriations 

H-405, the U.S. Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

March 6, 2017 

The Honorable Peter Visclosky 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

House Committee on Appropriations 

1016 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, 

I would first like to thank you and the members of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations 

for the opportunity to share my priorities. I am deeply appreciative of all that you do for our 

servicemen and women and for your commitment to providing robust funding to our armed forces. 

As this subcommittee begins consideration of the Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Defense 

Appropriations bill, it is my distinct honor to write in support of the Air Force Research Laboratory 

Information Directorate in Rome, New York (AFRL-Romc). This installation has for decades 

stood at the forefront of advanced cyber research and development projects within the Air Force. 

Today, AFRL-Rome leads a wide range of critical Command, Control, Communications, 

Computing, Cyber, and Intclligcncc (C4!) missions that are vital to supporting our warfighters and 

ensuring that a force capable of confronting 21st century challenges is deployed across the globe. 

Ensuring that our warfighters have the tools and resources to dominate in cyberspace is among the 

core missions of AFRL-Rome. On today's high-tech battlefields, our countty's superiority in 

cyberspace is critical. AFRL-Rome provides full spectrum support for cyberspace operations, 

equipping our operators with the agility to disrupt and deny adversary attacks and the resiliency to 

fight through and recover from successful intrusions. The premier set of technical competencies 

that AFRL-Rome brings to bear in cyberspace are truly world-class and the installation's 

breakthroughs in this area serve our warfighters each day in an untold number of ways. 

AFRL-Rome is also leading the fight to maintain command and control superiority, both on the 

battlefield and in cyberspace. AFRL-Rome continues to push the boundaries in developing 

sophisticated technologies that effectively integrate resilient and robust command and control 

systems. The advancements made by AFRL-Rome ha vc provided our warfighters with improved 

situational awareness through resilient unified planning systems, robust tools for the continuous 

~NGTON,Q£: 

512CANNON HOU5t0FFICE Bl!!lOING 

WASHINGTDr>!,DC20515 

(202)225-3665 

FAX:(202J225-1891 

~~: 

555fflf.NCHROAO,SUill:'101 

NEW HAR~fORO, NY 13413 

{315)732-0713 

FM:{J15)732--1J99fl 

~: 

49COURTSTAH1 

MtTROCEr.T~R,SUiTE210 

B1NGIMMlOiON,IIIY13901 

{8171!11'6-0002 
134

assessment of the battlespaee, and enhanced mission focused autonomy. For example, the Air 

Space Cyber-User Defined Operational Picture (ASC-UDOP) was developed by AFRL~Rome. 

This visual tool allows users to graphically configure and manipulate data streams from a variety 

of sources while operating in the air, space, and cyber domains. AFRL-Rome also led the way in 

developing the Joint Targeting Toolbox (JTT), which enhances the targeting capabilities of our 

warfighters at the national, theater, and operational levels. The JTT's suite of battle-tested webbased tools allows for decisive action, providing unparalleled insight at all operational stages. 

Ensuring secure and effective communications and reliable connectivity are also vital components 

of AFRL-Rome's mission. In battles paces that are increasingly congested and contested, AFRLRome provides the warflghter with agile and secure communications. On the ground, AFRL-Rome 

facilitates the deployment of technologies that allow our servicemen and women to securely share 

information via text, voice, and video and to maintain reliable and constant connectivity at all 

levels of command. In the air, AFRL-Rome has pioneered technologies to provide missionresponsive battlespace communication abilities across domains, agencies, and networks. 

AFRL-Rome also has the capacity to grow and confront emerging challenges head on. For 

example, in the arena of umnanned aerial systems (UAS), AFRL-Rome is poised for signiflcant 

contributions. As this committee surely knows, the threat posed by the proliferation of UAS is 

growing and varied. Recently, the Army released an unclassifled report highlighting the threats 

posed by small UAS and identifYing the need for advancements in counter-UAS technologies. 

There are countless examples of small UAS posing serious threats to our servicemen and women 

in Iraq, with ISIS increasingly relying on these relatively inexpensive tools. With expertise in 

cyberspace, command and control, and communications and connectivity, AFRL-Rome is leading 

the charge to flnd innovative ways of detecting, identifying, and disabling potentially hostile UAS. 

It should be noted that AFRL-Rome's successes reverberate well beyond the Air Force. AFRLRome serves a range of clients other than the Air Force, including the Army, Navy and several 

afflliated defense agencies. In 2014 and 2015, AFRL-Rome leveraged more than $1 billion in 

funding from these entities, in addition to funds appropriated by this subcommittee. This additional 

funding helps AFRL-Rome serve the vital and unmet research needs of the Department ofDefense. 

Ultimately, the stronger ARFL-Rome's foundation is, the stronger our national defense will be. 

AFRL-Rome also plays an outsized role in the local economy of my district. In Fiscal Year 2015, 

AFRL-Rome had an estimated local economic impact of $300 million, which marked a 7 percent 

increase over the previous year. The installations workforce topped out at 789 personnel, with 732 

classified as civilians and 57 as military personnel. AFRL-Rome anchors my district's burgeoning 

high-tech sector and has fast-become a critical engine of growth in our region. 

This subcommittee has recognized the vital importance of AFRL-Rome in recent years, providing 

increased funding for AFRL-Rome's two budget lines, Cyber Battlespace Knowledge 

Development and Demonstration (PE: 0603788F) and Dominant Information Sciences and 

Methods (PE: 0602788F). The work supported by this funding is vital to maintaining AFRLRome's robust and effective set of research and development capabilities. Seeing as the President's 

Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) has yet to be delivered to Congress, I request that 
135

funding for these two programs in FY18 be maintained or increased to reflect new and evolving 

missions. Below is a table outlining recent funding approved by Congress in millions of dollars. 

FY14 FY15 FY16 FYI? 

PE: 0602788F $136.9 $147.0 $169.2 $161.7 

PE: 0603788F $48.1 $34.3 $46.2 $58.1 

I would be remiss if I did not also request that the members of this subcommittee continue to 

prioritize funding for our national defense, generally. As the mother of an active duty Marine, I 

want nothing more than for my son and his fellow service members to have the tools, resources, 

and training to effectively and safely carry out their mission. As a Member of Congress tasked 

with safeguarding our country, I remain a steadfast advocate for robust defense funding. 

I thank you again for considering my requests and am grateful for the opportunity to submit this 

written testimony. If! can answer any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call upon me. 

{!i;:k~ Claudia Tenney 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 
136

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Any questions? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No. 

Mr. CALVERT. Seeing none, thank you again, appreciate it. 

Next, Mr. Trent Kelly. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017.

WITNESS

HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Visclosky. 

I have served in the Mississippi National Guard for 31 years. I 

mobilized in 1990. I have twice deployed, once commanding over 

670 troops in Iraq, and I represent the First District of Mississippi, 

which also was home of Columbus Air Force Base, which trains one 

half of the Air Force pilots. I am not someone who needs to be convinced that national defense should be a priority or that the significant work you have before you in deciding how to fund the military 

is important. I believe in that already. 

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and also 

as a serving colonel in the Mississippi Army National Guard, I 

know firsthand from listening to our military leaders and our national security experts regarding the threats we are facing around 

the globe at how well equipped we are to address them. And I am 

greatly concerned about the readiness crisis facing our Armed Services across the board. 

General Daniel Allyn, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testified this month—or last month, regarding this issue stating that 

the Army can no longer afford the most modern equipment, and we 

risk falling behind our near-peers in critical capabilities, and we 

risk losing overmatch in every domain. General Allyn is not alone 

in this assessment. General Stephen Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force, testified that, ‘‘Today we find ourselves less than 50 

percent ready across the Air Force and we have pockets that are 

below that.’’ Readiness of our military must be addressed. My priority reflects the importance of rebuilding our Armed Forces to ensure that we can defend ourselves. 

I think it is important to note by portraying and having strength 

in our military, it preserves peace and prevents wars, which is 

much more costly to fight a war than it is to preserve peace. 

We need to make sure that we are manned, equipped, and 

trained at the proper levels. I truly believe that the President’s 

$603 billion mark is not enough. I truly believe that number should 

be 640 and not 603, which is really a modest increase when you 

add in OCO. From last year’s spending, it is only a 3 percent increase. And I think to do it right and to make sure we do that, we 

need to be at 640. 

At all times, but especially under the current conditions, the contributions of the National Guard cannot be overlooked. The guardsmen that I have served with, both in peacetime and in wartime, 
137

are dedicated, capable, trained, and professionals. I will put their 

experience and their skill levels up against anybody in the world. 

I urge the committee to ensure that they have the same equipment and the same training opportunities, CTC rotations, the combat training center rotations, to train as one Army. Those men and 

women need to look and smell exactly like their Active Duty counterparts, especially when we are talking about our heavy brigade 

combat teams or we are talking about our fighter pilots and the 

equipment that they use in both the Guard and Reserves and on 

the active components. 

Additionally, those serving in the National Guard bring experience from a wide range of backgrounds, occupations, skill sets that 

are invaluable contributions to our current military readiness. As 

you consider the funding and policies for this year’s Defense appropriations bill, I encourage you not to overlook the vital impact we 

have as the Guard being an operational reserve and making sure 

that they are trained, equipped, and manned to meet those obligations that this Nation requires of them. 

I am committed to working with you as you ensure our military 

is the strongest fighting force in the world. And I look forward to 

working with you to continue to support our Armed Forces. 

Through our strength in the military we preserve the peace. And 

we cannot afford to be at war because we did not have the capable 

military force to deter all foreign forces which would do that. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member, 

and any questions you have. 

[The written statement of Congressman Kelly follows:] 
138

Testimony of Rep. Trent Kelly (MS-01) before the House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and Members ofthe Defense Subcommittee, 

thank you for the time to share with you my priorities for the Fiscal Year 2018 (FYIS) defense 

appropriations bill. I have served in the Mississippi National Guard for the past 31 years. In 

1990 I mobilized for Desert Storm as an Engineer Second Lieutenant. In 2005 I deployed as a 

Major to Iraq with the 155'h Brigade as the Operations Officer of the JSO'h Engineer Battalion. 

From 2009 to 2010, I deployed as a Lieutenant Colonel to Iraq as the Battalion Commander of 

Task Force Knight of the 15S'h Brigade Combat Team and commanded over 670 troops. I 

represent Columbus Air Force Base, where half of all Air Force pilots are trained. I am not 

someone who needs to be convinced of the unsurpassed importance of our national defense or 

the significant work you have before you in deciding how to best fund our military. 

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have heard firsthand from our military 

leaders and national security experts regarding the threats we are facing around the globe and 

how well equipped we are to address them. l am greatly concerned about the readiness crisis 

facing our armed forces. General Daniel Allyn, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testified last 

month regarding this issue: 

"An unintended consequence of current fiscal constraints is that the Army can no longer 

afford the most modern equipment, and we riskfalling behind near-peers in critical 

capabilities. Decreases to the Army budget over the past several years significantly 

impacted Army modernization. Given these trends, and to preserve readiness in the short 

term, the Army has been jiJrced to selectively modernize equipment to counter our 

adversary's most pressing technological advances and capabilities. At the same time, we 

have not modernized for warfare against peer competitors, and today we risk losing 

overmatch in every domain. ., 

General Allyn is not alone in this assessment. General Stephen Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force, testified that, "Today we find ourselves less than 50 percent ready across our Air 

Force and we have pockets that are below that." Readiness of our military must be addressed. 

My priorities reflect the importance of rebuilding our armed forces to ensure we can defend 

ourselves. 

At all times, but especially under current conditions, the contributions ofthe National Guard 

cannot be overlooked. These men and women train and stand ready to defend our nation at a 

moment's call. In my district, the Mississippi National Guard has an Apache company based in 

Tupelo. The l st Battalion, 149'h Aviation Regiment has Apaches in both Houston, TX, and 

Tupelo, MS. Due to the Army Restructuring Initiative (ARI), Tupelo may lose its Apache 
139

company over the objections of both the Mississippi and Texas National Guards. The 

Guardsmen in Tupelo are dedicated, capable, trained, and professional. I would put their 

expertise and skill up against any other company in the military. If the Army chooses to move 

these Apaches, they have admitted the loss of readiness would take up to five years to regain. In 

our current climate, I do not think anyone here would say that is acceptable. With the threats we 

are facing now, we cannot afford to make decisions that will only make matters worse. 

Instead, I urge the Committee to take action to ensure that combat units have access to the 

equipment they need, and that National Guard Apache battalions remain equipped with 24 

helicopters and that number not be reduced. 

I am committed to working with you to ensure our military is the strongest fighting force in the 

world, and I am happy to provide you with any additional information you may need. 
140

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. We are 

going to have a supplemental here pretty soon and we will be reviewing that. Most of that is going to go toward readiness and getting the military back up to par here pretty quickly. We look forward to your support on that supplemental. And we are going to 

need everybody to support—— 

Mr. KELLY. You can count on it. 

Mr. CALVERT. And we certainly thank you for your service. 

Any questions, Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Knight, Steve Knight from the great State of California. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017.

WITNESS

HON. STEVE KNIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN KNIGHT

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I come to you from the 25th Congressional District in California 

where we have built, tested, thought of, and drawn the last bombers of the generation, the B–1s, the B–2s, and the B–21s that are 

coming up. 

To say that our bomber fleet is old is an understatement to mammoth proportions. We have pilots today flying tail numbers that 

their grandfathers flew from B–52s. We have B–1s that were built 

back in the early 1980s, and we are projecting to fly them for another 30 years. So I am here to speak about the importance of Air 

Force’s new long-range strike bomber, the B–21 Raider. 

The ability to project power anywhere in the world is a cornerstone of our national security strategy. For decades, our militaries 

enjoyed this advantage. However, as potential adversaries rapidly 

improve their military forces, we must modernize our military technology to maintain our strength. 

Most of our current fleet of long-range strike bombers are over 

50 years old and cannot penetrate advanced defenses. About 18 of 

our bombers can penetrate into the maintained airspace that we 

need them to get into. Unfortunately, we only have 18 of those that 

are flying. 

Thankfully, work is underway to build a new bomber. The Air 

Force’s B–21 Raider will be the world’s most advanced, long-range 

strike bomber when it fields in the mid-2020s. It also offers noteworthy cost-effective advantages over older fighter aircraft and 

bomber aircraft. It carries larger payloads, requires fewer aircraft, 

and puts fewer men and women in harm’s way to accomplish the 

mission.

As Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein expressed the 

need for the B–21 when he stated, ‘‘In the short term, we prefer 

to have more penetrating long-range capacity to ensure persistent 

air operations in long-range scenarios. For this reason, the B–21 is 

an operational imperative, and we must ensure it remains an af-
141

fordable program in order to augment and eventually replace our 

legacy bomber fleet.’’ 

I could not agree with the general’s comments, and it is apparent 

that many of my colleagues here in the House feel the same way. 

As you might recall, last year, a bipartisan group of 28 members 

wrote to this committee to voice support of the B–21 program and 

encouraged the committee to provide sufficient funding to keep the 

program on track so it is ready when we need it. It is also in my 

opinion for Congress to keep this on budget on time, because that 

is the only way that the American people are going to see that programs work, they come to fruition, we get them to the pilots faster, 

and there to the warfighter in a much better manner. 

I am encouraged by the committee’s support for modernizing our 

nuclear deterrence capability, including the B–21. As you well 

know, we must ensure our military is never in a fair fight, and the 

B–21 will do that by enabling our military leaders to strike anywhere at any time. 

I thank you very much for your time, and I will take any questions.

[The written statement of Congressman Knight follows:] 
142

Testimony of Congressman Steve Knight 

California's 251

h Congressional District 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Defense 

House Committee on Appropriations 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky- thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today. 

I am here to speak about the importance of the Air Force's new long-range strike bomber, the B21 Raider. 

The ability to project power anywhere in the world is a cornerstone of our national security 

strategy. For decades, our military has enjoyed this advantage. However, as our potential 

adversaries rapidly improve their military forces, we must modernize our military technology to 

maintain our strength. 

Most of our current fleet of long-range strike bombers are over 50 years old and cannot penetrate 

advanced defenses. Thankfully, work is underway to build a new bomber. The Air Force's B-21 

Raider will be the world's most advanced long-range strike bomber when it fields in the mid2020s. It also offers noteworthy cost-effective advantages over older fighter aircraft: it carries 

larger payloads, requires fewer aircratl, and puts fewer men and women in harm's way to 

accomplish a mission. 

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein expressed the need for the B-21 when he 

stated "In the short term, we prefer to have more penetrating long range capacity to ensure 

persistent air operations in long range scenarios. For this reason, the B-21 is an operational 

imperative, and we must ensure it remains an affordable program in order to augment and 

eventually replace our legacy bomber fleet." 

l could not agree more with the General's comments and it is apparent that may of my colleagues 

here in the House feel the same way. 

As you might recall, last year a bipartisan group of28 Members wrote to this committee to voice 

support for the B-21 program and encourage the committee to provide sufficient funding to keep 

the program on track so it is ready when we need it. With your permission, I ask that letter be 

placed in the record. 

I am encouraged by the committee's support for modernizing our nuclear deterrence capability, 

including the B-21. As you well know, we must ensure our military is never in a fair fight, and 

the B-21 will do that by enabling our military leaders to strike anywhere, at any time. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and I hope you will continue to support this 

important program and ensure it remains on track. 
143

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. We are looking forward to that new bomber being built in the great State of California, so keep doing the good work. 

Any questions? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No questions. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Next, Mr. McGovern. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MCGOVERN

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Ranking Member. And thank you for your patience in listening to 

all us members. It is like the Rules Committee. So I also want to 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify in support of 

funding a competitive grant program for nonprofits that trains 

service dogs for our veterans. Specifically, I ask the committee to support a minimum of $5 

million for the Wounded Warriors service dog grant program. Obviously, if it could be more, I would be thrilled because the need out 

there is so great. 

In addition, I request that the committee insert language addressing the benefits of K9 therapy for treatment of PTSD and TBI 

symptoms. And I will include this language with my official statement.

I also want to express my gratitude to the subcommittee for their 

assistance in securing funding for the program in fiscal year 2015 

and fiscal year 2016. Already we have seen so many incredible success stories in which these dogs have helped veterans suffering 

from post-traumatic stress or physical limitations to reintegrate 

into the social framework of their families and communities and 

often reduce their reliance on prescription drugs. Continuing to fund this program at at least $5 million a year 

would allow awardees to continue this all important work. That 

being said, even with this grant program, many nonprofits continue 

to have waiting lists of veterans in need of service dogs. And given 

that fiscal year 2018 will likely see an increase in defense spending, my hope is that this subcommittee will consider appropriating 

more than $5 million to grow this already successful program. 

Mr. Chair, with so many of our veterans returning from war, 

bearing both physical and emotional scars, we must ensure that 

they have access to treatments that work. Service dogs have been 

shown to have a positive effect on the treatment of PTSD and TBI 

symptoms, and it is not a coincidence that we have seen a significant growth in the demand for these service dogs as more of our 

veterans are returning home in need of this assistance. 

Last Congress, I had the opportunity to visit the National Education for Assistance Dog Services, or NEADS, located in Princeton, 
144

Massachusetts. I heard amazing stories about how service dogs are 

helping to treat veterans with physical disabilities, as well as those 

suffering from post-traumatic stress. This nonprofit organization 

has connected many deserving veterans with service dogs over the 

past few years with incredible results. Like other similar nonprofits, NEADS customizes the training of each dog to serve its future owner. Depending on the owner’s needs, these dogs can be 

trained to retrieve medicine from a refrigerator, turn the lights on 

and scan an empty house before the owner enters, guard an owner’s back in a public setting, and even wake up an owner from a 

nightmare.

In the last few years, NEADS, like many other nonprofits providing this crucial service, have struggled to meet these growing 

levels of demand. Many nonprofits that train dogs for use by veterans are underfunded. The cost of training a service dog varies, 

but estimates range between $15,000 to $60,000 per dog, and training can take up to 2 years. Too often, a veteran’s need for a service 

dog goes unmet due to financial constraints. This competitive grant 

awarded only to organizations that meet the standards of either 

the International Guide Dog Federation or Assistance Dogs International will allow nonprofits to help more veterans. 

Congress first directed the VA to research the effect of service 

dogs on veterans with PTSD in 2010. This study was suspended in 

2012. In 2015, the VA launched a new version of the study that 

will conclude in 2018. Meanwhile, the demand amongst veterans 

for service dogs continues to grow as research conducted by private 

institutions such as Perdue University increasingly demonstrates 

that service dogs can help treat symptoms of PTSD. In addition to 

these studies, I guarantee that if you sit down with a veteran who 

has received a service dog for PTSD, it will be perfectly clear how 

helpful these dogs are. 

So, Mr. Chair, with so many of our veterans coming home from 

war suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical disabilities, it is critical that we offer them multiple treatment 

options. And while the VA continues its exhaustive research on the 

topic, we have wounded veterans who attribute their recoveries to 

service dogs and other veterans for whom a service dog could be 

key. So rather than relegating these veterans to a waiting list, let’s 

continue to support these highly technical nonprofits so that they 

can continue to do what they do best: Help our veterans. 

So I ask this committee and my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to fund this competitive grant program. And with that, I appreciate your time. 

[The written statement of Congressman McGovern follows:] 
145

TESTIMONY OF 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES P. McGOVERN (MA-02) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 APPROPRIATIONS 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS 

I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for allowing me 

this opportunity to testify today in support of funding a competitive grant program for nonprotits 

that train service dogs for our veterans. Specifically, I ask the Committee to support a $5 million 

request for the Wounded Warriors Service Dog grant program. 

In addition, I request that the Committee insert language addressing the benefits of canine 

therapy for the treatment of PTSD and TBI symptoms. I will include this language with my 

official statement. 

I also want to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for their assistance in securing 

funding for this program in FYIS and FY16. Already, we have seen so many incredible success 

stories in which these dogs have helped veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress or physical 

limitations to reintegrate into the social framework of their families and communities and otlcn 

reduce their reliance on prescription drugs. Continuing to fund this program at $5 million a year 

would allow awardees to continue this all-important work. That being said, even with this grant 

program, many nonprofits continue to have waiting lists of veterans in need of service dogs. 

Given that FY18 will likely see an increase in defense spending, my hope is that this 
146

Subcommittee will consider appropriating more than $5 million to grow this already-successful 

program. 

Madam Chair, with so many of our veterans returning from war bearing both physical 

and emotional scars, we must ensure that they have access to treatments that work. Service dogs 

have been shown to have a positive effect on the treatment of PTSD and TBI symptoms, and it is 

not a coincidence that we have seen a significant growth in demand for the service dogs as more 

of our veterans are returning home in need of this assistance. 

Last Congress, I had the opportunity to visit the National Education for Assistance Dog 

Services - or NEADS - located in Princeton, Massachusetts. I heard amazing stories about how 

service dogs are helping to treat veterans with physical disabilities, as well as those suffering 

from post-traumatic stress. This nonprofit organization has connected many deserving veterans 

with service dogs over the past few years with incredible results. Like other similar non-profits, 

NEADS customizes the training of each dog to serve its future owner. Depending on the owner's 

needs, these dogs can be trained to retrieve medicine from a refrigerator, tum the lights on and 

scan an empty house before the owner enters, guard an owner's back in a public setting, and 

even wake an owner up from a nightmare. 

In the last few years, NEADS, like many of the other nonprofits providing this crucial 

service, have struggled to meet these growing levels of demand. Many nonprofits that train dogs 

for use by veterans are underfunded. The cost of training a service dog varies, but estimates 

range between $15,000 and $60,000 per dog, and training can take up to two years. Too often, a 

2 
147

veteran's need for a service dog goes unmet due to financial constraints. This competitive grant, 

awarded only to organizations that meet the standards of either the International Guide Dog 

Federation or Assistance Dogs International, will allow nonprofits to help more veterans. 

Congress first directed the VA to research the effect of service dogs on veterans with 

PTSD in 2010. This study was suspended in 2012 due to complications. In 2015, the VA 

launched a new version of the study that will conclude in 2018. Meanwhile, the demand amongst 

veterans for service dogs continues to grow as research conducted by private institutions such as 

Purdue University increasingly demonstrates that service dogs can help treat symptoms ofPTSD. 

In addition to these studies, I guarantee that if you sit down with a veteran who has received a 

service dog for PTSD, it will become perfectly clear how helpful these dogs are. 

Madam Chair, with so many of our are veterans coming home from war suffering from 

post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical disabilities, it is critical that we oiler them 

multiple treatment options. While the VA continues its exhaustive research on the topic, we have 

wounded veterans who attribute their recoveries to service dogs and other veterans for whom a 

service dog could be the key. Rather than relegating these veterans to a waiting list, let's 

continue to support these highly technical non-profits so that they can continue to do what they 

do best- help our veterans. 

I ask this Committee and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fund this competitive 

grant program at the levels requested for FY 2018 so that our veterans can receive the treatment 

they deserve. 

3 
148

Language Request for FY 18 Defense Appropriations 

"The committee is aware that canine therapy for treatment of PTSD and TBI symptoms is a 

promising alternative or adjunct to pharmaceutical treatment, which can have harmful sideeffects. In testimony before Congress, witnesses from the Services were positive about the 

potential for this treatment, calling canine therapy for PTSD "an emerging area of alternative 

therapy" that is "beneficial in the support of people with either physical or mental health 

diagnoses," and that can "help reduce anxiety, lower emotional reactivity, and provide a sense of 

security." While still experimental, canine therapy has shown effectiveness in treating PTSD and 

other psychological disorders, from hospitalized psychiatric patients to children with 

developmental disorders, patients with substance abuse problems, and victims of trauma. The 

Services' report that service members who participate in their canine programs for PTSD and 

TBI show more positive social interactions, a decrease in suicidal thoughts, an increased sense of 

safety, independence, motivation, and self-efficacy. The committee notes that canine therapy is a 

promising area for further research as a complementary or alternative treatment for the signature 

wounds of the ongoing conflict. Therefore, the committee provides funds and continues to 

encourage the Services to initiate or expand their research into canine therapy to validate its 

therapeutic effectiveness in the treatment ofPTSD and TBI." 

4 
149

Mr. CALVERT. I thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. McGovern, I appreciate you testifying on behalf of those who have been injured in defense of this country, but 

also want to thank you very much for your continued advocacy asking that Congress be involved as far as a new authorization for the 

use of military force. 

I appreciated your comments in the Rules Committee on Tuesday. I know you are joined by colleagues such as Mr. Cole and others. I understand you addressed the issue again yesterday on the 

floor, as well as Ms. Lee, and certainly hope, particularly with the 

new administration, that we come together and we have a role to 

play here as well as the change rule. So I appreciate your advocacy 

very much. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mrs. Hartzler, you are now recognized. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Good afternoon. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Good afternoon. I found a new room in the Capitol.

Mr. CALVERT. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MISSOURI 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you so much. 

I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you as a member of the 

House Armed Services Committee and to share with you some priorities that I believe is very, very vital as we move forward in this 

year’s budget. 

Recent reports have indicated that the Trump administration in- tends to submit a budget with a defense top line of $603 billion for 

fiscal year 2018. While I applaud the President’s intention to increase our military funding with a, quote, $54 billion increase, this 

assertion does not tell the whole story. The $603 billion number is actually only an increase from the sequestration limits that have wreaked havoc on our military for the 

past 7 years. It is only a 3 percent increase from President 

Obama’s administration proposal in the Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP, and $58 billion less than Secretary Gates’ budget, 

which is what is really, really needed. And this chart shows that, 

that the Trump proposal of $603 billion is the orange star there. 

And you see that the Gates’ budget, which was the last time that 

we really had a budget aligned with our defense objectives, shows 

that we should be getting far more at this point. 

So our military today is facing a severe crisis. We expect our men 

and women in uniform and the equipment they deploy to be able 

to decisively win a current conflict and posture our forces so an-
150

other enemy doesn’t even think they can challenge the United 

States if they tried. Yet this ability is in jeopardy. 

According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and this is 

shocking, less than 50 percent of the Air Forces’s fire and bomber 

force are able to fight and decisively win a highly contested fight 

against a near-peer such as Russia or China. In fact, an engine literally fell off of a B–52 bomber while training in North Dakota recently.

According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, of the 58 brigade combat teams that our Nation depends on to deploy overseas 

and to defend our freedoms we comfortably enjoy here, only three 

could be called upon to fight tonight, three out of 58. 

Based on current readiness levels, the Army can only accomplish 

defense requirements at a high military risk. As General Allyn 

stated in his testimony last month before the Armed Services Committee, if we continue down this path, quote, ‘‘the end result is excessive casualties, both to innocent civilians and to our forces,’’ end 

quote. We cannot allow this to happen. 

According to the Vice Chief of Naval operations, two-thirds, 67 

percent, of our Navy strike fighters, the planes that are launching 

entirety of the Navy’s attacks against ISIS, cannot fly. Sixty-seven 

percent of the Naval aircraft cannot fly. And sadly, in 2015, the 

Marine Corps aviation deaths hit a 5-year high as aircraft failed 

or pilots lacked adequate training hours. This is unacceptable. 

Regardless of your budgetary priorities, I call on each of you to 

recognize that it is our responsibility in Congress to provide support for our men and women in uniform while they selflessly serve 

our Nation. House Armed Services Chairman Thornberry and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain have both laid 

out what the Department of Defense needs to begin buying back 

the readiness that has left our force hollow. Our military needs 

$640 billion to begin the restoration of its forces that the American 

people expect and need in today’s world, not $603 billion. 

If we do not meet the budget of $640 billion for the Department 

of Defense, we will be shortchanging our military in capabilities 

they need to fulfill their mission. We will impose too great of risk 

in air dominance, Naval presence, ship recovery, facilities maintenance, ground forces, medical readiness, nuclear deterrent requirements, national security space defense, ballistic missile defense, 

and cyber capabilities. Each of these requirements is crucial to our 

national security, and we would not be able to have those met 

without it. 

Our men and women in the military must stand ready and actively fight a resurgent Russia, an emergent China, an unstable 

North Korea, an unpredictable Iran, and widespread violent extremism. The demand for our forces has never been so high and our 

readiness has never been so low. 

It is within our power to reverse this. I ask you to work with me 

and others in the Armed Services Committee to give our servicemen and -women the resources they need to build our military and 

to keep our Nation safe. 

Thank you. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman Hartzler follows:] 
151

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (M0-04) I March 9, 2017 

Testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 

Members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I sit 

before you today as a proud Member and authorizing counterpart from the 

House Armed Services Committee. I am here to reiterate testimony that I 

gave to the House Budget Committee last week because I believe so deeply in 

what I'm here to tell you today. 

Recent reports have indicated that the Trump Administration intends to 

submit a budget with a defense topline of $603 billion dollars for Fiscal Year 

2018. While I applaud the President's intention to increase our military 

funding with a quote "$54 billion dollar increase," this assertion does not 

tell the whole story. 

The $603 billion number is actually only an increase from the 

sequestration limits that have wreaked havoc on our military for the past 

seven years. It is only a three percent increase from President Obama's 

Administration proposal in the Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP, and 

$58 Billion less than Secretary Gates Budget for what we really need. We 

need more. 

You can see where on here the Trump Budget proposal is, compared to the 

green line which was the Gates Budget before we had the Budget Control Act 

passed. You can see it is behind what was projected to be needed years ago. 

Our military today is facing a severe crisis. We expect our men and women 

in uniform, and the equipment they deploy, to be able to decisively win a 

current conflict and posture our forces so another enemy doesn't even think 

they could challenge the United States if they tried. 

Yet this ability is in jeopardy: 

• According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, less than so% of 

the Air Force's fighter and bomber force are able to fight and decisively 

win a highly contested fight against a near peer such as Russia or 

China. In fact, an engine literally fell off a B-52 bomber while 

training in North Dakota recently. 

• According to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, of the fifty eight 

Brigade Combat Teams that our nation depends on to deploy overseas 
152

and defend our freedoms we comfortably enjoy here, only three could 

be called upon to fight tonight. Based on current readiness levels, the 

Army can only accomplish defense requirements at a high military 

risk. As General Allyn stated in his testimony last month before the 

Armed Services Committee, if we continue down this path, "The end 

result is excessive casualties, both to innocent civilians and to our 

forces." We cannot allow this to happen. 

• According to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, two thirds - sixty 

seven percent - of our Navy's strike fighters, the planes that are 

launching the entirety of the Navy's attacks against ISIS, cannot fly. 

Sixty-seven percent. 

• And, sadly, in 2015, the Marine Corps aviation deaths hit a five-year 

high as aircraft failed or pilots lacked adequate training hours. This is 

unacceptable. 

Regardless of your budgetary priorities, I call on each of you to recognize that 

it is OUR responsibility in Congress to provide support for our men and 

women in uniform while they selflessly serve our nation. 

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Thornberry and Senate Armed 

Services Committee Chairman McCain have both laid out what the 

Department of Defense needs to begin "buying back" the readiness that has 

left our force hollow. Our military needs $640 billion dollars to begin the 

restoration of its forces that the American people expect and need in today's 

world. 

If we do not meet the budget of $640 billion for the Department of Defense, 

we will be short-changing our military in capabilities they need to fulfill their 

mission. We will impose too great of risk in air dominance, naval presence, 

ship recovery, facilities maintenance, ground forces, medical readiness, 

nuclear deterrent requirements, national security space defense, ballistic 

missile defense, and cyber capabilities. Each of these requirements crucial to 

our national security would not be met. 

Our men and women in the military must stand ready to and actively fight a 

resurgent Russia, an emergent China, an unstable North Korea, an 
153

unpredictable Iran, and widespread violent extremism. The demand for 

our forces has never been so high, and our readiness has never 

been so low. 

It is within our power to reverse this. I ask you to work with me and others 

on the Armed Services Committee to give our servicemen and women the 

resources they need to build our military and keep our nation safe. 

Thank you. 
154

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for testifying. As you know, 

we are going to have a supplemental coming here pretty soon to 

address some of those readiness issues, and we look forward to 

your support with that. And obviously, we have some great needs 

for our United States military. So we appreciate your testimony. 

Next, Mr. Wenstrup. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Good to see you. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. BRAD WENSTRUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF OHIO 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WENSTRUP

Mr. WENSTRUP. I appear before you today in strong support of a 

robust defense budget for fiscal year 2018. It is an honor to testify 

before this committee, and my colleagues and I in the Armed Services Committee look forward to continuing our partnership with 

you to support and equip the men and women of our Armed Forces. 

In recent years, the U.S. military has faced years of devastating 

cuts, leaving us with the smallest Army since before World War II, 

a Navy fleet among the smallest since World War I, and an Air 

Force whose top general has said it may not be able to control the 

skies in a future conflict. 

President Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for rebuilding our military, and I also applaud his commitment to cutting waste and eliminating unnecessary spending. However, I am 

concerned that the 2018 defense budget previewed by the White 

House, even with the intent of cuts from within, it is not sufficient 

to fully resource the bold agenda to rebuild our military both in capabilities and deterrents that the President has set for this administration.

I would like to highlight three particular areas that demonstrate 

the impossible tradeoffs being forced on our military, tradeoffs that 

we can avoid by properly resourcing our national defense. Recently, 

the largest deployment of U.S. Troops arrived in Europe since the 

end of the Cold War. They are on a mission to reassure our European allies and deter further Russian aggression on the continent. 

However, over the past few years, Russia has made major investments in modernizing its equipment and tactics. 

In response, the U.S. Army in Europe declared an urgent operational need for defensive and offensive upgrades to its Stryker vehicles. While the single Stryker Brigade Combat Team deployed to 

Europe is receiving these upgrades, limited resources will prevent 

the Army from quickly upgrading the rest of our Stryker BCTs. In 

fact, the production rate is at risk of falling as low as one brigade 

every 3 years, a lethargic pace for critical upgrades to an essential 

combat capability. 

If we want our forces in Europe to serve as an effective deterrent 

to Russian aggression, we must fully fund the Stryker upgrades 

necessary to ensure that we pose a credible threat to our adversary 

forces.
155

Another challenge for our military is maintaining the golden 

hour standard for trauma care in future conflicts. The golden hour 

refers to the fact that wounded servicemembers have over a 90 percent survival rate when they reach role 2 medical care within the 

first hour of being injured. This standard has been a major contributor to the United States suffering far fewer combat related deaths 

in the wars of the last 15 years than in any previous conflicts. 

However, maintaining the golden hour when we do not have 

uncontested control of the air and sea domains, as would be the 

case in a potential conflict with Russia or China, requires developing a new set of battlefield capabilities. We shouldn’t accept a 

lower standard of care and a higher fatality rate for our troops just 

because the fights of the future may pose new challenges. Instead, 

we must fully fund capabilities to maintain the golden hour in both 

today’s conflicts and those of the future. 

The final priority I would like to discuss is growing our Army. 

In 2016, the Army reached the lowest level of Active Duty troops 

since 1940. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act prevented even further cuts, but the Army is still too small to meet 

our national security requirements. 

Quantity has a quality of its own and we will need more troops 

if we are to simultaneously destroy ISIS, support the Afghan Government against the Taliban, serve as an effective deterrent to 

Russian and Chinese aggression, and be prepared to respond to unexpected contingencies across the globe or even at home. Rebuilding the Army’s end strength is a complex, decades long process, but 

we must begin making this long-term investment today in order to 

realize the goal of an Army prepared for the conflicts of the current 

decade as well as the threats of tomorrow. 

Just as with any Federal agency, the Department of Defense has 

to prioritize, make strategic choices, cut waste and inefficiency, and 

operate within budgetary realities. But resourcing these urgent 

needs of our Armed Forces is not optional. A failure to do so will 

result in a continued readiness crisis, weakened national security, 

and ultimately, the loss of American lives. 

However, the good news is that we do not have to force these impossible choices on our military. A defense budget that is in line 

with the House Armed Services Committee’s proposal will fulfill 

our constitutional obligation to provide President Trump and Secretary Mattis with the force they need to deter threats and keep 

our Nation secure. Most importantly, it will ensure our men and 

women in uniform have the resources, training, and equipment 

they need to keep us safe and come home safe themselves. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The written statement of Congressman Wenstrup follows:] 
156

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) HAC-D FYI8 Member Day Testimony 

Mr. Chainnan, 

I appear before you today in support of a robust defense budget for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) that 

fully funds our military's urgent needs and ensures our national security for the long term. It is 

an honor to testify before this committee, which contributes so much to Congress's constitutional 

obligation to provide for the national defense. My colleagues and I on the Anned Services 

Committee look forward to continuing our partnership with you in providing the men and 

women of our Anned Forces everything they need to complete their mission of keeping America 

safe, and maintaining peace and stability around the globe. 

During the presidential campaign and since assuming office, President Trump has repeatedly 

expressed his support for rebuilding our military. He has called for a renewed commitment to 

destroying ISIS; a Navy of350 ships; an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighters; an Army of540,000 

soldiers; and major investment in our ballistic missile defenses. Crucially, he has also stated that 

he is detennined to end the defense sequester, which will finally allow us to return to budgets 

based on long-tenn planning, rather than yearly crisis. These proposals make clear that the 

President understands the dire straits in which our military finds itself today, after years of 

conflict and insufficient funding, and with new challenges trom Russia, China, and others on the 

horizon. I also applaud the President's commitment to reducing waste, eliminating unnecessary 

spending, and finally auditing the Department of Defense, as every dollar saved is one we can 

use to bolster spending toward our modern day warfighting needs. However, I am concerned that 

the FY18 defense budget previewed by the White House will not be enough to accomplish the 

goals that President Trump has set for his administration. 
157

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) HAC-D FY18 Member Day Testimony 

Today, our military faces an urgent readiness crisis, and none of the services are spared. In 

testimony before the Armed Services Committee last year, Army Chief of StaJT General Mark 

Milley noted that, "Right now the readiness of the United States Army, all components of the 

United States Army, is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people would 

expect to defend them." 1 Just one month ago, General Glenn Walters, Assistant Commandant of 

the Marine Corps for Aviation, remarked that in the Marine Corps, "We simply do not have the 

available aircraft assigned to our tighter-attack and heavy lift squadrons."2 Likewise, General 

Stephen Wilson of the Air Force testified that "Today we find ourselves less than 50 percent 

ready across our Air Force and we have pockets that are below that."3 And finally, Admiral 

William Moran, Vice Chief ofNaval Operation, stated that "It has become clear to me that the 

Navy's overall readiness has reached its lowest level in many years."4 

At the same time, we have not provided our military with the funding necessary to enable it to 

modernize for future challenges. Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, now President Trump's 

National Security Advisor, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last year that "We are 

outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries, and our Army in the future risks being 

too small to secure the nation."5 As technological advances in space, cyber, and other domains 

continue to progress, we must not lose the competitive edge that we have spent decades working 

1 Testimony of General Mark A. Milley, USA, Chief of Staff of the Army, before the House Armed Services 

Committee, "The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Military Departments," 

March 16, 2016. 2 Testimony of General Glenn Walters, USMC, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, before the House 

Armed Services Committee, "State of the Military," February 7, 2017. 

3 Testimony of General Stephen W. Wilson, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, before the House Armed 

Services Committee, "State of the Military," February 7, 2017. 

4 Testimony of Admiral William F. Moran, USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, before the House Armed Services 

Committee, "State of the Military," February 7, 2017. 

5 Freed berg Jr., Sydney J. "McMaster: Army May Be Outnumbered AND Outgunned In Next War," Breaking 

Defense, 4/6/16. 
158

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) HAC-D FY18 Member Day Testimony 

hard to maintain. American troops should never be sent into a fair fight; the enemy must always 

be at a disadvantage. 

I would like to highlight three particular areas that demonstrate the impossible tradeoffs being 

forced on our military, tradeoffs that we can avoid by properly funding our national defense. 

Recently, the largest deployment of U.S. troops arrived in Europe since the end of the Cold War. 

They are on a mission to reassure our European allies and deter further Russian aggression on the 

continent. However, over the past few years, Russia has made major investments in modernizing 

its combat vehicle fleet and honing its tactics during its invasion of Ukraine. To counter this 

greatly improved adversary capability, the U.S. Army in Europe declared an urgent operational 

need for defensive and offensive upgrades to its Stryker vehicles, including by adding a "doubleV hull" that reduces vulnerability to land mines and improvised explosive devices (JED), as well 

as a 30 millimeter cannon to increase their firepower. However, while the single Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team (SBCT) deployed to Europe is receiving those upgrades, limited resources will 

prevent the Army from quickly upgrading the rest of our SBCT's, even though they may be 

required to deploy to Europe or elsewhere, should conflict arise. ln fact, the production rate is at 

risk of falling as low as one brigade every three years, a lethargic pace for critical upgrades to an 

essential combat capability. If we want our forces in Europe to serve as an effective deterrent to 

Russian aggression, we must fully fund the Stryker upgrades necessary to ensure that we pose a 

credible threat to our adversary's forces. 

Another challenge our military is facing is maintaining the "Golden Hour" standard for trauma 

care in a potential conflict with a "near-peer" adversary. The "Golden Hour" refers to the fact 

that wounded service members have over a 90 percent survival rate when they reach role 2 
159

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) HAC-D FY18 Member Day Testimony 

medical care within the first hour of being injured. This standard has become an expectation of 

service members and the American public alike, and has been a major contributor to the United 

States suffering far fewer combat related deaths in the wars of the last 15 years than in any 

previous conflicts. In fact, one study credited former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's order 

to maintain the "Golden Hour" in Afghanistan despite the vast distances and difficult terrain of 

that country with saving 359 lives. 6 

However, maintaining the "Golden Hour" when we do not have uncontested control of the air 

and sea domains, as would be the case in a potential conflict with Russia or China, requires 

developing a new set of capabilities to address the difficulty of quickly moving casualties to 

advanced care facilities. These capabilities include organic medical equipment sets, deployable 

infrastructure, and medical and support personnel trained to provide sustained care in the field. 

We should not accept a lower standard of care and a higher fatality rate- for our troops, just 

because the fights of the future may pose new challenges. Instead, we must fully fund the costs 

of maintaining the "Golden Hour" capabilities in both today's conflicts and those of the future. 

The final priority I would like to discuss is growing our Army. In 2016, the Army reached the 

lowest level of Active Duty troops since 1940.7 The FY17 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) stopped even further cuts and mandated an end strength of 476,000 troops, but this 

number is still insuftlcient to meet our national defense needs. Quantity has a quality of its own, 

and we will need more troops if we are to simultaneously combat ISIS, support the Afghan 

government against the Taliban, deter Russia, and still be prepared to respond to unexpected 

contingencies elsewhere in the world, or even at home. Rebuilding the Army's end strength is a 

'Shanker, Thom, "Study Says Faster Medical Evacuation Was Lifesaver for U.S. Troops," The New York Times, 

9/30/lS. 

7 Tice, Jim, "Army shrinks to smallest level since before World War II," Army Times, 5/7/16. 
160

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) HAC-D FY18 Member Day Testimony 

long, complex process that could take a decade, but we must begin making the investment today 

to realize the goal of an Army big enough to accomplish its mission in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, military leaders are used to making difficult choices. Just like any other federal 

agency, the Defense Department will never get everything it wants in the budget, and we must 

not tolerate waste or inefficiency in its operations. But, like a number of other items highlighted 

by the House Armed Services Committee, these three urgent needs -modernizing our Stryker 

vehicles, maintaining the "Golden Hour", and growing our Army- are not optional. A failure to 

fully fund them will result in the loss of American lives and a weaker national defense. The good 

news is that we do not have to force these impossible choices on our military. By writing a bill 

that provides an adequate topline number for the Defense Department, and that addresses both 

the military's urgent readiness needs and longer term modernization, we can fulfill our 

constitutional obligation to provide President Trump and Secretary Mattis with the force they 

need to keep us safe, secure, and to deter aggression. 

Thank you. 
161

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and 

thank you for your service. We certainly appreciate that. 

Any additional questions? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania. Welcome. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CARTWRIGHT

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and Ranking 

Member Visclosky. It is an honor for me to join you both on the 

House Appropriations Committee, and I thank you for allowing this 

testimony today. 

The United States military is the greatest military in the world, 

and it can only stay that way if we provide our ongoing support. 

I want to specifically address a few defense spending matters of the 

utmost importance. These issues affect both my constituents and 

the security of the whole country. 

Robust military manufacturing is necessary for the sustained 

strength of our Armed Forces. I am proud to say that Tobyhanna 

Army Depot in my district has contributed admirably to that effort. 

This facility has been able to efficiently compete with their private 

sector competitors for many years. For this quality of manufacturing support the U.S. military to continue, we must provide consistent and sustain funding. 

Every job at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, the Army’s only command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnoissance depot generates 21⁄2 jobs in the larger 

local community. And what these men and women do at 

Tobyhanna is that they refurbish used electronic equipment. It is 

a great way to save money in our defense. This Depot provides our 

troops with state-of-the-art technology, delivers a healthy return on 

investment to the taxpayer, and serves as a vital hub of commerce 

in the community. 

As such, I urge continued funding to support the operations and 

maintenance budget of depots, which are an essential component of 

our national security. 

Additionally, I want to reiterate the opposition I expressed last 

Congress to any implementation of new A–76 studies by the Department of Defense. The A–76 process uses faulty, antiquated 

methodology to determine whether Federal civilian jobs should be 

outsourced, a matter we simply cannot simply approach so haphazardly. Both the GAO and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense concluded the process could not demonstrate any 

savings for the taxpayer. 

And so using an arbitrary 12 percent overhead factor cost for 

Federal employees versus contractors, the A–76 process is simply 

not anchored in the facts. And we have to work with the facts. We 

have to act sensibly with taxpayer dollars by basing our decisions 
162

on the facts. A–76 has faced bipartisan opposition and has been 

subject to congressional moratoriums since 2010, and I urge the 

committee to ensure that it stays that way. 

I would also like to stress the importance of several programs 

that affect the general dynamics Scranton operation plant located 

in my district. Specifically, I hope that funding can be maintained 

for two artillery ammunition programs. First, the Navy 5/54 ammunition, which is fired from cruiser and destroyer types of combatant ships. Second, the 155 millimeter M795, which is state-ofthe-art, multipurpose, high fragmentation, high explosive projectile 

fired from 155 millimeter howitzers. 

Lastly, I want to express my support for the sustained funding 

for two larger programs that impact the general dynamic Scranton 

operation plant as well. First, the Abrams tank improvement program, which applies modifications to the currently deployed 

Abrams family of vehicles. The second program involves upgrades 

to the Stryker vehicle, which improved the protective hull of the vehicle, ensuring that our troops remain as safe as possible when carrying out their missions. 

All of these programs improve the capabilities of our Armed 

Forces, function as a worthwhile investment for the general American taxpayer, and play a major economic role in the community 

surrounding the plant. So for these reasons I do urge the committee’s continued support. 

Thank you again, Chairman Calvert, for having this meeting and 

allowing me the opportunity to speak at it. 

[The written statement of Congressman Cartwright follows:] 
163

Statement of Congressman Matt Cartwright 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Member Day Hearing on Department of Defense Appropriations Act 

March 9, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for holding this Members Day hearing 

on defense appropriations and for the opportunity to talk about some of our 

priorities. 

The United States military is the greatest military in the world. It can only 

stay that way, however, with our ongoing support. I want to specifically address a 

few defense spending matters of the utmost importance. These issues affect both 

my constituents and the security of the entire country. 

Robust military manufacturing is necessary for the sustained strength of our 

armed forces. I am proud to say that Tobyhanna Army Depot, in my district, has 

contributed admirably to this effort. This facility has been able to efficiently 

compete with their private sector competitors. 

For this quality of manufacturing support for the U.S. military to continue, 

we must provide consistent and sustained funding. Every job at the Tobyhanna 

Army Depot, the army's only Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance depot, generates two and half jobs 

in the larger local community. 

Every dollar invested at Tobyhanna generates $1.68 in economic activity. 

This depot provides our troops with state of the art technology, delivers a healthy 

return on investment to the taxpayer, and serves as a vital hub of commerce in its 

community. I urge funding support for this essential component of our national 

security. 

Additionally, I want to reiterate the opposition I expressed last Congress to 

any implementation of new A-76 studies by the Department of Defense. The A-76 
164

process uses faulty, antiquated methodology to determine whether federal civilian 

jobs should be outsourced -a matter we simply cannot approach so haphazardly. 

Both the GAO and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense concluded 

the process could not demonstrate any savings for the tax payer. Using an arbitrary 

12% overhead factor cost for federal employees versus contractors, the A-76 

process is simply not anchored in reality. We must act sensibly with taxpayer 

dollars by basing our decisions on fact, not fiction. A-76 has faced bipartisan 

opposition and been subject to Congressional moratorium since 2010, and I urge 

the Committee to ensure it stays that way. 

I'd also like to stress the importance of several programs that affect the 

General Dynamics Scranton Operation plant located in my District. Specifically, I 

hope that funding can be maintained for two artillery ammunition programs. First, 

the Navy 5/54 gun ammunition, which is fired from cruiser and destroyer types of 

combatant ships. Second, the 155 millimeter M795, which is the state of the art 

multi-purpose high fragmentation high explosive projectile fired from 155mm 

howitzers. 

Lastly, I want express my support for sustained funding for two larger 

programs that impact the General Dynamics Scranton Operation plant as well. 

First, the Abrams Tank Improvement Program, which applies modifications to the 

currently deployed Abrams Family of Vehicles to sustain the Abrams fleet by 

addressing a number of existing performance shortfalls. Second, the upgrades to 

the Stryker vehicle, which improve the protective hull of the vehicle and improve 

its lethality by adding a 30 millimeter cannon. All of these programs improve the 

capabilities of our armed forces, function as a worthwhile investment for the 

general American taxpayer, and play a major economic role in the communities 

surrounding the plant. For these reasons, I urge the Committee's continued 

support. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for having this meeting and allowing me to 

the opportunity to speak about these important issues. 
165

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Any questions? 

No questions. Have a nice day. Thank you so much for your excellent testimony. 

Next, Mrs. Wagner. 

Good afternoon. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Good afternoon, Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MISSOURI 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN WAGNER

Mrs. WAGNER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my support for a matter 

important to the United States Navy and our national security. 

Ensuring the success of our missions and the safety of our troops 

is close to my heart, not only as a Member of Congress, but also 

as a mother. My son, a West Point graduate, is an Army ranger 

currently serving as an Active Duty captain in the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart. 

As I testify before you today, the USS Carl Vinson is on deployment in the Western Pacific with three squadrons of F/A–18 Super 

Hornets, ensuring our Nation’s security and providing the needed 

presence and deterrence that only United States aircraft carrier 

and its embarked air wing can. 

These Super Hornets have seen their share of combat operations 

over the past 10 years conducting strikes in the fight against ISIS 

and providing air support to our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We have heard from past year’s testimonies by the Chief of 

Naval Operations that this unrelentingly high operational tempo of 

F/A–18s on the carrier decks and the delays in maintenance and 

sustainment of legacy fighter aircraft have resulted in a significant 

shortfall in tactical aircraft needed to remain mission capable. 

I appreciate the response by this committee in its fiscal year 

2017 markup to address this shortfall with new F/A–18s and F– 

35Cs. However, this readiness challenge is far from solved. And I 

support the Navy’s call for additional Super Hornets and for a robust sustainment plan to keep Super Hornets flying into the 2040s 

as a needed fix to this shortfall. 

The men and women building the F/A–18s in Missouri’s Second 

Congressional District are ready to deliver the solution. My constituents are patriotic and dedicated heros who work hard to develop amazing systems that make American leadership and global 

missions possible. They continue to advance the capabilities of this 

aircraft to combat future threats, developing a Block III Super Hornet that will compliment the F–35’s capabilities in the air wing of 

the future. They have also prepared a comprehensive Super Hornet 

service life modification plan to address the readiness of the strike 

fighter fleet. 
166

I hope that this committee will continue to support my fiscal year 

2018 request from the Navy for additional Super Hornets, as well 

as investments to Super Hornet readiness in your markup. The 

men and the women of the Navy have answered our call, and I look 

forward to working with you this year to be sure that the men and 

women of Missouri can help answer theirs. 

I thank you for the opportunity to do so, and I appreciate your 

time today, Mr. Chairman. 

[The written statement of Congresswoman Wagner follows:] 
167

Representative Ann Wagner (R-M0-02) 

Testimony to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (HACD) 

Thursday, March 9, 2017, at 1:45 p.m. 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, thank you for the opportunity to share 

my support for a matter important to the U.S. Navy and national security. Ensuring the success of 

our missions and the safety of our troops is close to my heart as a mother. My son, a West Point 

graduate, is an army ranger currently serving as a captain in the third infantry division. 

As I testify before you today, the USS Carl Vinson is on deployment in the Western Pacific 

with three squadrons of Fl A-18 Super Hornets, ensuring our nation's security and providing the 

needed presence and deterrence that only a United States aircraft carrier and its embarked air wing 

can. These Super Hornets have seen their share of combat operations over the past ten years, 

conducting strikes in the fight against ISIS and providing air support to our troops on the ground 

in Afghanistan. 

We have heard from past years' testimony hy the Chief of Naval Operations that this 

unrelentingly high operational tempo ofFIA-18s on the carrier desks and the delays in maintenance 

and sustainment of legacy fighter aircraft have resulted in a significant shortfall in tactical aircraft 

needed to remain mission capable. I appreciate the response by this committee in its FY 17 markup 

to address this shortfall with new FIA-18s and F-35Cs. However this readiness challenge is far 

from solved, and I support the Navy's call for additional Super Hornets and for a robust 

sustainment plan to keep Super Hornets flying into the 2040s as a needed fix to this shortfall. 

The men and women building the FIA-18 in Missouri's 2nd district are ready to deliver 

this solution. My constituents are fantastic and dedicated heroes who work hard to develop 

amazing systems that make American leadership in global missions possible. They continue to 
168

advance the capabilities of this aircraft to combat future threats, developing a Block III Super 

Hornet that will complement the F-35 capabilities in the air wing of the future. They've also 

prepared a comprehensive Super Hornet service life modification plan to address the readiness of 

the strike fighter fleet. 

I hope that this committee will support any FYI8 request from the Navy for additional 

Super Hornets as well as investments in Super Hornet readiness in their markup. The men and 

women of the Navy have answered our call-I look forward to working with you this year to be 

sure that the men and women of Missouri can help answer theirs. Thank you for the opportunity 

to do so. 
169

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for the gentlelady’s testimony. 

Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlelady’s testimony as well. 

And I do not want to be insensitive, but I realize that there are 

three purple ties and white shirts. What did I miss today? 

Mrs. WAGNER. I don’t know. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is this just an incredible coincidence? I have 

been sitting here all morning. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I wore red yesterday for International Women’s 

Day apparently. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have been sitting here all morning and I am 

thinking, did I miss—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. I am not aware, but I have told my scheduler that 

it is important you let me know what the color of the day is—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will simply remember this for our markup. 

Mrs. WAGNER [continuing]. For our nation, internationally, nationally, and in Congress. 

I thank the gentleman for his question. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mrs. WAGNER. My pleasure. Thank you so much. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, is Mr. Davidson. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Good afternoon, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. WARREN DAVIDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DAVIDSON

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you. It is an honor to come before your 

subcommittee. Thanks for the work you are doing to help get our 

Defense Department on a path to a stronger capability. 

And I just recognize that there are so many priorities competing 

for scarce dollars. And all these things have a big implication. As 

a former Army ranger, I was blessed to serve with some of those 

who serve near the tip of the spear in our country in earlier days. 

But all these macro decisions are made up of many small things. 

And so I wanted to come before you and highlight one such small detail that could escape notice, and it is a small $5 million program. And as you consider the fiscal year 2018 DOD Appropriations Act, I am asking the subcommittee to provide a generic increase of $5 million in the Air Force base procured equipment for 

the purchase of civil engineering construction, surveying, and mapping equipment. This will upgrade the surveying equipment 

throughout the Air Force’s engineering units. 

These units perform rapid response and often critical construction, surveying, and mapping in garrison or in deployed theaters of 

operation. They provide the needed support and heavy damage repair of beddown weapon systems and bare-base, high-threat environments. However, existing Air Force civil engineering equipment 

is over 15 years old, much of which was discontinued over 7 years 
170

ago. Those maintenance costs are prohibitive and some equipment 

in the Air Force is no longer being maintained. This has adversely 

affected the civil engineers’ readiness and ability to conduct critical 

missions and imposed additional maintenance requirements on aircraft because of maintenance capability being degraded. 

I am hopeful that the committee will make sure that our engineers have the support they need to provide the reliable runways 

and facilities from meeting the mission and supporting the other 

investments we make in modernized aircraft. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the committee. Thanks for the work you are doing. And on behalf of the 

airmen at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Springfield Air National Guard Base, thanks for the support you lend them. 

[The written statement of Congressman Davidson follows:] 
171

STATEMENT OF 

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN DAVIDSON 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ON 

MARCH 9, 2017 
172

Good morning Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and 

Members of the Defense Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me and other 

Members of the House with the opportunity to testify to the Subcommittee on 

issues that are important to our national security. 

I strongly urge the Members of this Subcommittee to provide a generic 

program increase of$5.0 million in Air Force Base Support Equipment for 

competitively procured Civil Engineers Construction, Surveying, and Mapping 

equipment when you develop the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2018. This will upgrade the surveying equipment at RED HORSE and other Air 

Force civil engineering units throughout the country. 

Existing US Air Force civil engineer equipment is over fifteen years old, 

much of which was discontinued over seven years ago. Thus maintenance is cost 

prohibitive and some equipment in the Air Force inventory is no longer being 

maintained or repaired. The age of mission critical hardware components also 

makes them incompatible with existing US Air Force Civil Engineer equipment. 

The US Air Force Civil Engineer School currently trains on modem equipment and 

software not yet fielded. 

The Air Force's Equipment Modernization and Technology Refresh 

program replaces aging and significantly outdated land surveying equipment, 

mapping/ GIS systems and grade control equipment across the Air Force's Base 

Civil Engineer Units, USAF Prime Beef Teams and RED HORSE Squadrons. 

These engineers are currently unable to efficiently perform urgent and often critical 

construction, surveying and mapping in-garrison or in deployed theaters of 

operation due to outdated equipment. This has adversely affected the Air Force's 

civil engineers' readiness and ability to effectively conduct critical missions, and 

their ability to respond to homeland natural disasters. 

An additional $5.0 million is urgently needed in fiscal year 2018 to competitively 

provide commercial off-the-shelf equipment and technologies commonly used in 

U.S. commercial construction and other industries. The benefits to Air Force 

Civil Engineers include: 

• Productivity increases of new survey and mapping equipment: 

• Productivity increases of new grade/position on heavy equipment 

• Improved workflows for US Air Force civil engineer missions 

• Enhanced capabilities between US Air Force Base Civil Engineers, Base 

master planners and RED HORSE Commanders 

• Rapid data collection, analysis and mission decision making 

2 
173

• Comprehensive, integrated and unified Base master plans 

The Air Force estimated needing $6.9 million during fiscal year 2018 for 

Based Procured Equipment, in its fiscal year 2017 President's budget request to 

Congress. This budget line is for organizations throughout the Air Force to 

acquire authorized equipment from the General Services Administration, the 

Defense Logistics Agency, and commercial sources when these items are 

unavailable through Air Force central procurement or exceed the unit cost of what 

may be purchased using O&M funds. 

Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron 

Engineer (RED HORSE) squadrons are the United States Air Force's heavyconstruction units. Their capabilities are similar to those of the U.S. 

Navy Seabees and U.S. Army heavy-construction organizations. RED HORSE 

units are self-sufficient, 404-person mobile squadrons, capable of rapid response 

and independent operations in remote, high-threat environments worldwide. Air 

Force RED HORSE Units possess special capabilities, such as water-well drilling, 

explosive demolition, aircraft arresting system installation, quarry operations, 

concrete mobile operations, material testing, expedient facility erection, and 

concrete and asphalt paving. RED HORSE squadrons provide the Air Force with a 

highly mobile civil engineering response force to support contingency and special 

operations worldwide. 

RED HORSE's major wartime responsibility is to provide a highly mobile, 

rapidly deployable, civil engineering and construction response force that is selfsufficient to perform heavy damage repair required for recovery of critical Air 

Force facilities and utility systems, and aircraft launch and recovery. In addition, it 

accomplishes engineer support for beddown of weapon systems required to initiate 

and sustain operations in an austere bare-base environment, including remote 

hostile locations, or locations in a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and 

high-yield explosives-prone environment. 

Other Air Force Civil Engineering Units also provide heavy-repair capability 

and construction support when requirements exceed normal base civil engineer 

capabilities and where U.S. Army engineer support is not readily available. 

The primary US Air Force Civil Engineering tasking in peacetime is to train 

for contingency and wartime operations. It participates regularly in Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and major command exercises, military operations other than war, and civic 

action programs. These units perform training projects that assist base construction 

efforts while, at the same time, greatly improving readiness while honing wartime 

skills. 

3 
174

The increase to this account will go a long way to rebuilding our military's 

readiness and getting back on track to ensure the Air Force has the advanced 

technology these units need. Thank you again for the opportunity for me to bring 

this important issue to the Subcommittee's attention today. 

4 
175

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. And thank you for your service. And 

you have a great base there at Wright-Pat. It is the oldest air base 

in the United States, I believe. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It is. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is this your 100th anniversary this year? 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It is the 100th anniversary this year. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is right. Because March Air Force Base is on 

the West Coast and we have ours next year or the year after, so 

pretty close. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Very good. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any other questions? 

Next is Mr. Gallagher. 

Welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

WITNESS

HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

colleagues.

As a Marine Corps veteran and a member of the House Armed 

Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I look forward to working with you to fulfill our first and foremost responsibility of keeping the country safe. To do that, we need to be able 

to project power throughout the world, which in turn depends in 

large part on our willingness here in Congress to provide and 

maintain a robust naval fleet as duty dictates according to Article 

I, section 8, clause 13 of the Constitution. Thanks to mindless defense sequestration, however, we have been derelict in that duty. 

And as a result, the Navy is the smallest it has been in 99 years, 

currently satisfying only 40 percent of the demand from regional 

commanders.

But we now have an opportunity to turn all of that around. We 

now have an opportunity to answer the Navy’s own call for a 355 

ship fleet. In support of this effort, it is my honor as a Member of 

Congress to represent the highly skilled American workers who 

build the Freedom class littoral combat ship at Fincantieri 

Marinette Marine in the Eighth District of the great State of Wisconsin.

Every day, 2,200 workers pass through the shipyard’s gates. 

They don their hardhats and they go to work building American 

warships that allow the Navy to conduct critical missions such as 

antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, ISR, and surface 

warfare. The construction of these ships in turn provides much 

needed local high-skill, high-paid jobs for the shipyard and over 

200 contributing subcomponent producers. 

Continuing down the path of sequester or even embarking on a 

decades long development of a new small surface combatant would 

result in the loss of some of the most highly skilled workers in the 
176

world. Reconstituting this workforce would be tremendously difficult if not impossible. It would also do enormous damage to our 

naval capabilities. 

My point here, Mr. Chairman, is not simply parochial. It is simply this: When we talk about big words, like our defense industrial 

base, this is exactly what we are talking about. Behind such buzz 

words lie real people, patriotic Americans who take pride in working hard and giving our warfighters what they need to keep us 

safe. Our shipbuilding program thus lies at the intersection of our 

national security and our economic security. 

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I applaud 

the committee for the inclusion of three LCSs in your fiscal year 

2017 defense appropriations bill. And I ask you to continue your efforts to return to or plus up the Navy’s 52 ship program of record 

in your fiscal year 2018 budget submission. This will be pivotal as 

the Navy transitions its small service combatant from LCS to a 

multimission frigate. The Navy’s small surface combatant task 

force concluded that building a frigate on a modified LCS hull offers the best path to affordably deliver distributed lethality to the 

fleet in a reasonable timeframe. 

At a broader level, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully remind the committee that the 52-ship requirement represents the bare minimum 

needed to meet naval requirements for projection of force. This 52- 

ship requirement was validated by the Chief of Naval Operations 

several months ago in his force structure assessment. The acting 

Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley, has testified that the previous plan to truncate the program to 40 ships was and is a result 

solely of budgetary decisions, in other words not strategic demands 

based on what the Navy actually needs. 

This previous construct recklessly held the defense of our Nation 

hostage to domestic political demands. This previous construct offered us a false choice between posture and presence. And so I 

would submit that we must reject this false and dangerous choice 

and provide the Navy with what it needs to get the job done and 

put this country back on a path to peace through strength. 

And so on behalf of the dedicated workers in northeast Wisconsin, I thank you for your support. Today, those workers will 

walk through the gate of Marinette to build some of the best in our 

Navy, constantly improving their craft every single day to deliver 

a better product for less money, to give our warfighters what they 

need to keep us safe. They are doing their jobs and so we in Congress must do ours. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The written statement of Congressman Gallagher follows:] 
177

Congressman Mike Gallagher (Wl-08) 

Testimony Before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Thursday, March 9, 2017 

Madame Chairwoman and distinguished colleagues, as a Marine Corps veteran, I am keenly 

aware that in order to ensure the Federal government fulfills its first duty of keeping the nation 

safe, military modernization is critical. As a member of the House Armed Services Seapower 

and Projection Forces Subcommittee, ]look forward to working with all of you toward a more 

robust, lethal, and modern military. 

A critical component of our national security is our ability to project strength throughout the 

world with a robust naval t1eet, and I am encouraged by the Navy's call for a 355-ship t1eet in its 

recent Force Structure Assessment. 

In support of this effort, it is my honor as a Member of Congress to represent the highly skilled 

American workers who build the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) at Marinette 

Marine, in my District, in the great State of Wisconsin. 

As you are aware, the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is built in partnership between 

Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM). Marinette Marine was founded in 

1942 along the Menominee River in Marinette, Wisconsin to meet America's growing demand 

for naval construction. As part of a huge private investment project by its parent company, 

FMM has grown from humble beginnings with a contract to build five wooden barges, to a 

world-class shipbuilder who is dedicated to building the Unites States Navy's most affordable, 

t1exible and fastest warship. FMM has indeed brought naval shipbuilding back to the Great 

Lakes to a level not seen since the Emergency Shipbuilding Program of World War II. FMM is 
178

not only one of the largest manufacturers in Wisconsin but is indeed the largest employer in the 

local Marinette, Wisconsin area as well as across the river in Menomonie, Michigan. 

Every day, 2,200 workers pass through the shipyard's gates, don their hard hats, and build 

American warships. That's over 2,000 workers largely residing in two counties with a combined 

population of less than 20,000 individuals. The second order impacts of this yard to the local 

region are staggering, with over 200 suppliers, and contributing more than 7,000 direct and 

indirect jobs to the surrounding area. Marinette Marine also conducts vigorous outreach into 

vocational training through local high schools - spotting talent and growing it - to enable these 

students to move directly into high-skilled jobs after graduation. 

U.S. Navy shipbuilding is tremendously important to the future of Wisconsin and the 

region. Most importantly though, this region is critical to the U.S. Navy, our defense industrial 

base, and our nation. 

The commissioning of the USS Milwaukee on November 21.2015, a Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) built in Marinette, was an especially proud day for the State of Wisconsin, yet it brought 

into sharp relief an ongoing debate about America's role in the world and the true breadth and 

depth of the national security challenges facing our nation. 

For national leaders, a new ship provides another weaponized gray hull capable of deterring 

aggression and protecting America's vital national interests around the globe. Given the 

shrinking size of the fleet-now down to a battle force of less than 300 deployable ships from its 
179

post-World War II average of700-this is not a small task. We can all agree that devastating 

defense cuts have increasingly stretched the Navy to the limits of its readiness just as threats to 

our country are rapidly expanding. 

Construction of the Littoral Combat Ship Freedom variant provides much needed local highskill, high-pay jobs for the shipyard and contributing sub-component producers. LCS 

manufacturers make critical investments in our communities and fund vocational training around 

the Great Lakes. These arc good paying jobs that often don't require college degrees. This is a 

critical aspect of rebuilding the middle class, expanding a modemizcd defense industrial base, 

and potentially sparking an industrial renaissance throughout the Great Lakes region. ln this 

sense, the LCS program is more than just a component of foreign and defense policy--·it is 

integral to our national economic security. 

Yet the future of the LCS program has been in jeopardy. Former Secretary of Defense Ashton 

Carter, a PhD theoretical physicist who has served the country in a series of technical positions 

including a stint as the Undersecretary of Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, issued a 

memo cutting the total number of planned LCS fl·om 52 ships to 40. Citing ''Navy warfighting" 

analysis, Carter directed the Navy to prioritize ''posture" over ·'presence.'' In other words. Carter 

wanted the Navy to build fewer ships, but to equip these ships with more (and highly expensive) 

hi-tech capabilities. 

Ships like the USS Milwaukee and the USS Detroit, which was commissioned in October of 

2016. strengthen the nation on the high seas and here at home. They are needed now more than 
180

ever. In every region of the world threats to the United States and its allies are growing. Nearpeer competitors like Russia and China are increasingly challenging our global leadership and 

the international order it protects, one of free navigation, free trade, and self-determination. Now 

is not the time to shrink the tleet. The nation's interests require at least 350 ships to meet its 

national security needs. and the LCS costs a quarter of what the Navy spends on its larger 

destroyers, allowing the fleet to grow in an effective and balanced manner. 

Fonner Secretary of Defense Carter offered a false choice between posture and presence-and at 

a broader level between w·inning wars and preventing them in the tlrst place-when the reality is 

the Navy and the nation need both. We must reject this choice, and begin the urgent task of 

rebuilding our military and restoring our leadership. 

The FYI8 budget will be pivotal to this etiort as the Navy transitions its small surface combatant 

from LCS to a multi-mission frigate. The preservation of a skilled manufacturing labor force and 

industrial shipyard capacity in Wisconsin will be critical to affordably and quickly rebuilding our 

nation's Navy to the numbers required by the Navy's force structure requirements. 

To date, 26 small surface combatants have been built, or are in construction, at two shipyards in 

order to meet a national security requirement for 52 ships. This 52-ship requirement was 

validated by the Chief of Naval Operations several months ago in his Force Structure 

Assessment. The Navy, including now Acting Secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley, has testified 

that then Secretary of Defense Carter's 2015 plan to truncate the program to 40 ships, was and is, 

a result solely of the budgetary decisions made by the previous Administration. 
181

Some have suggested continuation of this truncation plan, but such an effort would have 

grievous impacts both to our national security and to the defense industrial base. Development 

of a new SSC would take over a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars in design. At the 

shipyard, immediate layoffs of some of the most highly skilled workers would 

occur. Reconstituting this skilled workforce would be tremendously difficult if not impossible, 

expensive to taxpayers, and detrimental to our naval capabilities. 

I agree with the analysis of the Navy's Small Surface Combatant Task Force that came to the 

conclusion that building a frigate on a modified LCS hull offers the best path to affordability 

deliver additional lethality to the fleet in a reasonable time frame. Delivering these ships to the 

Navy is critical to meeting the goal of a 355-ship Navy. 

Madame Chairwoman, I applaud the inclusion of three LCS in your FY17 Defense 

Appropriations bill, and ask you to continue your efforts to return to, or plus up the Navy's 52-

ship program of record by supporting three Littoral Combat Ships/frigates in your FY18 budget 

submission. I respectfully remind the Committee that the 52-ship requirement represents the 

bare minimum needed to meet naval requirements for projection afforce. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today in support of our naval force structure 

requirements, and on behalf of the dedicated workers in Northeast Wisconsin who stand ready to 

build our Navy's future frigate and any small surface combatant to build in support of a robust 

projection posture -now and into the future. Semper Fi. 
182

Mr. CALVERT. And thank you for your testimony. You are absolutely right, the number of ships that we have today is totally inadequate and we need to rebuild our United States Navy. And I believe that we are going to be on the path to do that at this point. 

So, Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Chairman, just briefly. 

Welcome to the United States Congress. Is Eagle River in your 

district or the seventh district? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Seventh. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Seventh district. My mother was born and raised 

there. Sorry about that. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Are you a Packers fan, sir? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am sorry? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Are you a Packers fan, sir? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have to tell you that she ended up moving to 

Lake County, Indiana, and I grew up with the Bears. But actually, 

the—this is another story, we are on the record. I will talk to you 

later.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Packers football is part of our national security 

as well. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Good luck to you. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. We are going to wait a minute. We are waiting on 

Mr. Webster. I think he is coming in here. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Am I next or last? 

Mr. CALVERT. You are next and last. So we appreciate your coming in, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017. 

HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Fantastic. Thank you for letting me be here today. 

I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for having these listening 

sessions. They are good for the peons like me. We really appreciate 

it.

I have two requests. One of them is for the Civil Air Patrol, for 

them to be the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. I would 

request that they would get $43.1 million. That would be a $3.1 

million increase over current funding. That would be for upgrades 

that they are going to have to do based on the FAA. All U.S.-based 

aircraft have to have avionics improvements. They are going to 

have to do the same. They don’t have the money to do that. 

It is about half of that request. A couple other things dealing 

with cybersecurity and communication equipment, which also is a 

requirement they are going to have to do, would be included in that 

request.

And my second would be the Navy has had in the Defense Review, they initially recommended in 2010 that a carrier be based 

in Mayport, in Jacksonville. That has not changed. The Navy secretary, chief of naval operations have repeatedly asked for that to 

take place. At present, our Nation only has one carrier based in the 
183

Eastern Seaboard, at Norfolk. And I would say I would be speaking 

for the entire Florida delegation to say we would like to see that 

take place. 

Both of those requests would be for fiscal year 2018. 

That is it. 

[The written statement of Congressman Webster follows:] 
184

DANIEL WEBSTER 

11THDlSTiltCT,FlORIDA 

COMM!ITEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

COMMIITEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

COMMIITEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

QJ:ongrcss of tbc Wnitcb ,j,tatcs 

Jt,Jousc of .Rcprcscntattbcs 

Wl!:Jallf)ington, Jl([ 20515-0911 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Kay Granger 

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 

H-405 U.S. Capitol 

Dear Chairwoman Granger, 

WASHINGTOI\OFfiC€ 

1210 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFiCE BUILDING 

800 NORTH US HIGHWAY 27 

To properly serve as our nation's Air Force Auxiliary, I respectfully request that 

this Subcommittee provide $43.1 million for the Civil Air Patrol in the FY20 18 

Defense Appropriations bill. 

CAP is in need of funds to comply with FAA mandates and needed technological 

upgrades to their air fleet, such as avionic, cybersecurity and communications 

equipment. These upgrades are necessary to allow CAP to fulfill its congressional 

mandate, performing such roles as: search and rescue, disaster relief, and homeland 

security support. 

I ask the Subcommittee to appropriate a total of$43.1 million to the Civil Air 

Patrol, with $30,8 million going to the Operations and Maintenance Account, 

$10.6 million going for aircraft, and $1.7 million for vehicles. 

Daniel Webster 

~W,W!;:_Q$_l];;£Lt!O.!Ls_t;_,G_Q.Y ! TW!ITER.COM/REPWEBSTER I FACEBOOK.COM/REPWEBSTER 
185

DANIEL WEBSTER 

1l~OISTRICT,f'I..ORO!lA 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

€ongress of tbr 'mnitell gMates 

J!)omie of Jiepre!ientntibe!i 

Wagbington, l!EIIIC 20515--09ll 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Kay Granger 

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 

H-405 U.S. Capitol 

Dear Chairwoman Granger, 

1210 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515 

(2021225-1002 

(202)225-6559(FAX) 

800 NORTH US HIGHWAY 27 

As this Subcommittee considers spending priorities for the FY2018 Defense 

Appropriations bill, I ask that Members consider the strategic posture of our naval 

nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet. The 20 I 0 Quadrennial Defense Review 

initially recommended construction of the proper facilities to house a carrier group 

at Mayport, FL and each subsequent Navy Secretary and Chief of Naval 

Operations has repeatedly validated this decision. At present, our nation has only 

one carrier based on the eastern seaboard, at Norfolk, VA, which presents 

numerous operational limitations and heightens the risk posed to some of our 

nation's most precious assets. 

I respectfully request that the FY20 18 Defense Appropriations bill include the 

necessary funding to bring Mayport up to readiness to homeport a nuclear-powered 

aircraft carrier. 

s~~~ Daniel Webster 

~.WEBSTERHOUSLGOV ! TW!TIER.COM!REPWEBSTER I FACEBOOK.COM/REPWEBSTER 
186

Mr. CALVERT. Well, you are carrying on the tradition of Ander 

Crenshaw, who was always asking for a carrier to be based in Florida. So we will certainly take that into consideration, and we appreciate your testimony. And being a former pilot, I understand the 

importance of the Civil Patrol. So it is a great request. 

Mr. WEBSTER. That is my only two requests. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any questions? 

Thank you for your testimony. 

This concludes the subcommittee’s Members’ Day hearing. We 

appreciate our colleagues’ testimony here today. The subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Written testimony from Congressman Arrington submitted for 

the record follows:] 
187

Testimony 

Of 

Congressman Jodey C. Arrington 

Before 

The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 

House Committee on Appropriations 

Testimony from Members on their National Defense Priorities 

for the FY 2018 Appropriations Bill 

March 9, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

before you today on the national defense priorities of Texas' 19'11 Congressional District. We are 

the proud home of Dyess Air Force Base, located in the City of Abilene. The base has 5,100 

dedicated military and civilian personnel and is under Global Strike Command. Dyess serves as 

the home for the Air Force's 7th Bomb Wing, which has 33 of our Nation's 62 B-1 

bombers. Dyess is the B-1 Training Base and has a B-1 Operational Squadron, a B-1 Training 

Squadron, and a new 8-! Classic Associate Reserve Unit. Dyess's missions also include two 

Active Duty C-130J squadrons with a total of 27 of these new, highly-capable aircraft. 

Since 2001, the B-1 has been playing a major role in Afghanistan and Iraq and, more recently, in 

the fight against ISIS. The B-1 has been able to do this because Congress provided funding in 

prior years that improved the aircraft's capabilities to drop a variety of weapons with increasing 

accuracy. The new Integrated Battle Station is the latest enhancement that will ensure that the B1 will be even more effective in meeting its mission requirements. In recognition of the B-1 's 

overall capabilities, the B-1 was selected, along with the F/A-18 ElF, to be the initial aircraft to 

carry the new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, which is a joint Navy/DARPA project. 

Although we do not have a detailed FY 2018 budget request from the Administration, the Air 

Force has an ongoing program that will continue to improve the B-1 's capabilities. 

Chailwoman and Ranking Member, I appreciate the Subcommittee's longstanding support and 

funding for B-1 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation and B-1 Procurement and I request 

the Subcommittee's continued support for these essential B-1 programs as it considers the FY 

2018 Defense Appropriations Bill. 

I also understand that the Air Force's Unfunded Priorities List includes a service life extension 

program for the B-1 engines. Since the B-1 has a service life beyond 2040, this would seem to be 

a prudent investment to ensure the efficient operation of the aircraft in the years ahead. As the 

Subcommittee considers FY 2018 funding or even an FY 2017 Supplemental Appropriations 

Bill, I request that this important B-1 engine program receive the necessary funding. 
188

In addition to improving the B-1 's capabilities, the Air Force is proceeding with the development 

a new long-range strike aircraft, the B-21 Raider. I appreciate that the Subcommittee has been 

supportive of this important program and request continued support for the funding needed to 

keep the program on track. 

Given the Air Force's goal of having the B-21 become operational in the mid-2020s, I would 

expect that the Air Force will begin to consider basing opportunities in the next several years. I 

would like to note that Dyess has successfully operated as a long-range strike aircraft base since 

it opened in I 956, more than 60 years ago. The base has served as a home for B-47s and B-52s 

and has been the Air Force's main 8- I base for more than 30 years. Importantly, Dyess has been 

the Nation's 8-l training base, is close to training ranges and training routes, and has a new B-1 

Classic Associate Reserve Unit. All of this adds up to Dyess being an exceptional base for the 8-

21 and an outstanding location for B-21 training activities. And in closing, I'd add that Dyess is 

in fact such an exceptional base and community that the Air Mobility Command Community 

Support Award now even bears the community's name, as "The Abilene Trophy." 

I would like to thank you again, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky, for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. 
(189)

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2017. 

UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND 

WITNESS

GENERAL JAMES VOTEL, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. 

This morning the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture 

of the United States Central Command. First, I want to recognize 

the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for a motion. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairwoman, pursuant to the provisions 

of clause D of section 4 of the rules of the committee, I move that 

today’s markup be held in executive session because of the classification of the material to be discussed. 

Ms. GRANGER. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky. 

Our witness this morning is General Joseph Votel, commander of 

United States Central Command. We appreciate so much your 

being with us, what you do, the importance of what you do in a 

very dangerous world and a very dangerous part. So, General, welcome back to the subcommittee, and thank you. 

We understand Central Command is a complex and volatile area 

of responsibility that is filled with instability and turmoil. Right 

now, our forces are fighting pure evil in the form of ISIS in Iraq 

and Syria; As if that isn’t hard enough, they have to deal with Russia and Iran transferring with the fight. However, the war in Iraq 

and Syria is only one of the challenges. Afghanistan faces a resurgent Taliban, the conflict in Yemen is escalating, Egypt is engaged 

in fighting ISIS affiliates in the Sinai, and Al Qaeda continues to 

persist. General, given the challenges your command faces, we 

must ensure you do not lack the support you need to accomplish 

your mission. 

As we watch events unfold, we are concerned by Russian and 

Iranian efforts to spread their influence throughout the region. Additionally, we are equally troubled by the continued presence of violent extremism from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. 

Our adversaries only understand one thing, and that is strength. 

They must know the United States will stand with our allies and 

respond decisively to their aggression. 

As chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions 

should be guided by experts in uniform like you. There are limited 

resources and significant needs. We should not make decisions in 

a vacuum. We will rely on your best military advice. 

We look forward to your testimony and your insight, but first, I 

would like to call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his comments. 
190

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I simply 

want to thank you for holding the hearing, General, for your service, and look forward to the testimony and the questions of my colleagues. Thank you so much. 

Ms. GRANGER. General, please proceed with your testimony. Your 

full written testimony will be placed in the record. Feel free to 

summarize your oral statements so we can leave enough time to 

get to everyone’s questions. Thank you. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL VOTEL

General VOTEL. Thank you. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking 

Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear here 

today to discuss the current posture and state of readiness of the 

United States Central Command. I come before you today on behalf 

of the outstanding men and women of the command, military, civilians, and contractors, along with our coalition partners, representing nearly 60 nations. Our people are the very best in the 

world at what they do, and I could not be more proud of them and 

their families. Without question, they are the strength of the Central Command team. 

[The written statement of General Votel follows:] 
191

STATEMENT Of 

GENERAL JOSEPH L. VOTEL 

COMMANDER 

U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

ON 

THE POSTURE OF U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND 

28 MARCH 2017 
192

Introduction. The outstanding men and women who make up the U.S. Central Command 

(USCENTCOM) Team are the very best in the world at what they do. The incredibly dynamic, 

volatile and tumultuous Central Region presents a complex convergence of compounding multifaceted security challenges. Such an environment generates near continuous crisis action 

planning and response. These conditions demand a highly capable, vigilant capability at 

USCENTCOM Headquarters and our Service Component Headquarters, as well as forward 

throughout our area of responsibility (AOR). The exceptional individuals on the USCENTCOM 

Team expertly navigate this challenging environment. In doing so, they effectively protect and 

promote our Nation's interests and they represent our values wherever they go around the world. 

They work selflessly each day in support of our mission and the exceptional men and women 

serving in harm's way around the globe. We could not be more proud of them and proud of their 

families. They truly are the strength of our USCENTCOM Team. 

The Central Region is a fascinating area of the world. Spanning over four million square miles 

it is populated by 550+ million people from more than 20 ethnic groups representing multiple 

religions and speaking eighteen languages with hundreds of dialects. The region lies at the 

intersection of three continents and important commercial sea lanes, flight corridors, pipelines, 

and overland routes run across it supporting regional and global economic networks. 

It is also a highly-complex area, widely characterized by pervasive instability and conflict. The 

20 nations that make up the Central Region have various forms of government, ranging from 

absolute and constitutional monarchies to theocratic, parliamentary, and presidential republics. 

The economic and social-political landscape is diverse. volatile at times, and rivalries often 

2 
193

create tensions that affect security and stability. Violent extremist organizations (VEOs), such as 

the terrorist organizations al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), exploit 

these conditions to foment unrest, challenge or destabilize governments, and threaten the global 

economy and U.S. national interests. 

The turbulence across the region reflects a number of contributing factors or "drivers of 

instability," including ethnic and sectarian hostilities between Shia and Sunnis, and Arabs and 

Persians; economic uncertainty and sustained low oil prices that severely strain energy-based 

economies across the region, contributing to reduced government services and weakened 

prospects for economic growth; a disproportionately large youth population facing increasing 

poverty and unemployment, which may make them susceptible to unrest, radical ideologies, and 

YEO recruitment; expanding ungoverned or under-governed spaces, exploited by VEOs; civil 

wars. which are ·'engines of instability" all by themselves; worsening humanitarian crises, 

contributing to growing refugee and internally displaced person (IDP) populations; and, 

competition among outside actors, including Russia and China, seeking to promote their interests 

and supplant U.S. influence in the region. While we must take the necessary actions to counter 

immediate threats. such as ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we also need to find ways to address these and 

other root causes of instability if we hope to achieve lasting positive effects in that part of the 

world. This cannot be accomplished solely through military means. The military can help to 

create the necessary conditions; however, there must be concomitant progress in other 

complementary areas (e.g., reconstruction, humanitarian aid, stabilization, political 

reconciliation). There are a variety of interagency programs and efforts underway that are 

3 
194

essential to translating military gains into actual achievement of stated goals and objectives. 

Support for these endeavors is vital to our success. 

The current evolving security environment in the Central Region is further complicated by the 

fact that most challenges transcend borders; they are trans-regional (cutting across multiple 

combatant commands (CCMD)), all-domain (land, sea, air, space, cyberspace), and multifunctional (e.g., conventional, special operations, ballistic missile defense, cyber). Of note, the 

Middle East remains the global epicenter for terrorism and violent Islamist extremism. 

According to the Institute for Economics and Peace's 2016 Global Terrorism Index, the U.S. 

Central Command (USCENTCOM) AOR accounted for 78% of all terrorism incidents 

worldwide, and the turmoil stretches across CCMD seams into Africa, Europe, South Asia, and 

beyond. 

The security environment is further challenged by the emergence of a "virtual caliphate" and 

increased access and activity in the cyber domain. Ready access to the Internet, social media, 

and other messaging platforms has enabled a new generation of extremists to spread their radical 

Islamist views, incite widespread violence, and recruit new followers to their cause. As we have 

seen with the ongoing campaign to defeat ISIS, diminishment of the physical organization does 

not equate to the dismantlement of their virtual presence. To the contrary, terrorist 

organizations' activities in cyberspace enable them to remain relevant despite setbacks on the 

battlefield, while reaching out to direct, enable, and/or inspire audiences well beyond the 

region's geographic borders. Countering the "virtual caliphate" will require a concerted 'whole 

4 
195

of government' effort led by the people of the region. We can support our partners' activities, 

but their voices and influence will be required to achieve enduring positive results. 

We also acknowledge, particularly in the current resource-constrained environment, the need 

to find additional means for countering existing and emerging threats and deterring potential 

adversaries. No other country in the world has a military with a greater ability than the U.S. to 

achieve kinetic and non-kinetic effects and sustain those effects. Through the application of 

"hard" and "soft" power capabilities, including kinetic strikes, raids, and information operations, 

we have been very effective at degrading and disrupting violent extremist networks in the 

USCENTCOM AOR and elsewhere around the world. It is an impmiant and a necessary 

competency. However, a solely military response is not sufficient. We must continue to look for 

ways to further enhance our effectiveness through the application of military and non-military 

activities. Ultimately, we want to increasingly involve other elements of the U.S. Government 

and the International Community, recognizing that it is only through a combination of 

capabilities that we will achieve and sustain our strongest deterrence posture. 

This is especially true today given the changing character of warfare. For much of the past 

I 5+ years our Nation has increasingly operated in the ·'gray zone" of military confrontationthat range of activities short of conventional conflict; a dangerous space in which miscalculation 

can easily occur, leading to escalatory conflict and misunderstanding. In the "gray zone," 

adversaries employ unconventional methods that include cybcr warfare, propaganda, and support 

to proxy elements in an effort to achieve their objectives while minimizing the scope and scale of 

actual fighting. At the same time, these unconventional methods increase tensions between 

5 
196

partners by emphasizing competing priorities that detract from support for our common 

objectives (e.g., Turks and Syrian Kurds). To be successful in this ambiguous environment, we 

must find alternate ways to compete against our adversaries in the "gray zone" short of conflict, 

while collaborating with our partners to achieve our desired end-states. 

We must and will- continue to pursue the many opportunities that exist today throughout the 

Central Region, recognizing that by pursuing these opportunities we will achieve improved 

stability and security in that challenged part of the world. As Sir Winston Churchill wisely 

stated, "Difficulties mastered are opportunities won." The key to success is ensuring that we 

remain ready and capable of effectively countering all threats. We need to make sure that we 

have an accurate understanding of the situation. We must take care to build and cultivate strong 

relationships, here at home and abroad. We need to be responsive to our partners and always 

listen and strive to understand their points of view and priorities. We also need to be properly 

postured with the necessary capabilities, resources, and appropriate authorities to protect and 

promote U.S. and partner nations' interests. 

In recent years, we have been encouraged to see many of our regional partners take a more 

active role in providing for the security of their sovereign spaces. Ultimately, we want to 

empower our partners and allies by helping them build additional capability and capacity 

while strengthening relationships and improving cooperation and interoperability among nations. 

This is and will remain- a top priority for the USCENTCOM Team at our headquarters in 

Tampa, Florida, as well as among our Component Commands, combined/joint task forces, and 

forward in the region. 

6 
197

U.S. Central Command's Mission. ''USCENTCOM directs and enables military operations 

and activities with allies and partners to increase regional security and stability in support of 

enduring U.S. interests. " 

Our Strategic Approach. Our strategic approach is focused on protecting our national interests 

and those of our partners. It is designed to reflect our values, align our behaviors, and support 

the National Military Strategy. It is proactive in nature and endeavors to set in motion tangible 

actions in a purposeful, consistent, and continuous manner. Each aspect of our approachPrepare- Pursue- Prevail- enables the next and collectively contributes to the successful 

achievement of our goals, objectives, and overall mission. 

Prepare the Environment- The volatile nature of the Central Region requires that we be wellpostured to protect our enduring national interests. "Well-postured" means that we are ready to 

execute military tasks; physically and virtually present in the AOR; integrated in all our actions; 

responsive to the needs of our partners; and, able to provide options for our leadership. Proper 

preparation in advance of crises creates decision space for leaders and allows for the responsible 

and effective employment of available resources and forces. Well-prepared and motivated 

personnel with shared values provide a comparative advantage over our adversaries and 

competitors. Preparation of the environment- including agreements for assured access, basing, 

and overflight and the ability to adapt our expeditionary and enduring footprint- ultimately 

ensures a high level of readiness, increased responsiveness, and strong and productive 

relationships with partners and allies, all of which serve to enable our success in our various 

endeavors. 

7 
198

Pursue Opportunities- In a region beset by myriad challenges we must always be on the lookout for opportunities to seize the initiative to support our objectives and goals. Pursuing 

opportunities means that we are proactive we don't wait for problems to be presented; we look 

for ways to get ahead of them. It also means that we have to become comfortable with 

transparency and flat communications- our ability to understand our AOR better than anyone 

else gives us the advantage of knowing where opportunities exist. Pursuing opportunities also 

means we have to take risk- by delegating authority and responsibility to the right level, by 

trusting our partners, and being willing to trust our best instincts in order to move faster than our 

adversaries. 

Prevail in Conflict- There are no easy victories or quick wins in the USCENTCOM AOR 

ours is an area of protracted struggles and conflicts. Our overriding objective, despite these 

challenges, is to prevail. Prevailing means winning; coming out on top of our adversaries. We 

prevail when our national interests and objectives are preserved; when we maintain decision 

space for our leaders; and, when we maintain and sustain our access, posture, and relationships 

with our vital partners. We choose to prevail "by, with, and through" our partners. Prevailing in 

this AOR requires resolve and resiliency- and continued momentum. 

U.S. Central Command Priorities. 

Ensure an Effective Posture- An effective posture with trained and ready forward-stationed 

forces and equipment demonstrates our tremendous capability and enduring commitment to our 

partners and allies in the region. It reassures them; it enables access and influence; and, it 

positions us to secure our enduring national interests. An effective posture also optimizes 

8 
199

freedom of movement, deters state aggressors, and provides decision space and flexible response 

options for national-level decision makers. 

Strengthen Allies and Partnerships- A coalition approach- at home and abroad- expands 

our ability to operate on multiple fronts. Strong relationships based upon shared values create 

greater cohesion and enhance the effectiveness of available resources and capabilities. 

Integration with partners, within the region and beyond, enriches the benefit of our presence, 

mitigates resource constraints, and expands the reach of the force. By building the capacity of 

regional partners, we enable them to assume a larger share of the responsibility for securing their 

sovereign spaces. 

Deter and Counter State Aggressors- Effectively posturing to maintain freedom of 

movement, freedom of action, and freedom of navigation is essential to securing our enduring 

national interests and the interests of our partners and allies. We must also actively counter 

malign influence. and be prepared to confront aggression, while reducing the freedom of action 

of surrogates and proxies operating in the region. 

Disrupt and Counter Violent Extremist Organizations and their Networks- We must 

protect our Homeland from terrorist threats that emanate from the Central Region. We will 

accomplish this by degrading and defeating VEOs and their networks, including ISIS and al 

Qaeda and their associated forces, and by preventing the further spread of sectarian-fueled 

conflict and VEOs. 

9 
200

Ultimately, our goal is to achieve a Central Region where improved security leads to greater 

stability, and where regional cooperation counters actors that threaten U.S. interests. 

Desired End States. Our efforts in support of partners throughout the USCENTCOM AOR are 

designed to achieve our desired end states. These end states include: USCENTCOM properly 

postured to protect U.S. interests; free flow of commerce and access to areas in accordance with 

international law; strong and supportive allies and partners; state aggressors deterred or 

countered; WMD safeguarded and use prevented; VEOs degraded and their influence eroded; 

and, lasting increased regional stability and security. The key to achieving these ends is the 

effective use of available ways and means to address challenges and pursue opportunities in 

the region. 

Challenges and Opportunities in the Central Region. Many conditions exist in the 

strategically-important Central Region that threaten stability, access to the region, and transit via 

maritime chokepoints. The resulting challenges- to include the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and 

Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, rising tensions with Iran, and increased provocative behavior by 

Iranian-backed elements in and around the Bab al Mandeb (BAM) Strait- clearly demand our 

attention and directed etTorts. Among the dynamics contributing to the complexity of the current 

security environment are the same socio-political factors that caused the Arab Awakening, 

fomenting social unrest and creating conditions for sectarianism, violence, and extremism. In 

parts of the region, reforms have fallen short, politics remain exclusive, economic growth 

stagnates, education systems under-deliver, and/or social contracts are falling out of balance. 

Opportunities for youth remain limited. Concurrently, large-scale displaced populations stress 

10 
201

already fragile economies, social welfare systems and security architectures. The resulting 

instability provides opportunities for VEOs and insurgents and those who actively provide 

support and sanctuary to them. Competition for water, oil, and other natural resources are other 

drivers of instability and conflict. Resurgent geopolitics and the continuation of national 

rivalries fuels inter-state hostility and may potentially hasten the pursuit of nuclear 

weapons. As we look to address the multitude of challenges present today across the 

USCENTCOM AOR, it is absolutely essential that we understand the conditions and root causes 

of the instability and turmoil. If not, our efforts are likely to be insufficient or even misdirected 

and any gains achieved, temporary. 

In addition to addressing challenges, we must pursue the many opportunities present today 

throughout the Central Region. Doing so will enable us, working together with our partners, 

to shape the security environment and increase stability across our AOR. Opportunities manifest 

in a variety of ways, including bi-lateral and multi-lateral exercises and training programs, 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance, information 

operations and messaging, and other cooperative endeavors in support of common objectives. 

Most notably, by supporting and enabling partner-led operations we achieve shared goals 

while limiting U.S. investment and troop presence and increasing regional partners' 

capability, confidence, and overall stake in providing for the security of their sovereign 

spaces. For example, we continue to support the Iraqi Security Forces (IS F) and the Syrian 

Democratic Forces in their efforts to counter ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Also, in recent months we 

supported successful United Arab Emirates (UAE)-led operations in Yemen against the a! Qaeda 

affiliate, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In terms of future opportunities, we need 

11 
202

to find ways to increase information sharing with key partners, like the UAE, to further enable 

their efforts. Enhanced information sharing with regional partners can also advance efforts 

against ISIS and other terrorist facilitation networks. We should pursue increasing our support 

for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which have demonstrated tremendous return on 

investment in recent years. The need for improved communication between and among 

elements, particularly regarding common regional disputes (e.g., Sunni-Shia tensions, Kurdish 

expansionism) also presents opportunities and should be pursued by relevant elements of the 

U.S. Government (USG). The key outcomes achieved through the pursuit of these and other 

opportunities present iu the Central Region arc improved awareness and informationsharing, enhanced capability, and increased trust and confidence among partner nations, 

all of which arc key components underpinning our mission in pursuit of our national interests. 

Thus, it is essential that we view all challenges with an eye for corresponding opportunities that 

provide the best means for addressing those challenges and achieving desired end-states. 

Given the trans-regional nature of the current security environment coupled with the competing 

demands for limited resources and capabilities, it is essential that we find efficiencies and 

alternative means for accomplishing stated objectives. This includes building and enabling 

coalitions comprised of willing partners, recognizing that collaboration enhances overall 

capability while providing a stronger, united front against potential adversaries; the sum of the 

parts is greater than the whole. The initial building blocks for strong coalitions are 

relationships. The cornerstone for effective enduring collaboration among coalition 

members is information-sharing which enables coalition compliant planning, resulting in 

successful execution of campaign goals and objectives. One quick-yield way to enhance the 

12 
203

capability and effectiveness of our partners is by expanding our intelligence sharing with them. 

To date, we have seen significant return on investment each time we have made such allowances 

in support of our partners. 

Key Focus Areas. While the USCENTCOM Team manages a broad range of difficult 

challenges on a daily basis, a significant portion of our efforts and resources are necessarily 

focused in five priority areas. These five areas are: Operation INHERENT RESOLVE 

(Iraq and Syria), Operation FREEDOM'S SENTINEL and Resolute Support Mission 

(Afghanistan), Iran, Yemen, and Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism. Below are 

summaries, highlighting substantial challenges and efforts underway aimed at improving 

stability and security in each of these critical areas. 

Operation INHERENT RESOLVE (Iraq and Syria). The Counter-ISIS (C-ISlS) Campaign 

has entered its third year and we are on track with the military plan to defeat the terrorist 

organization in Iraq and Syria. Our "by, with, and through" approach and operational level 

simultaneity strategy are working, and our partner forces continue to build momentum across 

the battlespace as we pressure the enemy on multiple fronts and across all domains. 

Together we are forcing the enemy to deal with multiple simultaneous dilemmas (e.g., 

ground operations, airstrikes, cyber activities, information operations, and discrete interdictions 

of resource flows). This is putting increased pressure on their operations and command and 

control capability while stretching their limited resources. 

13 
204

The strength of the C-IS IS Campaign is the C-ISIS Coalition consisting of all branches of service 

and our Interagency and international partners, and the many contributions they willingly make 

to the fight against our common enemy- "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. " 

Without the support of the Coalition, our "by, with, and through" approach would not be doable. 

Our stand-off fires, including Coalition air and artillery, remain another lynch pin of the CIS IS Campaign. Improved intelligence has enabled the Combined Air Operations Center 

(CAOC) to increase the number of deliberate strikes conducted in recent months, targeting ISIS's 

infrastructure, oil revenue sources, etc. Over the past year, the Coalition's precision effects 

campaign has removed dozens more ISIS senior leaders from the battlefield, attrited large 

portions of the organization's forces, further disrupted its command and control capability, 

and greatly degraded its pool of resources and access to replacements and personnel 

reinforcements. As the campaign progresses, and as ISIS shifts actions and behaves 

increasingly like a terrorist organization, hiding amongst civilians as a force protection measure, 

we will continue to make the necessary adjustments to our air operations. We want to target the 

enemy effectively, while also ensuring that we minimize collateral damage. International law 

requires it; and, when America's sons and daughters go to war, they go with our values. 

Thus, it is imperative that when we conduct operations we do so in such a way that we limit 

the loss of innocent lives. 

Over the past year, ISIS lost a significant amount of capability and large swaths of territory. 

The Iraqis are now in control of eastern Mosul, although clearing operations continue in several 

areas. In Syria, operations are ongoing in three key geographic areas-Raqqa, Manbij, and al 

14 
205

Bab; it remains a very complex fight given multiple simultaneous activities and the management 

of partners and battlefield effects. In Iraq, in the coming weeks and months we will continue to 

support the Iraqi Security Forces as they complete the seizure of western MosuL After Mosul 

operations are complete, we expect the Government of Iraq to prioritize military operations to 

recapture Tal Afar, Sinjar, and Hawija, and to secure the border in order to diminish JSJS' 

freedom of movement and ability to target major population centers. In Syria, the Syrian 

Democratic Forces have almost completed the isolation phase of Raqqa operations and will, in 

the coming months, begin operations to seize Raqqa, dismantling a key node in ISIS' external 

operations network. Additionally, we would look to continue our security operations along the 

Jordanian border to prevent re-in filtration of ISIS remnants. 

The cumulative effect of operations in Iraq and Syria has cut off key lines of communication 

for ISIS, while restricting their ability to bring in additional fighters and curbing their flow of 

financial resources. The terrorist organization is struggling financially and is experiencing low 

morale in its ranks and steady leadership attrition due to coalition airstrikes. There has also been 

a nearly 75 percent decline in ISIS's media and propaganda as compared to a year ago. 

Our efforts, in conjunction with our interagency and international partners' efforts, to stem the 

flow of foreign terrorist fighters both into Syria and Iraq and also those attempting to return 

to their countries of origin continue to bear fruit. The U.S. and Coalition member nations are 

highly concerned about the threat these experienced fighters present to our respective homelands. 

W c have made considerable progress identifying and targeting fighters and insurgent networks, 

principally through our Joint and Interagency targeting processes, and this will remain a priority. 

15 
206

These processes will also help to combat the evolving hybrid threat (conventional and irregular 

warfare). U.S. Special Operations Command has been designated lead for external operations 

(EXOPs) for the U.S. military efforts and this has contributed greatly to organizing the broader 

efforts against this threat. Whole of government efforts and collaboration with partners have 

also played a key role in stemming the flow of foreign terrorist lighters (FTF). Spurred by the 

adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 in September 2014, more than 60 nations have 

enacted laws to restrict FTF travel. The U.S. now collaborates through information-sharing 

agreements with 59 international partners to identify and track travel of suspected terrorists in 

real time. 

While we continue to make great strides towards countering ISIS trans-regionally, we recognize 

that we are dealing with a highly adaptive enemy. In particular, ISIS' usc of chemical 

weapons and its evolving application of available off-the-shelf technologies that include 

unmanned aerial systems now used for both observation and to achieve lethal effects, poses a 

growing threat. For example, ISIS has reportedly used chemicals, including sulfur mustard and 

toxic industrial chemicals, in attacks more than 50 times in Iraq and Syria since 2014. Although 

the threat of chemical weapons has not slowed the Counter-ISIS Campaign, ISIS could further 

develop its chemical weapons capability. We arc committed to working with partners to locate, 

secure, render harmless, eliminate or destroy any chemical and biological weapon materials 

found during the course of operations in Iraq and Syria, and to effectively remove this threat 

from our troops and civilian populations. 

16 
207

We will defeat ISIS militarily; however, a lasting defeat of this enemy will not be achieved 

unless similar progress is made on the political front. Instability all but guarantees a 

resurgence of ISIS or the emergence of other terrorist groups seeking to exploit conditions to 

advance their own aims. We remain fully committed to the ''whole of government" approach 

and continue to ensure our actions are synchronized with and supportive of the efforts of our 

partners across the Interagency and the International Community. 

This also holds true on the humanitarian front. UN-led efforts to date are having positive 

impacts and thousands of internally displaced persons (lOPs) have already returned to their 

homes. However, tough work remains, given the enormity of the humanitarian crises in Iraq 

and Syria and in neighboring countries. The growing number of displaced persons presents a 

unique set of challenges that include protection and assistance to civilians caught in the various 

conflicts, as well as assistance to those seeking asylum in neighboring countries. 

Regional actors- There is a significant number of players currently operating in Iraq and Syria 

with both common and competing interests. While they have been present for many years, 

several of them have become emboldened and have taken a more active role in addressing 

regional issues. 

In Iraq, we have seen encouraging progress made in the relationship between the leadership of 

the Government of Iraq (Go I) ~nd the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). This past 

year, for the first time since 2013, Prime Minister ai-Abadi mel with President Barzani in 

Baghdad to discuss expanded cooperation between the ISF and the Kurdish Peshmerga. We also 

17 
208

see increased collaboration between the ISF and clements of the Popular Mobilization Forces 

(PMF). In November 2016, Iraq's parliament voted to fully legalize elements of the PMF, 

including but not limited to Shia militias. While they are achieving some positive effects, their 

participation does present challenges, particularly post-Mosul offensive, as Iranian-backed 

elements of the PMF seek to increase their influence in the country through both military and 

political channels. 

Turkey remains an important NATO ally and Counter-ISIS Coalition member that 

supports the campaign through its operations and by providing access, basing, and 

overflight permissions. Some Turkish activities and rhetoric, however, have the potential 

to impact campaign momentum. Turkey's actions in northern Iraq continue to strain relations 

between the Go! and the KRG, which serves to further complicate the C-ISIS Campaign. 

Likewise, in Syria, Turkey has helped clear ISIS from its border, but Turkish-backed forces have 

also clashed with the Syrian Democratic Forces near Manbij and al Bab and we continue efforts 

to resolve tensions. 

Since Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict en masse in 2015, they have negatively 

impacted the regional balance of power. Russia's primary goal is to maintain Syria as a client 

state in the future and they have propped up the Assad Regime to support this overarching 

objective. Also very concerning is the fact that Russia's air operations have targeted civilians 

and U.S.-supported opposition groups. Without effective de-confliction measures, we see 

increasing opportunity for miscalculation and potential for unintended, counter-productive 

engagement between nation states. We are not currently coordinating or cooperating with the 

18 
209

Russians; we are simply de-conflicting our air operations. This has become increasingly difficult 

in the crowded airspace as our operations come into closer proximity. In recent months, the 

Russians also introduced a number of new surface-to-air systems which can be employed to 

impact our freedom of maneuver. While our de-confliction efforts have been effective to date, as 

the light expands in northern Syria and the battlespace becomes more congested, we should 

consider enhancing our de-confliction mechanisms with the Russians. 

We continue to see Iranian malign influence across Iraq and Syria. While they currently are 

focused on countering ISIS in Iraq, we remain concerned about Iran's efforts to prop up the 

Syrian regime against the opposition and its desire to exploit Shia population centers to increase 

their malign influence, not just in Syria, but also in Arab states across the region. This supports 

their long-term aspiration to achieve regional hegemony. Moreover, we are watching closely for 

indications and warnings of decreasing Iranian concern regarding the threat posed by ISIS, 

leading to a potential shift to targeting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure in an effoti 

to influence a potential long-term U.S. security presence. Furthermore, we must take care to 

ensure that our actions do not unintentionally strengthen the Iranian position within the region. 

The military campaign plan to defeat ISIS is on track in both Iraq and Syria. The 

coalition's "by, with and through" approach is proving effective. Recognizing that ISIS will 

be defeated militarily, we want to ensure that we have an enduring posture in the region to 

support and enable partners' efforts to preserve security and stability. Iraq remains an 

anchor in the region and we would be wise to continue to support their efforts going forward. 

We have a willing partner in Iraq and Prime Minister ai-Abadi has clearly articulated a desire for 

19 
210

continued U.S. support post-ISIS. We arc working with the Go! to finalize a Five-Year Plan to 

ensure enhanced cooperation. This presents an opportunity to preserve gains achieved to date, 

while strengthening key relationships and countering malign influence in the region. 

Operation FREEDOM'S SENTINEL and Resolute Support Mission (Afghanistan). The 

Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) are beginning their third year with full 

responsibility for security with limited U.S. or coalition support. They continue to take the fight 

to the Tali ban and, despite some territorial losses, have retained control of major population 

areas and key lines of communication. While the Tali ban made gains in 2016, namely in the 

north and south, in most cases, the ANDSF quickly responded to and reversed some of those 

gains over the past year. While the balance of power favors the government, neither side is 

currently able to achieve its stated objectives. Looking ahead, it is essential that we continue to 

assist the ANDSF in addressing their capability gaps, particularly in the areas of aviation, 

casualty evacuation (CASEV A C), personnel management and development, logistics, and 

sustainment. Our sustained force presence, over 8,400 U.S. military personnel, will allow us to 

conduct counter-terrorism operations and meet our requirements for staffing the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO)-Ied Resolute Suppoti (RS) Mission. However, the RS Mission still 

has a shortfall of a few thousand personnel needed to conduct the complementary mission 

of training, advising, and assisting the ANDSF. 

In 2015, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (US FOR-A) worked with the Afghans to develop a 

Sustainable Security Strategy based upon three key tenets: "Fight, Hold, Disrupt." The 

strategy identifies areas the Afghans will hold, areas they will fight to retain, and areas where 

20 
211

they will conduct an economy of force effort and disrupt the enemy if they appear, Afghan 

resources permitting. The ANDSF continues to make progress in implementing this strategy, 

thereby assuming a more proactive stance in addressing multiple threats while securing the 

population and denying terrorist safe havens. As General Nicholson, the commander of the RS 

Mission and US FOR-A stated, "[The Afghans'] ability to deal with simultaneous crises ... is a 

sign of an army that's growing in capability, [and] that's maturing in terms of its ability to handle 

simultaneity and complexity on the battlefield." 

While the ANDSF continues to make progress, they do face a number of significant 

challenges. Poor leadership and corruption arc two key factors that need further improvement 

and President Ashraf Ghani has made addressing these issues a top priority for the Government 

of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). The GlRoA established the Anti-Corruption 

.Justice Center in 2016 with the help of the international community and has already tried, 

convicted, and sentenced senior Afghan officials for corruption. Below are other challenges and 

critical capability gaps must be addressed. 

ANDSF casualty rates- High ANDSF casualties remain a concern. This can be attributed to 

several factors, including poor leadership, corruption, tactics, and training. Deficiencies in 

ANDSF leadership occur primarily because of patronage vice merit-based appointments. The 

extensive use of static checkpoints and the lack of training on how to defend them, as well as a 

more aggressive posture- which has resulted in the ANDSF more frequently taking the lead and 

actively taking the fight to the enemy- have also contributed to an increased number of 

casualties. The ANDSF also experienced an increase in the number of insurgent attacks on 

21 
212

inadequately protected fixed positions, and poor and corrupt leadership also may have 

contributed to higher casualty rates. The ANDSF lacked an operational readiness cycle (ORC) 

to ensure forces are well-rested and well-trained before returning to the fight. During the Winter 

Campaign this year, many ANDSF units successfully established ORCs, and our advisors have 

fostered an increased focus on company-level training and leadership development. 

Afghan Air Force The Afghan Air Force (AAF) and Special Mission Wing (SMW) continue 

to build capability. Their ability to provide airlift, casualty evacuation, and aerial fires has 

steadily improved as the U.S. provides more aircraft to the AAF and as its pilots and crew gain 

additional operational experience. The Afghans are proving effective at integrating their AAF 

aviation assets as evidenced by a number of successful operations conducted over the past year. 

However, significant capability gaps remain. The current rotary wing fleet consisting 

primarily ofthe Russian-made Mi-17 is both undersized and proving to be more expensive 

and difficult to sustain than originally envisioned and is experiencing a higher than 

expected attrition rate. Going forward, transitioning from Russian to U.S. airframes will ensure 

Afghan forces have a more sustainable fleet that is interoperable with U.S. forces and will 

enhance the Afghans' ability to operate independently of coalition forces. The U.S. government 

is considering a critical AAF initiative to replace the unsustainable Russian-manufactured 

aircraft fleet and make up for combat losses in Afghan transport helicopters by providing U.S. 

UH-60s. The DoD-request of$814.5M for FY17 for the first year of our plan to recapitalize the 

Afghan fleet provides funding to procure 53 UH-60s, with refurbishment and modification of the 

first 18; 30 additional armed MD-530F helicopters; 6 additional A-29 attack aircraft; and five 

AC-208s. The requested FY20 17 Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) budget, including the 

22 
213

additional funds for the first year of this proposed aviation initiative, went to Congress on I 0 

Nov 2016. The FY 17 proposal is pending approval and we appreciate your support in reaching 

resolution as soon as possible to mitigate the gaps in Afghan aerial fires and lift 

capabilities. Transition from Mi-17 to UH-60 airframes will eventually eliminate reliance on 

Russian sourced parts for maintenance requirements. With our support, we can expect the AAF 

will continue to build needed capability over the next few years and into the future. 

Influence of external actors- Stability in Afghanistan is further challenged by the malign 

influence of external actors. The enablemcnl of violent extremist groups operating inside of 

Afghanistan and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, receiving sanctuary or support 

from outside governments, is of particular concern. So lnng as these elements remain, they 

will threaten our hard-earned gains and regional stability writ large. 

Pakistan's shared border with Afghanistan remains a safe haven for terrorist and violent 

extremist elements. There are 20 U.S.-designated terrorist organizations present today in 

Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban serves as a facilitator to some of these groups' 

operations. The death ofTaliban Supreme Leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a U.S. strike on 21 

May 2016 had a disruptive impact on the Taliban and gave a psychological boost to the Afghans. 

However, the group still presents a formidable threat to stability in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) sub-region. The convergence of these groups and, in particular, the convergence of the 

Afghan Taliban and its component, the Haqqani Network, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, is of 

particular concern given the direct threat posed to U.S. and Coalition personnel and the Afghan 

government. Key to improving the security environment in Afghanistan is eliminating sanctuary 

23 
214

of militant groups in Pakistan's territory. The U.S. maintains consistent diplomatic pressure on 

Pakistan to take appropriate steps to deny safe haven and work to improve the security of the 

tumultuous Af-Pak border region. 

Illicit narcotics production and trafficking- Illicit narcotics production and trafficking 

continue to flourish in Afghanistan, particularly in areas where state institutions are weak. The 

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimated 2016 Afghanistan poppy cultivation to be 

20 I ,000 hectares with a net opium yield of 4,800 metric tons and a farm gate value of $900M, 

which is a 57 percent increase in revenue generated from the opium trade. In Afghanistan, a 

symbiotic relationship exists between the insurgency and narcotics trafficking where traffickers 

provide weapons, funding, and material support to the insurgency in exchange for protection. 

Additionally, some insurgent commanders traffic drugs to finance operations. However, 

trafficking is not limited to insurgent-controlled areas. The narcotics trade undermines 

governance and rule of law throughout Afghanistan and plays a critical role in underwriting 

corruption and a loss of confidence by the Afghan people in the G IRoA. 

Regionally, USCENTCOM supports law enforcement counterdrug and border security 

training, equipping of regional partners, construction activities, and information sharing 

initiatives to build the capacity of our security force partners that aid in the regional 

response to illicit drugs trafficking. Counterdrug activities are a critical component of 

USCENTCOM's theater security cooperation strategy; provide for regional engagement and 

comprise a significant source of security assistance funding in Central Asia. These efforts 

24 
215

improve regional illicit drug detection and interdiction and improve overall border security for 

the detection of other forms of contraband, including weapons and lED materials. 

Amidst the challenges confronting Afghanistan today are many opportunities. Most notably, 

we have willing partners in the GIRoA and ANDSF and our collaboration in support of 

common objectives continues to pay significant dividends. Following are three areas in 

particular where potential "game-changing" opportunities exist and merit our sustained 

commitment. 

Government of National Unity- The Government of National Unity (GNU) survived several 

political crises in 2016. President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah 

provided the leadership that has enabled progress to be made in a number of areas, as well as the 

development of the framework for enduring partnerships with NATO and the United States. 

Nevertheless, significant challenges still exist and must be addressed. While the NUG provides 

needed structure and a source of stability for Afghanistan, it remains fragile. Although the 

ANDSF has remained apolitical so far, failure of the NUG could threaten ANDSF cohesion and 

the progress achieved throughout the country. Our message to the political elites of Afghanistan 

has been that "we respect your political progress, but please do not allow political tensions to 

undo the hard fought gains you have made." 

The International Community's Demonstrated Commitment to Afghanistan- Thirty-nine 

NATO allies and partner nations committed more than 13,500 troops to sustain the Resolute 

Support Mission beyond 2016. Thirty nations have also pledged more than $800 million 

25 
216

annually to sustain Afghan security forces through 2020. Combined with the requested U.S. 

commitment of $3.5 billion for FY20 17 and additional funding from Afghanistan, a total of more 

than $4.3 billion has been pledged for the ANDSF for 2017. Additionally, seventy-five 

countries and 26 international organizations confirmed their intention in 2016 at the 

Brussels Conference on Afghanistan to provide $15.28 for Afghan development during the 

2017-2020 period. The International Community's strong showing, coupled with the continued 

commitment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016, has bolstered Afghan confidence and 

resolve and will surely pay dividends going forward. 

Counter-terrorism (CT) Platform- The existence of violent extremist groups in Afghanistan 

requires a U.S. presence in the region that can monitor and address threats, even as the United 

States helps to build the Afghans' capability to deter terrorist exploitation of Afghan territory. 

As we adjust the U.S. CT mission, our support to the NATO TAA mission will also evolve in the 

coming year. Currently, advisory efforts are at four of the six corps and police zone levels, in 

addition to the Afghan Special Security Forces (ASSF) and the AAF. In 2017, we will advise all 

six corps and police zones to provide critical support where needed to capitalize on the success 

and continued implementation of the sustainable security strategy. 

Although we see encouraging progress being made in Afghanistan, it remains a very challenging 

environment. While the ANDSF confronts difficulties in a number of areas, they are providing 

for the security of their country, achieving good effects against the Taliban, and building muchneeded capacity and momentum while gaining increasing confidence in what is still a tough 

fight. Additionally, although it does face significant challenges, the GIRoA, under the leadership 

26 
217

of President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, has proven to be a reliable 

and willing partner. The U.S. and our coalition partners have invested greatly in 

Afghanistan over the last IS+ years. The country merits our continued demonstrated 

commitment given our national security interests in the sub-region, namely protection of 

the U.S. Homeland. By strengthening our partners and weakening our enemies we will achieve 

increased stability in that strategically important part ofthe world. 

Iran. Iran poses the most significant threat to the Central Region and to our national 

interests and the interests of our partners and allies. We have not seen any improvement in 

Iran's behavior since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), addressing Iran's 

nuclear program, was finalized in July 2015. Iran aspires to be a regional hegemon and its 

forces and proxies oppose U.S. interests in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria, and seck to 

hinder achievement of U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and some Central Asian States. They also 

are working to subvert the Go! by establishing a long-term presence within Iraq's security forces. 

Of note, Iran exerts influence and a degree of control over the majority of the nearly I 00,000 

Shia militias within the PMF. Furthermore, Iran has expanded cooperation with Russia in 

Syria in ways that threaten U.S. interests in the region. 

The JCPOA removed a key threat posed by Iran for at least a number of years. Unfortunately, 

the agreement has led some to believe that we have largely addressed the Iranian problem set and 

that is not the case. In addition to its nuclear weapons potential, Iran presents several 

credible threats. They have a robust theater ballistic missile program, and we remain concerned 

27 
218

about their cyber and maritime activities, as well as the activities of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary 

Guard Corps- Qods Forces (IRGC-QF) and their network of affiliates. 

Iran implements its strategy primarily within the "gray zone," the space short of conventional 

conflict where miscalculation can easily occur, leading to escalatory conllict and 

misunderstanding. Iran fosters instability by funding and promoting a threat network that 

employs provocation, violence, and covert arms transfers that serve as the stimulants for a range 

of conflicts across the region. It complements this subversive arm with conventional military 

provocation and overt threats to close key maritime sea lanes, especially at critical international 

economic chokepoints, namely the Strait of Hormuz and the BAM Strait, which puts global 

political stability and economic prosperity at risk. 

Recognizing that Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to U.S. interests in the Central 

Region, we must seize opportunities to both reassure our allies and shape Iran's behavior. In 

order to contain Iranian expansion, roll back its malign influence, and blunt its asymmetric 

advantages, we must engage them more effectively in the "gray zone" through means that 

include a strong deterrence posture, targeted counter-messaging activities, and by building 

partner nations' capacity. Through both messaging and actions, we must also be clear in our 

communications and ensure the credibility of U.S. intentions. Iran must believe there will be 

prohibitive consequences if it chooses to continue its malign activities designed to foment 

instability in the region. The U.S. Government should also consider communicating directly 

with Iran's leadership to improve transparency and lessen the potential for miscalculation. 

28 
219

To further strengthen deterrence against Iran, we must also take the necessary proactive 

measures to build the capacity of partners and allies in the region. Ideally we want to improve 

interoperability, expand communication, and enhance security mechanisms. Stronger, more 

capable partners, able and willing to assume a greater role in countering Iran, will serve to 

further enhance deterrence and improve stability in the region. 

In addition to ready military actions, we must support the broader USG strategy with regard to 

Iran which should include new diplomatic initiatives that provide Iran with viable alternatives to 

its present course. While Iran continues to pose the most significant threat to regional security, 

we remain optimistic and believe that by taking proactive measures and reinforcing our resolve 

we can lessen Iran's ability to negatively influence outcomes in the future. 

Yemen. Yemen remains a critically unstable state engrossed in a civil war that has produced 

a significant humanitarian crisis and growing instability ripe for exploitation by YEOs, most 

notably al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the ISIS affiliate, IS-Yemen. The lack of 

a comprehensive peace agreement that leads to a durable resolution of the conflict under a 

unified Yemeni government further contributes to continued uncertainty in the country. 

The civil war between the Republic of Yemen Government (RoYG) and the alliance of Former 

President of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh- and Huthis has entered its third year with little progress 

made towards achieving an enduring resolution despite concerted efforts by the United Nations, 

the broader International Community, and regional stakeholders. While the United States is 

not directly involved in the civil war, we are providing limited assistance to the Kingdom of 

29 
220

Saudi Arabia (KSA)-led coalition in an effort to help protect their territorial integrity and 

sovereign borders. Huthi forces have seized and attacked military border outposts inside KSA 

territory and continue to occupy Saudi lands. Ballistic missile attacks launched from Yemen have 

struck deep into the country causing casualties and potentially threatening the Islamic holy sites 

in Mecca. We will continue to work to resolve the conflict as an ending to the war through a 

comprehensive political agreement provides the surest security of Saudi's Arabia's border and 

territorial integrity, enables us to conduct counter-terrorism operations. allows the population to 

receive food and medicine, and blocks Iranian malign activities. Until the war is over, we will 

assist Saudi Arabia in its efforts to defend against these attacks and restore the territorial integrity 

of their country. 

Our primary focus in Yemen remains protecting the U.S. homeland from threats posed by 

VEOs operating within Yemen's ungoverned spaces, while ensuring freedom of navigation 

and commerce through the southern Red Sea and the Bab al Mandeb (BAM) Strait. AI Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula has indicated clear desire and ability to conduct attacks on the U.S. 

Homeland. Ongoing U.S. unilateral counter-terrorism operations and determined efforts by UAE 

in leading RoYG and Yemeni tribal forces, as demonstrated during the Mukalla offensive in 

April2016, have degraded and disrupted AQAP's operational networks and reduced their access 

to sources of tinancial support. Despite the complexity of the environment, our efforts aimed at 

degrading AQAP remain critical to protecting our national security interests in the region and 

must continue. 

30 
221

In October 2016, the Iranian-supported BAM Maritime Threat Network (BMTN) 

demonstrated the ability to threaten freedom of navigation by successfully attacking a UAE 

vessel and a Saudi warship, and attempting to attack U.S. Navy warships in the southern Red 

Sea. We responded swiftly and decisively, destroying several Huthi coastal defense radar sites. 

While the origin of these attacks is found in the ROYG-Huthi conflict, the threats posed by the 

BMTN to the safe passage of vessels, either through deliberate action or unintentional acts, has 

the potential for significant strategic and economic impacts throughout the region. We continue 

to closely monitor the BMTN and remain prepared to promptly and decisively respond to any 

threats. 

Going forward, our efforts against violent, non-state actors and support for similar efforts by our 

regional partners will remain our primary focus in Yemen. At the same time, we continue to do 

what we can to enable ongoing diplomatic eiTorts aimed at achieving a resolution to the 

hostilities that pose an enduring threat to stability in the country and the region writ large. 

Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism. The Central Region remains the global 

epicenter for terrorism and violent Islamist extremism and the resulting turmoil continues to 

bleed across geographic combatant command "seams." Terrorism and violent extremism 

represent trans-regional threats, where malign actors seek to exploit ungoverned and 

under-governed spaces and vulnerable, disenfranchised populations worldwide. 

One aspect of this threat that makes it particularly challenging is the terrorists' and VEOs' 

ability to operate across multiple domains and in both physical and virtual spaces. Today, 

31 
222

the unprecedented global access achieved through the use of the Internet and various social 

media platforms enables terrorist and violent extremist groups to promulgate their radicalized 

ideologies while reaching a vast pool of potential recruits, many willing to conduct lone wolfstyle attacks on behalf of these groups. Also, as we have seen with ISIS, the ability of violent 

extremist groups to operate effectively in the virtual battlespace, makes them more 

challenging to defeat due to the nature of that domain, As we degrade their physical 

capability, groups often shift focus to the virtual battlespace while their forces consolidate and 

regroup. We must continue to identify attributable and non-attributable methods and techniques 

for combatting groups in the virtual domain. 

We must also find ways to address the drivers of instability that create the conditions that 

allow these groups to flourish. The root causes of instability must be dealt with if we hope to 

achieve a lasting defeat of terrorist and violent extremist groups operating in the USCENTCOM 

AOR. The people of the region must lead this effort; we cannot do it for them. However, 

we can and will continue to support and promote their efforts wherever possible. 

We cannot allow terrorist groups and violent extremist organizations to operate uncontested, 

enabling them to grow stronger and expand their global reach. By working together with our 

Interagency Partners and the International Community, operating from multiple strategic 

platforms around the globe and across all domains, we will reduce the gaps and "seams" 

exploited by these groups and better protect our interests against this common threat. 

32 
223

Our Partner Nations in the Central Region. Below are synopses of the current state of affairs, 

including challenges, opportunities, and status of our military-to-military (mil-to-mil) 

relationships with partner nations, except Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Yemen which were 

addressed in the previous section, "Key Focus Areas" (see pages 13-31 ). 

The Gulf States The Gulf States are among our best partners in the region. The Gulf 

Cooperation Council's (GCC) willingness to provide basing and access for U.S. forces is crucial 

to our ability to operate militarily in the USCENTCOM AOR. The GCC countries provide 

critical nodes for achieving operational objectives and continued success against ISIS. Their 

troops and aircraft continue to play a key role in the ongoing fight against this terrorist 

organization. At leader-level summits in 2015 and 2015, the GCC countries committed to pursue 

collective defense initiatives, including joint counter-terrorism and ballistic missile defense; 

however, progress towards those ends has been relatively slow. Nevertheless, the GCC's desire 

to create a unified military command and more closely coordinated economic policy could create 

opportunities for greater intcroperability between GCC and coalition forces over the medium- to 

long-term. While individual GCC nations' sometimes divergent foreign policies present an 

obstacle to achieving a unified defense posture, we remain committed to helping them achieve 

this desired end state through senior leader engagements, combined exercises, and more 

standardized equipment and training. As agreed upon at the May 2015 Camp David Summit, 

we have increased cooperation on maritime security, military preparedness, arms transfers, 

cybersccurity, counter-terrorism, and logistics intcropcrability. Our total GCC FMS open case 

portfolio is valued at over $150B and continues to help our partners defend their sovereignty and 

economic interests against emerging threats. As Gulf countries look to the United States for 

33 
224

military equipment, training, and assistance, it is essential that we reinforce efforts to include 

them in our joint endeavors to defeat regional threats posed by violent extremism and Iran's 

malign influence. Through our continued support for and collaboration with our GCC partners 

we will positively impact stability and security in the strategically impmtant Central Region. 

Bahrain is an important partner in the region, hosting USCENTCOM's naval component, U.S. 

Navy Central Command (NAY CENT) and U.S. Fifth Fleet Headquarters and Combined 

Maritime Forces in Manama at the Naval Support Activity Bahrain and !sa Air Base, 

respectively. The Bahrainis have actively supported coalition operations against ISIS in Syria 

since the start of the C-lSlS Campaign in September 2014. primarily by allowing us continued 

use and access to these facilities. They also continue to support Saudi-led operations in Yemen. 

We are making strides in our collaborative efforts to enhance the Bahraini Coast Guard's 

capacity, which aim to enable Bahrain to expand its role in countering piracy and violent 

extremism in the region's maritime domain. Internally, the Bahrainis are dealing with a tough 

domestic economic hit by low oil prices and a persistent, !ow-level threat from Iranian-backed 

militant groups, and we continue to provide appropriate assistance to help them address the 

security threat. While we have historically enjoyed a strong mil-to-mil relationship with our 

Bahraini counterparts, the slow progress on key FMS cases, specifically additional F-16 aircraft 

and upgrades to Bahrain's existing F-16 fleet, due to concerns of potential human rights abuses 

in the country, continues to strain our relationship. We continue to urge the Government of 

Bahrain to reverse steps it has taken over the past year to reduce the space for peaceful political 

expression in its Shia population and have encouraged the Bahrainis to implement needed 

34 
225

political reforms in the country while reassuring them of our strong commitment to our valued 

partnership. 

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is undertaking potentially far-reaching economic and 

related reforms under the banner of Vision 2030 and the National Transformation Plan. The goal 

of these measures is to diversify the Saudi economy and generate increased economic growth in 

the wake of low oil prices, as well as expanded opportunities for the nation's burgeoning youth 

population. The Kingdom is a key regional leader, calling upon partner nations to join them in 

addressing regional challenges, including Iranian malign influence. Having actively supported 

the fight against ISIS in the early stages of the campaign, KSA shifted its priority of effort to 

Yemen in 20 IS where it leads the coalition against the Saleh- and Iranian-backed Huthis, who 

continue to pose a threat to Yemen's internal stability, security in KSA's southern border region, 

and the flow of commerce through the Bab a! Mandeb Strait. The Saudis also are concerned 

about the threat posed by VEOs operating in Yemen, including the a! Qaeda affiliate, AQAP, and 

the ISIS affiliate, IS-Y. We arc principally focused on helping KSA to improve its target 

development and accountability processes in order to reduce incidence of civilian casualties, 

while also providing them with focused logistics and intelligence sharing support. Our longstanding partnership with KSA remains critical to maintaining stability in the region given their 

influence in the GCC and among many Muslim-majority countries. Our mil-to-mil relationship 

represents the strongest component of that partnership and continues to serve as the foundation 

for productive collaboration. By continuing to provide opportunities for the Saudis to enhance 

their defense capabilities, mainly through our substantive training and exercise program and 

35 
226

robust FMS valued at $1 09B in open cases, we aim to improve interoperability while effectively 

addressing challenges in pursuit of our shared security goals and objectives, 

Kuwait continues to be one of our strongest allies in the Central Region, Owing to the generous 

provisions of the Defense Cooperation Agreement, the Kuwaitis provide one of the most 

permissive environments in the USCENTCOM AOR with respect to access, basing, and 

overflight in support of U.S. and coalition presence in theater, Kuwait hosts the forward 

headquarters of USCENTCOM's army component, U.S. Army Central Command (ARCENT). 

Kuwait is also the most active combat support logistics hub globally and plays a critical role in 

support of ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Kuwait utilizes its leadership role in 

the GCC to help mediate internal GCC rifts while promoting a regional response to crises. 

Kuwait has also led the GCC in helping to address the regional refugee crisis emanating from 

Syria and been an invaluable partner in supporting the Iraqi government's C-IS IS efforts. Our 

mil-to-mil relationship with the Kuwaitis remains strong. Going forward we will look to pursue 

additional opportunities for joint training and further collaboration in support of common 

objectives. 

The relationship between the United States and Oman remains strong, strengthened by our 

shared interests in the region and expanding access to Omani bases and ports. Oman is 

consistently viewed as a source of stability in the Gulf Region, and its neutral stance has enabled 

it to serve as a key interlocutor, most notably with Yemen and Iran. Of note, in October 2016, 

Oman's leadership facilitated the release of two U.S. citizens held by the Huthis in Sanaa, 

Yemen. Additionally, Oman's strategic location on the Arabian Sea, outside of the Bab cl 

36 
227

Mandeb Strait and the Strait ofHormuz provides USCENTCOM with access to key logistical, 

operational, and contingency capabilities that arc crucial to maintaining open sea lines of 

communication. While Oman does face significant challenges, namely a growing threat from 

VEOs in neighboring Yemen and a declining economy that could potentially impact its youth 

population, the leadership of the country is taking appropriate steps to address these and other 

issues. We enjoy a good relationship with the Omani military and will continue to work closely 

with them in support of shared interests. 

Qatar remains a highly valued partner, providing critical access and basing in support of 

coalition forces and operations being conducted in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the 

Central Region. The country hosts more than 10,000 U.S. and Coalition service members at AIUdeid Air Base. home of USCENTCOM's Forward Headquarters, our air component, U.S. Air 

Forces Central Command (AFCENT), and its Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). 

Qatar's Armed Forces also continue to support external operations in Syria and Yemen. In 

Syria, given their relationships with a wide range of actors, including more moderate elements, 

the Qataris are well-positioned to play an influential role in facilitating a political resolution to 

the conflict. Like most GCC countries, they continue to demand the removal of Bashar al-Assad 

as part of any resolution. Qatar has indicated a strong desire to enhance its partnership with the 

United States, both in terms of training engagements with U.S. forces and procurement of U.S. 

military equipment. Our continued role in their military modernization and development 

presents an invaluable opportunity to help expand their capability while strengthening our mil-tomil relationship with a key and critical partner in the region. 

37 
228

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of our most steadfast and capable partners in the 

USCENTCOM AOR. The Emirates have clearly demonstrated a willingness and ability to take 

an active role in shaping outcomes in the Central Region. The country hosts more than 4,000 

U.S. service members and provides critical support for U.S. operations, goals, and objectives. 

The UAE was among the first countries to join the Counter-ISIS Coalition in 2014. While their 

primary focus has since shifted to support the ongoing KSA-led military campaign in Yemen, 

UAE continues to provide support to several of the C-IS IS Coalition's key lines of effort, 

including counter-messaging, counter-financing, and stemming the flow of foreign fighters. In 

Yemen, the UAE serves as the leading ground element in ongoing operations against the Salehand Iranian-backed Huthis. The Emirates are also supporting our efforts to counter the al Qaeda 

affiliate, AQAP. In April, using local fighters and tribal militias, the Emirates played a critical 

role in liberating Mukalla, driving AQAP clements out ofthc pot1 city and thereby denying them 

a key source of revenue. In conjunction with its military efforts, the UAE is heavily focused on 

providing humanitarian assistance to ease the crisis facing Yemen's population. We value our 

strong relationship with the Emirates and seek to build upon our robust mil-to-mil relationship, 

including by concluding a new Defense Cooperation Agreement that could serve as a foundation 

for expanded, mutually beneficial defense cooperation. We will work to expand our 

collaboration, specifically in the areas of security cooperation and foreign military sales. 

Additionally, we will work with the Emirates to promote their leadership role among partner 

nations in the region. 

The Levant- The Levant represents the epicenter of ethno-scctarian tension and conflict in the 

USCENTCOM AOR. Partner nations in this sub-region continue to struggle with the impacts of 

38 
229

the fight against ISIS, as well as the ongoing civil war in Syria, which is an "engine of 

instability" in and of itself. The persistent conflict and resulting widespread unrest have caused 

an expanding humanitarian crisis with ramifications that reach far beyond the USCENTCOM 

AOR. Stability in the Levant is further complicated by competition for influence therein from 

outside actors, principally Iran and Russia. Many of the challenges present today in the Levant 

originate from or affect neighboring countries and thus are trans-regional in nature and require 

cross-COCOM coordination. We routinely work closely with our colleagues in U.S. European 

Command, U.S. Africa Command, and other USG agencies and organizations to ensure that our 

various efforts are complementary and well-synchronized. 

With its strategic location, control of the Suez Canal, enduring peace treaty with Israel coupled 

with a religious and cultural Pan-Arab influence, Egypt remains a stalwart partner in pursuit of 

shared Middle East policy objectives that include counter-terrorism, counter-violent extremism, 

and improved regional stability. Of particular concern is the threat posed by the ISIS affiliate, 

IS-Sinai which conducts frequent attacks against the Egyptian Armed Forces (EAF) and security 

services. While the EAF has managed to contain violence in the Sinai Peninsula without a 

comprehensive strategy to defeat IS-Sinai, we have a vested interest in helping them to 

effectively address this threat to ensure that the Sinai does not become a safe haven for extremist 

elements, including by providing additional bilateral military and security training. Egypt is 

further challenged by a weak economy and widespread unemployment or under-employment, as 

well as an aggressive approach to countering internal threats which makes its population highly 

susceptible to radicalization by extremist elements. Continued U.S. support to Egypt is crucial to 

our strategic partnership, and our long-standing, resilient mil-to-mil relationship represents a key 

39 
230

pillar of that partnership. Over the past several months, we have expanded our collaboration 

while taking steps to bolster our force protection measures and rebalance the Multinational Force 

Observer (MFO) mission in the Sinai. In the coming months, we will continue to work closely 

with the EAF to further enhance their counter-terrorism capabilities and improve the security of 

their borders through continued engagement and our robust assistance and security cooperation 

programs. 

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is one of our strongest and most reliable partners in the 

Levant sub-region. Jordan provides access, basing, and overflight equal to or greater than that 

provided by any other partner in the USCENTCOM AOR. The Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) 

and the Royal Jordanian Air Force (RJAF) continue to make key contributions in support of the 

Counter-ISIS Campaign. With U.S. and coalition assistance, the JAF have fortified Jordan's 

borders with Iraq and Syria, while enabling the International Community's ongoing efforts to 

address the burgeoning humanitarian crisis manifesting inside of Jordan ( -650,000 refugees) and 

in two camps located along the border in southern Syria (-55,000-65,000 lOPs). It is imperative 

that we remain actively engaged with our Jordanian partners. Jordan provides a much-needed 

moderate Islamic voice in the region and is a trusted intermediary in efforts to advance progress 

between the Israelis and Palestinians. Our strong mil-to-mil relationship and continued 

demonstrated support for the Government of Jordan, the JAF, and the R.JAF remains critical to 

ensuring that Jordan is able to effectively manage the broad range of challenges facing the 

country and the region now and in the future. 

40 
231

Lebanon remains a key partner in our efforts to counter violent extremism in the Central Region, 

and their ground forces offer one of the greatest returns on investment in the region. They are 

routinely countering groups that include ISIS and AI Nusra Front, denying them freedom of 

movement, and strengthening the country's border defenses with our continued support. U.S. 

security assistance to Lebanon has enhanced the Lebanese Armed Forces' (LAF) ability to 

counter malign influences and terrorist elements operating within the country. A strong and 

capable LAF acts as a counterweight to the militant arm of Lebanese Hezbollah (LH), while 

diminishing LH's claim as the sole "resistance" in Lebanon. While LH has been preoccupied 

with its involvement in the fight in Syria in support of the Assad Regime, the LAF has gained 

increasing credibility among the Lebanese populace as the most respected institution in the 

country. On 31 October 2016, the Lebanese parliament ended the over two-year presidential 

vacancy with the appointment of President Michel Aoun, a Maronite Christian and leader of the 

Free Patriotic Movement Party. While this positive development ended political gridlock and 

restored government functions, significant challenges remain, exacerbated by the civil war in 

neighboring Syria. Of particular concern are the approximately I+ million Syrian refugees in 

Lebanon. This population presents political, economic, and security challenges to Prime 

Minister Hariri and his newly formed government. In addition to straining national resources, 

the Syrian refugee population is mostly Sunni and thus could threaten the fragile sectarian 

balance of power in the country. The humanitarian burden facing Lebanon will require 

significant international assistance to bolster limited local resources. Our continued support for 

this valued partner is both merited and has proven to pay tremendous dividends as the LAF has 

routinely demonstrated the ability to make best use of U.S. assistance to increase its capability 

and capacity and bring about positive, measurable results. 

41 
232

Central and South Asia- Our primary interests in the Central and South Asia (CASA) subregion arc to prevent the establishment of terrorist safe havens, assure continued U.S. access, and 

support the sovereignty and independence of partner nations. Our engagement strategy is 

focused on these three interests and strengthening our bilateral relationships with the seven 

partner nations. We also encourage multi-lateral cooperation amongst these same seven nations, 

and our annual CASA Chiefs of Defense Conference serves as a mechanism for facilitating 

expanded dialogue and increased cooperation. This past year, we also held the highly successful 

inaugural CASA Directors of Military Intelligence Conference. The increased participation and 

elevated levels of mil-to-mil discussions clearly convey increased appetite for further U.S.-Ied 

engagement. 

Despite increasing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian pressure designed to limit U.S. influence in the 

sub-region, the U.S. maintains its regional position by focusing on security cooperation areas 

where we have a comparative advantage such as counter-terrorism, border security, defense 

institution building, and professional development. Several CASA governments support transit 

of supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the Northern Distribution Network. We 

anticipate a continued need for these access routes. In this regard, our CASA partners have been 

and continue to be strong partners in our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Other areas of shared 

interest include countering violent extremism and counter-narcotics. Our training and exercise 

programs in the CASA sub-region clearly demonstrate our strong commitment to addressing 

these and other common challenges. For example, Exercise STEPPE EAGLE, traditionally a 

trilateral exercise with the U.S., U.K., and Kazakhstan, has become more regional in scope with 

Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic also now taking part. Additionally, we are increasing 

42 
233

multilateral collaboration with our CASA-wide annual USCENTCOM Exercise REGIONAL 

COOPERATION. 

We share two primary concerns with our CASA partners regarding stability and security in the 

region: I) persistent worries about the long-term stability and viability of Afghanistan and 2) the 

threat posed by returning foreign fighters. The United States and NATO's continued 

commitment to the ongoing Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan is helping to assuage these 

concerns, primarily by bolstering the Afghan security forces' ability to defend their security 

interests. At the same time, we continue to pursue opportunities that would allow for increased 

information sharing, improved border security, and enhanced training and multi-lateral 

collaboration to support our shared interests. 

While our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to require significant investment, 

elsewhere in the CASA sub-region we have clearly demonstrated the ability to achieve good 

effects with modest investments in terms of building partner nations' capabilities, improving 

multi-lateral cooperation, and addressing common security threats. Going forward, we intend to 

strengthen relationships and build on previous accomplishments while working together with our 

Interagency Partners to explore and pursue new opportunities in this strategically important part 

of the world. 

The U.S.-Kazakhstan relationship is our most advanced military relationship in Central Asia. 

We are making notable progress as the Kazakhstani Ministry of Defense continues to focus on 

institutional reform of its NCO corps, training management, human resources administration, and 

43 
234

professional military education system. This progress continues despite enduring Russian 

influence and a Kazakhstani economy that is still recovering from the recent downturn in oil and 

gas prices. Kazakhstan remains the most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability, 

donating money to the ANA Trust Fund, continuing to provide educational opportunities to 

Afghans, and offering technical support services. Kazakhstan is also moving closer to a United 

Nations peace-keeping operations deployment with a unit that has been trained with U.S. 

assistance. Looking at future opportunities to strengthen our partnership, Kazakhstan has 

expressed interest in working with the U.S. to improve its logistical, medical, and engineering 

military branches. Kazakhstan also partnered with the Arizona National Guard through our State 

Partnership program, providing us the ability to assist in this effort. 

The Kyrgyz Republic, Central Asia's sole democracy, faces a number of challenges including 

economic and border security issues. The Kyrgyz Republic sees political pressure from its 

larger, more powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the 

capital, Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we 

continue to seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship. After a lengthy period of 

time during which few bilateral activities occurred, the Kyrgyz military may be increasingly 

receptive to higher level military engagements and expanded cooperation in the areas of border 

security, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and countering violent extremism. Furthermore, 

we continue to assist the Kyrgyz in building a deployable peace-keeping (PK) hospital capability 

that should be ready to support United Nations PK operations in the near future. Looking ahead, 

we intend to pursue opportunities for increased cooperation while taking steps to strengthen our 

relationships with the Kyrgyz. 

44 
235

Pakistan remains a critical partner in the counter-terrorism fight. Twenty U.S-designated 

terrorist organizations operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan sub-region; seven of the 20 

organizations are in Pakistan. So long as these groups maintain safe haven inside of Pakistan 

they will threaten long-term stability in Afghanistan. Of particular concern to us is the Haqqani 

Network (HQN) which poses the greatest threat to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan. To 

date, the Pakistan military and security services have not taken lasting actions against HQN. We 

have consistently called upon the Pakistanis to take the necessary actions to deny terrorists safe 

haven and improve security in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (F ATA) along the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. We have seen some promising coordination between the 

Pakistan and Afghanistan militaries aimed at addressing instability in the Afghanistan-Pakistan 

border region. The Pakistan military in particular continues to conduct counter-terrorism and 

counter-insurgency operations in the FAT A and facilitate, via ground and air lines of 

communication, the sustainment of coalition operations in Afghanistan. 

This past year we became increasingly concerned about the growing threat posed by the ISIS 

affiliate, Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K). Although their operational capacity has diminished as a 

result of U.S., Afghanistan, and Pakistan military operations, we remain focused on defeating the 

group in both countries. Of note, we were encouraged to see the Pakistani military plan and 

execute a recent named operation in which they set up simultaneous multiple blocking positions 

along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in order to reinforce ANDSF efforts to disrupt IS-K 

activities. 

45 
236

We also continue to see ongoing tensions between Pakistan and neighboring India. India remains 

concerned about the lack of action against India-focused militants based in Pakistan and even 

responded militarily to terrorist attacks in India-held territory earlier this year. We assess that 

these types of attacks and the potential reactions, increase the likelihood for miscalculation by 

both countries. Furthermore, India's public policy to "diplomatically isolate" Pakistan hinders 

any prospects for improved relations. This is especially troubling as a significant conventional 

conflict between Pakistan and India could escalate into a nuclear exchange, given that both arc 

nuclear powers. Additionally, Pakistan's increased focus on its eastern border detracts from its 

efforts to secure the western border with Afghanistan from incursion by Tali ban and al-Qaida 

fighters. Security along the western border will nevertheless remain a priority for Islamabad, as 

the Pakistani military seeks to expand border control and improve paramilitary security. 

While there arc challenges with respect to the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, we have endeavored to 

maintain a substantial level of engagement with our Pakistani military counterparts. We 

continue to execute a robust joint exercise program. Most recently, the Pakistani Air Force sent 

airmen and aircraft to participate in Exercise RED FLAG and GREEN FLAG at Nellis Air Force 

Base in Nevada this past summer. The Pakistani military also continues to support our efforts 

elsewhere in the region; most notably, the Pakistani Navy is the most consistent and 

longstanding participant, second only to the United States, in Combined Task Force (CTF)-150 

(counter-terrorism operations) and CTF -151 (counter-piracy operations) led by lJ .S. Naval 

Forces Central (USNAVCENT). Our relationship with Pakistan remains a very important one. 

We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Pakistani military leadership, to include 

46 
237

the new Chief of the Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, in the days ahead as we work 

together in pursuit of shared interests. 

Our mil-to-mil relationship with Tajikistan is deepening despite Moscow's enduring ties and the 

presence of the 201st Military Base near Tajikistan's capital of Dushanbe, Russia's largest 

military base outside of its borders. China has also initiated a much stronger military 

cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted 

approach to security cooperation. Tajikistan's long border with Afghanistan remains the nation's 

top concern, as the Tali ban intermittently fights for control of Afghanistan's Kunduz province, 

which is less than 160 miles from Dushanbe. These border concerns remain a focus area for U.S. 

security cooperation as we continue to develop the Tajiks' capacity to address violent extremism, 

terrorism, and narco-trafficking; enhance border security; and, confront other trans-regional 

threats. 

Turkmenistan's UN-recognized policy of''positive neutrality" presents a challenge with respect 

to U.S. engagement. Our efforts to date have focused primarily on training, including in the 

areas of counter-narcotics and medical services. Due to Turkmenistan's shared border with 

Afghanistan, the Turkmen remain concerned about the continuing instability in Afghanistan and, 

separately, the potential for the return of foreign fighters. We arc encouraged somewhat by 

Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement with the U.S. within the 

limits of their "positive neutrality" policy. 

47 
238

We are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of Uzbekistan's improved relations with its 

neighbors in the region following the first presidential succession in the nation's 25-year history. 

This is a promising development given Uzbekistan's central and strategic geographic location, in 

the heart of Central Asia and bordering Afghanistan. President Mirziyoyev has reaffirmed the 

country's unwillingness to allow other nations to establish military bases in Uzbekistan, its 

restriction against aligning with foreign military or political blocs, and its self-imposed 

restriction against any type of expeditionary military operations. Despite these limitations, our 

bilateral mil-to-mil efforts are focused on helping the Uzbeks improve border security, enhance 

their counter-narcotic and counter-terrorism capabilities, and prevent the return of foreign 

fighters into the country, which are shared U.S. interests in the region. We remain committed to 

these security assistance efforts. We also are helping the Uzbek military, which is the largest 

military in Central Asia, to professionalize its forces through advisory support and assistance to 

its professional military institutions. 

Required Programs, Capabilities and Resources. The security environment in the Central 

Region remains complex and highly volatile. To ensure we are able to effectively achieve our 

mandate to protect our national interests, we must be properly postured with the necessary 

capabilities and resources to pursue opportunities in support of our goals and objectives, and to 

prevail in our various endeavors throughout USCENTCOM's 20-country area of responsibility. 

Below are the programs, capabilities, and resources most critical to our success. 

Building Partner Capacity. Building Partner Capacity (BPC) is essential to achieving our 

objectives in the Central Region. To improve stability in the USCENTCOM AOR and mitigate 

48 
239

the need for costly U.S. military intervention, we must be forward-leaning and empower our 

partners to meet internal security challenges and work collectively to counter common threats. 

BPC is a lower-cost alternative to U.S. boots on the ground, has longer-term sustainability, and is 

necessary for interoperable, combined coalition operations. As such it represents a high return 

investment in the future of the Central Region. By building capacity and enabling partners to 

assume a larger role in providing for tbe stability and security of their sovereign spaces, we 

will enhance regional stability while still maintaining our critical access and influence in 

the region. Other tangible by-products achieved through our BPC efforts include enhanced 

interoperability, improved security for forward deployed forces and diplomatic sites, continued 

access and influence, and more professional regional militaries comprised of forces learning the 

importance of rule of law and compliance with human rights norms. Continued support of key 

partners engaged in the ongoing military campaign to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria is 

particularly important. As important as long-term regional stability is BPC's focus on the 

threat environment and shaping the region is critical to better prepare and deter and counter state 

and non-state aggression. Our key partners' ability to procure U.S. weapons and equipment and 

increase interoperability with U.S. and coalition forces is critical to our success. Any reduction 

of U.S. assistance risks undermining our allies and creating a security vacuum for exploitation by 

state and non-state actors with counter-U.S. or violent intentions. 

Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales. For decades, U.S. security assistance 

provided to countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Y cmen, Kuwait and Egypt, has helped 

create lasting partnerships and improve regional stability. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) 

assistance and the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program enable countries to meet their defense 

49 
240

needs, while also promoting U.S. national security interests by strengthening coalitions and 

enhancing interoperability between and among U.S. and coalition forces. When we provide 

defense systems through U.S. security assistance, we are not just providing our partners 

with capabilities, we are committing to a long-term relationship that includes sustainment 

of those capabilities. The complex and technical nature of advanced defense systems often 

require continuous collaboration between countries. This may include training and support in the 

use of the equipment, maintenance assistance, and, in some cases, continuing help to update and 

modernize the equipment throughout its life-cycle. 

Nevertheless, we must better anticipate our partners' requirements and find ways to 

improve our FMF and FMS programs' processes to better meet demand in today's highpaced global security environment. Delays in procurement and delivery can, over time, 

jeopardize relationships with buyer nations and the potential for future FMS and FMF 

transactions. It is imperative that we make the FMF and FMS processes more responsive to 

partner needs. 

In recent years we have seen an increase in restrictions placed on assistance provided to partner 

nations, limiting their ability to acquire U.S. equipment based on human rights and/or political 

oppression of minority groups. While these are significant challenges that must be addressed, 

the use ofFMF and FMS as a mechanism to achieve changes in behavior bas questionable 

effectiveness and can have unintended consequences. We need to carefully balance these 

concerns against our desired outcomes for U.S. security assistance programs - both DoD and 

State-funded- to build and shape partner nations' capability, interopcrability, and self-reliance in 

50 
241

support of broader U.S. foreign policy. We should avoid using the programs as a lever of 

influence or denial to our own detriment. 

USCENTCOM Exercise and Training Program. The USCENTCOM Exercise Engagement 

Training Transformation (CE2T2) program enhances U.S. capability to support contingency 

operations while improving readiness and maintaining presence and access to the region. At the 

same time, the program indirectly increases partner nations' operational capability; demonstrates 

mutual commitment to regional security; ensures an effective coalition posture; strengthens 

relationships; and, improves combined command, control, and communications interoperability 

(C31). More importantly, in light of the fact that today's conflicts are increasingly trans-regional, 

all-domain, and multi-functional in nature, bi-lateral and multi-lateral exercises support the unity 

of effort requirement for coalition operations. 

The USCENTCOM CE2T2 program continues to grow in complexity and relevance with 

expanded participation throughout the USCENTCOM AOR during FY2016 and into FY2017. 

Last year, the command conducted 45 USCENTCOM- and/or Component-sponsored 

bilateral and multi-lateral exercises with 41 partner nations and spanning seven 

Geographic and Functional Commands. These exercises shape the perceptions of key 

audiences in the USCENTCOM AOR to support U.S. strategic goals of reassuring partners and 

deterring aggressive and malign behavior. Exercise objectives and outcomes include 

maintaining key relationships while demonstrating multilateral, as well as unilateral, 

capabilities. They also enable increased cooperation and interoperability with our partners and 

51 
242

help to reinforce a strong military posture in the region. This helps counter any false perception 

of the U.S. "abandoning" the region. 

Continued, robust, and reliable funding is necessary to fully support exercises as planned. For 

example, insufficient resourcing of component requirements can result in curtailment or even 

cancellation of efforts like Exercise EAGER LION, an annual multi-lateral training event in 

Jordan. This sub-optimization of the USCENTCOM exercise and training program ultimately 

will affect U.S. Joint and Combined Force readiness and create a perceived lack of commitment 

to our coalition partners. Combined with RPC, FMS, and FMF, the USCENTCOM CE2T2 

program also actively promotes and supports regional stability through increased partner action 

and capability. These engagements not only build interoperability at the highest levels of 

command, but the benefits derived at the lowest, tactical levels of command and logistics 

manifest in long-term professional and personal relationships among participating country staffs. 

Information Operations. Information Operations (10) will continue to serve as a key element 

in shaping the environment to reduce or avoid conflict and as a force multiplier in the 

infonnation space during and after major combat and counter-insurgency operations. We have 

an enduring responsibility to employ 10 to counter trans-regional threats. By utilizing IO 

as a comprehensive, long-term capability to degrade VEOs' effectiveness and counter statesponsored destabilizing activities across the USCENTCOM AOR, the USG helps to improve 

regional stability while reducing the requirement for deployed U.S. forces. The Department of 

Defense (DoD), in concert with other USG agencies, has developed several 10 campaigns, 

leveraging the latest technologies, which operate in the information domain. These campaigns 

52 
243

include counter-propaganda messaging in print media, radio, television, short message service, 

Internet, and social media, and take a proactive approach to coordinating these activities with the 

country teams and embassies in our AOR. The nature and scope of threats prevalent today in the 

USCENTCOM AOR necessitates a robust response, and 10 is a cost-effective application of 

DoD resources to deter aggression, counter destabilizing behavior, and decrease the 

potential for kinetic operations in order to protect USG and partner nation interests in the 

Central Region. 

Cyberspace Operations. USCENTCOM cyberspace operations are built on the foundation of 

cyber readiness and include both Department of Defense lnformation Network (DOD IN) 

Operations and command-centric Defensive Cyberspace Operations. Our top cyberspace 

priority is mission assurance; the goal is to preserve freedom of maneuver in cyberspace to 

assure access to both U.S. and foreign assets critical to military operations. Efforts include, 

but are not limited to, helping to set priorities and contributing to the desired end-state of 

denying adversaries the ability to operate on our networks and impact our missions. We 

recognize the importance of maintaining a holistic approach to this evolving capability that 

emphasizes the need for a synchronized effort across the whole of government. While the full 

and proper implementation of all available USG/DoD technical defenses plays a vital role, the 

human element is the most important factor to protect and defend from malicious cyber activity. 

Looking ahead, USCENTCOM will continue to adapt our network defenses to detect, deter, and 

better react to known or anticipated threats. 

53 
244

Anti-Access Area Denial. Potential adversaries are actively investing in competitive responses 

that include anti-access/area denial (A2AD) systems to minimize U.S. influence and 

abilities. Adversaries are also pursuing "layered defenses" to directly challenge U.S. diplomacy 

and presence. An enemy may use combinations of kinetic (e.g., ballistic/cruise missiles, 

moored/floating mines, small boat swarms, submarines, aircraft, drones, irregular warfare using 

proxies, terrorism, WMD) and non-kinetic (e.g., GPS jamming, spoofing, cyber hacking, EMP, 

underground facilities, dispersal/camouflage of weapons/assets, shielding from aerial/satellite 

surveillance, decoys) capabilities to inhibit projection of force and/or precision strikes. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Assets. USCENTCOM holds daily requirements 

for over 2,800 hours of full-motion video, thousands of still images, thousands of hours of signal 

intelligence, and other key intelligence collection sources. These requirements do not reside 

only in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, but span the entirety of the USCENTCOM AOR It 

is the layering, synchronization, and prioritization of national, theater, and tactical ISR 

capabilities that enable USCENTCOM force protection of transition, stability, and combat 

forces. This critical capability also performs several key functions including: battlespace 

awareness for partner and U.S. operational commanders, as well as indications and warning to 

guard against strategic threats and miscalculation; identification of fixed ground networks and 

facilities; location and tracking of adversary operational elements and units; mapping and 

development of adversary command and control; interdictions of facilitation entities, suppliers, 

and supply routes; and, characterization and targeting of funding centers and other support 

nodes. Our greatest difficulties in this fight remain in the development of enemy networks, 

groups, cells, and nodes that fight from within the populace. There are critical airborne ISR 

54 
245

functions that must be present to map this unconventional threat. In priority order they are: I) 

full-motion video, 2) signals intelligence, and 3) gcospatial intelligence. USCENTCOM's 

requirements consistently outpace theater airborne ISR capacity and capability and the 

demand will continue to grow. We are able to address some of the shortfall through crossCCMD and partner-nation coordination and capacity development. We also need to explore 

innovative ways to develop capabilities for persistent ISR through experimentation and 

technology maturation and demonstration projects. Additionally, we need to address the 

shortfalls associated with processing, exploitation, and dissemination of collected 

intelligence. For the foreseeable future, in the absence of additional much-needed ISR assets, 

maintaining operational awareness on threats, risks, regional stability, and humanitarian crises 

will require constant attention, creative application of ISR, hard choices on the prioritization of 

resources, and the determination of acceptable risk to mission and forces. 

Precision Munitions. Highly accurate munitions are vital components of our kinetic strike and 

integrated air and missile defense capabilities, to dominate and counter our adversaries' 

increasingly sophisticated networks of coastal and air defenses coupled with precision ballistic 

missiles. Missile interceptors, air- and sea-launched cruise missiles, precision air-to-ground and 

air-to-air missiles, and long-range precision ground-to-ground missiles work in concert to 

counter the growing threats we face today. We appreciate Congress' continued support for 

the procurement/replenishment, development, and forward positioning of precision and 

specific purpose munitions that are critical to the way we currently fight- in urban areas, 

with very specific rules of engagement designed to protect civilians and limit damage to 

infrastructure. \ 

55 
246

Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS). The enemy Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) 

threat and employment in the USCENTCOM AOR is rapidly evolving. Numerous non-state 

actors including ISIS, al Qaida, Taliban, Lebanese Hczbollah, and Fatah al-Sham are using both 

commercial-off-the-shelf and military drones to conduct operations against U.S. and coalition 

forces. This threat has evolved from reconnaissance and surveillance missions to weaponized 

drone attacks resulting in battlefield casualties. State actors continue to increase the 

sophistication of their UAS with all countries in the USCENTCOM AOR utilizing various 

classes of UAS for operations. Given the evolving threat, the need for an effective CounterVAS capability that can defeat all classes of VAS remains a top priority. To address this 

problem. USCENTCOM is working with various Defense agencies and Industry through the 

Joint Urgent Operational Need (.JUON) process to develop and acquire an effective system to 

employ against UAS. The ability to rapidly respond to this emerging threat is critical to mission 

success and requires increased funding to promote innovative solutions with expedited testing 

and rapid acquisition. 

Joint and Interagency Partners. To ensure success in the pursuit of shared goals and 

objectives, our .Joint and Interagency Partners must also be properly postured with the necessary 

capabilities and resources. Below are two key partners that play a significant role in support of 

USCENTCOM's mission and merit continued Congressional backing. 

Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (JIDO)- JIDO, an element of the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency, is an invaluable organization that is even more important as we 

fight by, with and through our partners with fewer resources, but more exposed U.S. 

56 
247

personnel and equipment in the fight. Their ability to rapidly respond to emerging threats is 

essential to enabling our efforts to counter improvised threats (e.g., counter-facilitation, countertunneling, counter-UAS) and build partner capacity in support of our deployed warfighters. The 

expert JIDO personnel embedded within our formations at USCENTCOM's headquarters in 

Tampa, forward deployed, and across the globe, provide mission-critical analytical, planning, 

and rapid acquisition support. Having this invaluable joint organization that can expose the 

broader counter-lED network, identify future disruptive threats, stay in front of technological 

changes, and integrate our efforts across the Interagency to rapidly implement solutions is 

essential to our ability to protect our forces, defeat threat networks and build partner national 

capacity. 

Global Engagement Center- The best way to defeat an idea is to present a better, more 

appealing idea to vulnerable and undecided audiences. The State Department's Global 

Engagement Center (GEC) effectively coordinates, integrates, and synchronizes messaging 

to foreign audiences designed to undermine the disinformation espoused by violent 

extremist groups, including ISIS and al Qaeda, while offering positive alternatives. The Center 

is focused on empowering and enabling partners, governmental and non-governmental, who are 

able to speak out against these groups and provide an alternative to ISIS's nihilist vision. To that 

end, the Center offers services ranging from planning thematic social media campaigns to 

providing factual information that counters disinformation to building capacity for third parties 

to effectively utilize social media to research and evaluation. 

57 
248

Required Authorities and Appropriations. Fluid environments require flexible authorities 

with sustained and timely funding to respond to changes in conditions and maintain momentum 

of operational forces. We sincerely appreciate Congress' continued support for key 

authorities and appropriations needed for current and future operations and response to 

unforeseen contingencies. The required authorities and resources listed below enable 

USCENTCOM to accomplish its mission and stated objectives in support of U.S. national 

interests and the interests of our partners in the Central Region. 

Iraq Train & Equip Fund (ITEF). Iraq's ability to defeat ISIS requires professionalizing and 

building the capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces (!SF), including military or other security 

forces associated with the Government of Iraq, such as Kurdish and tribal security forces or other 

local forces with a national security mission. Most notably, the ongoing Coalition Military 

Campaign to defeat ISIS relies on indigenous Iraqi Security Forces to conduct ground operations 

against the enemy and liberate ISIS controlled territory. They have risen to the task and are 

making progress in this ongoing endeavor. While the initial training and equipping of the !SF 

focused heavily on developing Iraqi Army (lA) Brigades to conduct offensive operations, future 

efforts will shift to sustainment of combat capability and hold forces to ensure that liberated 

areas remain under the control of the Go I and that these forces are able to counter 

remaining ISIS pockets and any other VEOs which may emerge and attempt to fill the void 

created by the defeat of ISIS. These hold forces will be a combination of local tribal fighters 

and police forces. 

58 
249

Syria Train & Equip Program. Protecting the United States from terrorists operating in 

Syria and setting the ultimate conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in 

that country will require the continued training and equipping of Vetted Syria Opposition 

(VSO) forces. Additional recruitment, retention, resupply, and support are central to our 

strategy to defeat ISIS in Syria. Our revised training approach is proving successful, improving 

the effectiveness and lethality of the force on path to a projected strength of up to 35,000 by the 

end of fiscal year 2017 and growing to 40,000 in 2018. Procurement and manufacturing lead 

times for non-standard weapons and ammunition and delivery from various foreign 

vendors complicates the already complex train and equip mission, so we appreciate as 

much flexibility as possible in authorizing and appropriating funds for this effort. The SDF 

and VSOs continues to advance in defeating ISIS and holding and defending liberated areas, 

while also assisting local authorities in providing humanitarian and security assistance to the 

populace. 

The Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF). Since 2005, U.S. provision of funds executed 

through ASFF has provided training, equipment, infrastructure, sustainment and salaries for a 

generated force of up to 352,000 Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and 

30,000 Afghan Local Police (ALP). ASFF plays a critical role in enabling the ANDSF to 

secure Afghanistan with an effective and sustainable force that is central to the U.S. strategy 

to prevent a Tali ban oral Qaeda resurgence, defeat VEOs, and deny safe haven for external 

plotting against the U.S. Homeland and U.S. and partner nation interests in the region. 

59 
250

Afghanistan Aviation Transition Funding The proposed Afghan Air Force (AAF) and 

Special Mission Wing (SMW) aviation transition program is critical to addressing capability 

gaps in Close Air Support (CAS) and lift for the ANDSF. The program is designed to address 

the shortfall in available aircraft and trained pilots to ensure Afghan forces have the 

required aviation support and maintenance pipeline to move toward self-sustainment and 

increased independent operations. DoD plans to achieve these results by transitioning the 

AAF and SMW to U.S.-manufactured rotary wing platforms. Although the availability of 

trained pilots remains a particular challenge for the ANDSF, recent successes are producing 

capable pilots and the recap plan is designed to ease the human capital burden over time. The 

additional capability that would be gained through the aviation transition program will provide 

the Afghans needed overmatch against insurgents and terrorists while improving ground forces' 

effectiveness and reducing ANDSF's casualty rates. 

Coalition Support. The authorities and funding that underpin our ability to effectively conduct 

Coalition operations, including in support of partners whose contributions are critical, but who 

lack the resources to participate without our assistance, are key to our continued success. The 

Coalition Support Fund (CSF) provides the authority to reimburse certain Coalition partners for 

logistical and military support provided by that nation in connection with Iraq, Syria, and 

Afghanistan operations. The CSF also funds the Coalition Readiness Support Program (CRSP) 

which authorizes supplies, the loaning of equipment, and specialized training assistance to 

coalition forces. The CSF relieves the operational burden on U.S. forces and enhances the 

visibility of Coalition presence. This authority remains critical to our strategic approach to 

Coalition operations, including, but not limited to, the ongoing military campaign to defeat 

60 
251

the terrorist organization, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and our transition in Afghanistan. The 

capability and interoperability that CSF funding facilitates is crucial to our bilateral relations, 

Coalition operations and training with partner nations, and to the success of our broader strategic 

and trans-regional objectives. The Global Lift and Sustain and successor authority further 

complements this approach by enabling us to provide transportation and life support to select 

Coalition partners. 

Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP). CERP is authorized for local 

commanders to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements in 

Afghanistan, and may be used to make condolence payments for the loss of life. injury, or 

property damage resulting from U.S., coalition, or supporting military operations. The NOAA 

for FY20 17 provides authority for ex gratia payments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria for 

damage, personal injury, or death that is incident to U.S. combat operations. CERP funded 

projects directly benefit the indigenous civilian populations in Afghanistan and demonstrate the 

positive effects of our presence, while also providing tangible, quick mitigation when coalition 

actions result in casualties or property damage to civilians during the course of military 

operations. CERP is a proven force multiplier and a key enabler in responding to urgent 

humanitarian needs and promoting security. Going forward, we want to ensure commanders 

engaged in the Counter-ISIS missions can provide immediate, but limited, small scale 

humanitarian assistance to ISIS liberated areas, until national and international relief agencies 

can provide that support. Our responsiveness is critical to quickly stabilizing those areas in order 

to begin the holding phase of the campaign and to counter ISIS messaging. 

61 
252

Military Construction (MILCON). USCENTCOM stewards constrained resources and 

maintains an expeditionary approach to posturing capabilities in theater. We leverage existing 

infrastructure and host nation support and funding where possible, as well as maritime posture 

and reach back capabilities to meet steady state and surge requirements. In some instances, 

MILCON is required to establish infrastructure to support forces and equipment in the execution 

of their missions. Of note, USCENTCOM requires support for development at MuwaffaqSalti Air Base (MSAB), Jordan and construction of the new Consolidated Squadron 

Operations Facility at AI Udeid, Qatar. These two projects arc essential to our contingency 

and steady state operations and support the Defense Strategic Guidance. The projects will 

support executing our priority war plans by providing critical dispersed, resilient and flexible 

capacity to accept both steady state and enduring joint forces, multiple aircraft types and provide 

critical air C4l (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) for current and 

future contingencies, theater and strategic surge and maritime operations within the 

USCENTCOM AOR. M!LCON development is critical to support the realignment of U.S. 

forces operating from an expeditionary approach at various contingency bases scattered across 

the AOR to the required enduring posture approach necessary to protect U.S. interests and to 

sustain key bilateral relationships. 

Prepositioned War Reserve Materiel (PWRM). Service Prepositioned War Reserve Materiel 

and capability sets remain critical force multipliers required to execute USCENTCOM's most 

dangerous and critical contingency plans. The Services and Defense Agency prepositioned 

capacity provides a shock absorber in rapidly emerging contingencies, buys critical decision 

62 
253

space for our national leadership, and mitigates the risk associated with the tyranny of distance 

when we are called upon to rapidly aggregate and reintroduce forces into the region. 

The U.S. Central Command Team. The outstanding men and women who comprise the 

USCENTCOM Team truly are our most important assets. They continue to make 

tremendous contributions on behalf of our Nation and our partners and allies around the globe. 

We must ensure they have everything they need to do their jobs effectively, efficiently, and 

as safely as possible. 

We also continue to benefit from the unique capability provided by our Coalition 

Coordination Center, which consists of more than 200 foreign military officers from nearly 

60 partner nations. They, too, are important members of our USCENTOM Team and play a 

critical role in strengthening the partnerships between our nations. 

We remain mindful of the fact that success requires that we work together, not just within the 

command, but also with our teammates from other Combatant Commands, our 

Component Commands, established combined/joint task forces, the Central Region's 18 

county teams, and various agencies and organizations throughout the USG and the 

Interagency. Our close collaboration with counterparts at the U.S. State Department, the U.S. 

Treasury, CIA, FBI, and JIDO, for example, has paid enormous dividends in the pursuit of 

shared national goals and objectives. We look forward to continuing to work with them and 

others on behalf or our Nation. 

53 
254

We also are incredibly grateful for the support of our families. They are highly valued 

members of our USCENTCOM Team and we could not do what we do without them. They 

make important contributions and tremendous sacrifices each and every day in support of us and 

on behalf of the command and a grateful Nation. 

The upcoming year promises to be a busy and challenging one in the Central Region. You can 

be assured that the world-class team at U.S. Central Command- which includes more than 

80,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen, and Civilians stationed today 

throughout the USCENTCOM area of responsibility- is up to the task, and is highly-skilled, 

motivated, and stands ready to do whatever is necessary to accomplish the mission: defend our 

Nation and our interests, the interests of partners and allies, and improve stability and security in 

that strategically important part of the world. 

USCENTCOM: Prepare, Pursue, Prevai/ 1 

64 
255

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The complete hearing transcript could not be 

printed due to the classification of the material discussed.] 

(257)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017. 

UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND 

WITNESS

GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES 

EUROPEAN COMMAND 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. 

This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture of the United States European Command. 

First, I want to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for 

a motion. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, pursuant to the provisions to 

clause D of section 4 of the rules of the committee, I move that today’s markup be held in executive session because of the classification of the material to be discussed. 

Ms. GRANGER. So ordered. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky. 

Our witness this morning is General Mike Scaparrotti, Commander of the United States European Command, NATO, and the 

Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. 

General, welcome back to this subcommittee, and thank you for 

your service and your attention, and thank you for being here with 

us.

Threats from Russia and terrorists have interrupted decades of 

peace for EUCOM, NATO, and our allies. To complicate matters, 

a major refugee crisis is overwhelming many European countries, 

and ISIS is using this crisis to smuggle its own operatives into Europe.

General, given the challenges your command faces, we remain 

concerned you lack the support you need to accomplish your mission. The subcommittee has provided EUCOM with additional resources through the European Reassurance Initiative; however, we 

are concerned that it is not nearly enough, when you take into account the funding is significantly less than the resources Russia 

has dedicated to Crimea and Ukraine alone. 

Bullies often understand one thing, and that is strength. Putin 

must know the United States will stand with our European allies 

and respond decisively to their resurgent aggression. 

As chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions 

should be guided by experts in uniform, like you. There are limited 

resources and significant needs. We should not make decisions in 

a vacuum and will rely on your best military advice. We look forward to your testimony and your insight. 

But, first, I would like to call on the ranking member, my friend, 

Pete Visclosky, for his comments. 
258

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chairwoman for holding a hearing, 

and I look forward to the gentleman’s testimony. 

Ms. GRANGER. I needed a little situational awareness. I apologize.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I do too. 

Ms. GRANGER. General, please proceed with your testimony. Your 

full written testimony will be placed in the record, and please feel 

free to summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time 

to get to everyone’s questions. 

[The written statement General Scaparrotti follows:] 
259

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI 

COMMANDER 

UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND 

March 29, 2017 
260

UNClASSIFIED 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee, I am honored to 

testify before you in my first year as the Commander of United States European 

Command (EUCOM). It is a privilege to lead the great Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, 

Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and civilians in this Command. They continue to 

demonstrate remarkable commitment, dedication, and selfless service both in Europe 

and across the globe. We all appreciate your continued support. 

The European theater remains critical to our national interests. The transatlantic 

alliance gives us an unmatched advantage over our adversaries--a united, capable, 

warfighting alliance resolved in its purpose and strengthened by shared values that have 

been forged in battle. EUCOM's relationship with NATO and the 51 countries 

within our area of responsibility (AOR) provides the United States with a network of 

willing partners who support global operations and secure the international rules-based 

order that our nations have defended together since World War II. Our security 

architecture protects more than 1 billion people and has safeguarded transatlantic trade, 

which now constitutes almost half of the world's combined GOP. 

Nevertheless, today we face the most dynamic European security environment in 

history. Political volatility and economic uncertainty are compounded by threats to our 

security system that are trans-regional, multi-domain, and multi-functional. In the east, 

a resurgent Russia has turned from partner to antagonist. Countries along Russia's 

periphery, especially Ukraine and Georgia, are under threat from Moscow's malign 

influence and military aggression. In the southeast, strategic drivers of instability 

converge on key allies, especially Turkey, which has to simultaneously manage Russia, 
261

UNCU\SSIFIED 

terrorists, and refugee flows. In the south, violent extremists and transnational criminal 

elements spawn terror and corruption from North Africa to the Middle East, while 

refugees and migrants fleeing persecution to Europe in search of security and 

opportunity. In the High North, Russia is reasserting its military prowess and positioning 

itself for strategic advantage in the Arctic. 

EUCOM fully recognizes the dynamic nature of this security environment, and in 

response, we are regenerating our abilities for deterrence and defense while continuing 

our security cooperation and engagement mission. This requires that we return to our 

historical role as a command that is capable of executing the full-spectrum of joint and 

combined operations in a contested environment. Accordingly, we are adjusting our 

posture, plans, and readiness to respond to possible future conflicts. 

This shift would not be possible without congressional support of the European 

Reassurance Initiative (ERI). Thanks in large measure to ERI, over the last 12 months 

EUCOM has made demonstrable progress. U.S. tanks have returned to European soil. 

U.S. F-15s and F-22s have demonstrated air dominance throughout the theater. U.S. 

naval forces have sailed throughout European waters. EUCOM has operationalized its 

Joint Cyber Center. With the approval of former Secretary Carter, EUCOM delivered 

the first new operational plan for the defense of Europe in over 25 years. 

ERI also supports high-end exercises and training, improved infrastructure, and 

enhanced prepositioning of equipment and supplies, while State Department and DOD 

funds build partner capacity throughout Europe. 

EUCOM has also continued to strengthen our relationship with allies and 

partners. Our relationship with Turkey endured a coup attempt with minimal disruption 
262

UNCLASSIFIED 

to multiple ongoing operations. EUCOM has strengthened ties with Israel, one of our 

closest allies. Above all, EUCOM has supported the NATO Alliance, which remains, as 

Secretary Mattis has said, the "bedrock" of our transatlantic security. Overall EUCOM is 

growing stronger. 

II. THEATER ASSESSMENT- RISKS AND CHALLENGES 

Over the past year I have highlighted three signature issues facing us in this 

dynamic security environment: Russia, radicals or violent extremists, and regional 

unrest- leading to refugee and migrant flows. At the same time, managing the 

political, economic, and social challenges posed by refugees and migrants is a 

consuming concern of our allies and partners. 

Russia 

Russia's malign actions are supported by its diplomatic, information, economic, 

and military initiatives. Moscow intends to reemerge as a global power, and views 

international norms such as the rule of law, democracy, and human rights as 

components of a system designed to suppress Russia. Therefore, Russia seeks to 

undermine this international system and discredit those in the West who have created it 

For example, Russia is taking steps to influence the internal politics of European 

countries, just as it tried to do in the United States, in an attempt to create disunity and 

weakness within Europe and undermine the transatlantic relationship. Furthermore, 

Russia has repeatedly violated international agreements and treaties that underpin 

European peace and stability, including the Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear 

Forces (INF) and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and it is 
263

UNClASSIFIED 

undermining transparency and confidence building regimes, such as the Vienna 

Document and Open Skies, which provide greater transparency of posture and exercises 

in the region 

Russia's political leadership appears to be seeking a resurgence through the 

modernization of its military. Russia is adjusting its doctrine, modernizing its weapons, 

reorganizing the disposition of its forces, professionalizing its armed services, and 

upgrading capabilities in all warfighting domains. Russia desires a military force capable 

of achieving its strategic objectives and increasing its power. 

Russia's aggression in Ukraine, including occupation and attempted annexation 

of Crimea, and actions in Syria underscore its willingness to use military force to exert 

its influence in Europe and the Middle East. In Ukraine, Russia's willingness to foment 

a bloody conflict into its third year through the use of proxy forces in the Don bas and 

elsewhere is deeply troubling to our allies and partners, particularly Russia's closest 

neighbors. In Syria, Russia's military intervention has changed the dynamics of the 

conflict, bolstered the Bashar ai-Assad regime, targeted moderate opposition elements, 

compounded human suffering, and complicated U.S. and coalition operations against 

the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Russia has used this chaos to establish a 

permanent presence in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. 

This past year saw other significant demonstrations of Russia's renewed military 

capability, including the first ever combat deployment of the KUZNETSOV Task Force, 

nation-wide strategic exercises, joint air, ground, and maritime operations in Syria using 

new platforms and precision-guided munitions, and the deployment of nuclear-capable 

missiles to Kaliningrad. Russia's deployments in Ukraine and Syria also revealed 

increased proficiency in expeditionary combat and sustainment operations. 

Another key component of Russia's military advancement is its Integrated Air 
264

UNCLASSIFIED 

Defense Systems (lADS). For example, in connection with its deployment to support 

the Assad regime in Syria, Russia fielded advanced Anti-Access I Area Denial (A2/AD) 

systems that combine command and control, electronic warfare capabilities, and long 

range coastal defense cruise missiles with advanced air defense platforms. EUCOM 

assesses that Russia plans to meld existing and future lADS systems into a central 

command structure to control all air defense forces and weapons. 

In the High North, Russia continues to strengthen its military presence through 

equipment, infrastructure, training, and other activities. Russia is positioning itself to 

gain strategic advantage if the Northern Sea Route opens and becomes a viable 

shipping lane between Europe and Asia. 

Most concerning, however, is Moscow's substantial inventory of non-strategic 

nuclear weapons in the EUCOM AOR and its troubling doctrine that calls on the 

potential use of these weapons to escalate its way out of a failing conflict. Russia's 

fielding of a conventional/nuclear dual-capable system that is prohibited under the INF 

Treaty creates a mismatch in escalatory options with the West. In the context of Putin's 

highly centralized decision-making structure, Moscow's provocative rhetoric and nuclear 

threats increase the likelihood of misunderstanding and miscalculation. 

In addition to recent conventional and nuclear developments, Russia has 

employed a decades-long strategy of indirect action to coerce, destabilize, and 

otherwise exercise a malign influence over other nations. In neighboring states, Russia 

continues to fuel "protracted conflicts." In Moldova, for example, Russia has yet to 

follow through on its 1999 Istanbul Summit commitments to withdraw an estimated 

1 ,500 troops --whose presence has no mandate --from the Moldovan breakaway 

region of Transnistria. Russia asserts that it will remove its force once a comprehensive 

settlement to the Transnistrian conflict has been reached. However, Russia continued 
265

UNCLASSIFIED 

to undermine the discussion of a comprehensive settlement to the Transnistrian conflict 

at the 5+2 negotiations. Moscow continues to play a role in destabilizing the NagornoKarabakh dispute by selling arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan while maintaining 

troops in Armenia, despite an international pledge to co-chair the Minsk Group, which is 

charged with seeking resolution of the conflict. 

Russia fiercely opposes one of our strongest EUCOM partners, Georgia, in its 

attempts to align with the European and transatlantic communities. Russia's occupation 

of Abkhazia and South Ossetia since its 2008 invasion of the Georgian regions has 

created lasting instability. 

In the Balkans, Russia exploits ethnic tensions to slow progress on European and 

transatlantic integration. In 2016, Russia overtly interfered in the political processes 

of both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. 

Additional Russian activities short of war, range from disinformation to 

manipulation. Examples include Russia's outright denial of involvement in the lead up 

to Russia's occupation and attempted annexation in Crimea; attempts to influence 

elections in the United States, France and elsewhere; its aggressive propaganda 

campaigns targeting ethnic Russian populations among its neighbors; and cyber 

activities directed against infrastructure in the Baltic nations and Ukraine. In all of these 

ways and more, Russia is attempting to exert its influence, expand its power, and 

discredit the capability and relevance of the West. 

Radicals 

Violent extremists, most notably ISIS, pose a serious, immediate threat to U.S. 

personnel, our allies, and our infrastructure in Europe and worldwide. In 2016, there 

were major terrorist attacks in Berlin, Brussels, Istanbul, Nice, Paris, and elsewhere. 

ISIS has made its intentions clear: it seeks to overthrow Western civilization and 
266

UNCLASSIFIED 

establish a world-wide caliphate. 

While it's footprint in Iraq and Syria shrunk in 2016, since 2014, ISIS has 

significantly expanded its operations throughout Europe and now leverages its network 

to enable and inspire attacks by European-based extremists in their resident countries. 

Further, ISIS has exploited the migration crisis to infiltrate operatives into Europe. Since 

Turkey expanded its counter-ISIS role and advocacy for coalition operations in Mosul, it 

has experienced an increased number of terrorist attacks, and ISIS's leaders have 

called for more. We do not expect the threat to diminish in the near future. 

As a consequence of this threat, European nations have been forced to divert 

financial resources and military personnel to internal security. The impact of this 

reallocation is not yet fully appreciated and will likely persist for years. In short, violent 

extremism poses a dangerous threat to transatlantic nations and to the international 

order that we value. 

Regional Volatility 

In EUCOM's AOR, Russia's indirect actions have sought to exploit political 

unrest and socioeconomic disparities. Russian aggression in Ukraine has led to the 

deaths of approximately 10,000 people since April 2014. Recently, in eastern Ukraine, 

Russia has controlled the battle tempo and is again ratcheting up the number of daily 

violations of the cease fire. Even more concerning, Russia is directing combined 

Russian-separatist forces to target civilian infrastructure and threaten and intimidate 

OSCE monitors in order to turn up the pressure on Ukraine. Furthermore, Moscow's 

support for so-called "separatists" in eastern Ukraine destabilizes Kyiv's political 

structures just as Ukraine is undertaking politically-difficult reforms to combat corruption 

and comply with IMF requirements. 

Ukraine seeks a permanent and verifiable ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy 
267

UNCLASSIFIED 

weapons and Russian forces, full and unfettered access for OSCE monitors, and control 

over its internationally-recognized border with Russia. Russian-led separatist forces 

continue to commit the majority of ceasefire violations despite attempts by the OSCE to 

broker a lasting ceasefire along the Line of Contact. 

Turkey has long been and remains an ally of the United States. It now occupies 

a critical location at the crossroads of multiple strategic challenges. To its west, it 

implements the Montreux Convention, which governs transit through the Turkish Straits, 

and Turkey is committed to local solutions for Black Sea issues. To its north and east, 

Turkey maintains a complicated relationship with Russia. Ankara seeks to resume the 

level of trade with Moscow that it enjoyed prior to Turkey's November 2015 shoot down 

of a Russian fighter. Turkey has absorbed the largest number of refugees from Syria--

almost 3 million. Despite these challenges, EUCOM continues to work closely with 

Turkey to enable critical basing and logistical support to the counter-ISIS fight and 

supports Turkey to counter its terror threat. 

Although the flow of refugees to Europe has slowed, the refugee situation 

remains a significant challenge to our European allies and partners. The strain on the 

social systems of European nations, especially along the Mediterranean Sea, diverts 

resources that could otherwise go toward military and defense spending, and finding 

solutions has tested political relationships. EU member states struggle to find a 

common, "shared" approach to admit and settle migrants. Both NATO and the EU, in 

conjunction with Turkish and Greek authorities, have committed law enforcement and 

military assets to this issue, including a maritime force in the Aegean Sea to conduct 

reconnaissance, monitoring, and surveillance. 

The Syrian civil war and the risk of spillover into neighboring states, including 

Israel, continue to threaten stability in Europe and the Levant. Despite assistance from 
268

UNCLASSIFIED 

the USG and the international community, the refugee population in Jordan and 

Lebanon has placed significant burdens on the government and local residents. 

Additionally, factional fighting in Syria has resulted in occasional cross-border fire into 

the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel has avoided being drawn into the conflict in 

Syria but has taken military action to deny the transfer of advanced weapons to 

Hezbollah. 

The Balkans' stability since the late 1990's masks political and socio-economic 

fragility. Russia promotes anti-European views in this region by exploiting corrupt 

political systems, poor economic performance, and increased ethnic polarization. 

Additionally, Islamic radicals seek to take advantage of high unemployment rates, 

political turmoil, and socioeconomic disparities to recruit violent extremists. 

Iran's regional influence in the Levant continues to grow through its ongoing 

support to radical groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic 

Jihad, and paramilitary groups involved in the Syrian conflict and in counter-ISIS efforts 

across Iraq. Iran, which Israel views as its greatest existential threat, continues to 

transfer advanced conventional arms to Hezbollah and is clearly committed to 

maintaining Syria as the key link of the lran-Hezbollah axis, which sustains a terrorist 

network in Syrian~regime controlled territory. Furthermore, Iran has taken advantage of 

the Syrian crisis to militarily coordinate with Russia in support of Assad. 

Ill. THEATER ASSESSMENT- STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

EUCOM will meet these challenges and adapt to the new security environment 

by capitalizing on our strengths and building new capabilities. We are developing a 

credible and relevant force structure built for deterrence and defense, leveraging a 

unified and adaptive NATO Alliance, and transitioning into a command able to address 
269

the strategic challenges before us. 

Deter Russia 

UNCLASSIFIED 

EUCOM activities, facilitated by ERI funding, continue to be the primary 

demonstration of our deterrent capability. 

Increased Rotational Forces. ERI has directly supported an increase in the 

rotational presence of U.S. forces in Europe, a critical augmentation to EUCOM's 

assigned forces. For example, ERI funded Fort Stewart's 151 Armored Brigade Combat 

Team's deployment to Europe from March to September 2016. Also, ERI funded the 

deployment of F-22 fighters, B-52 bombers, and additional combat and lift aircraft to 

Europe as part of the ERI Theater Security Package. Looking ahead, continued 

congressional support for ERI will sustain these rotations and enable additional antisubmarine warfare capabilities, complementing maritime domain awareness assets in 

Iceland that are included in the FY 2017 ERI request. Additionally, rotational Marine 

units will operate from Norway and the Black Sea region. 

Trained and Equipped Component Commands. EUCOM has also used ERI to 

fund and field Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS), providing a rapid mobilization 

capability for additional armored units in Europe. Separately, EUCOM advocated for 

and received full support for a $220 million NATO Security Investment Program project 

(i.e., paid for by NATO common funding) that will build warehousing and maintenance 

capability for staging APS stocks in Poland. Additionally, ERI funds dozens of projects 

to upgrade flight-line and munitions-storage infrastructure across eight NATO nations to 

support not only rotational presence but also training events in Eastern Europe. The 

Navy is using ERI to fund capability enablers and force rotations to support EUCOM 

and NATO exercises, including mine countermeasures teams and additional flying 

hours, specifically to enhance EUCOM's deterrence posture. 
270

UNCLASSIFIED 

Persistent Presence. ERI increased funding for U.S. forces in the Baltics, 

Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Mediterranean during 2016. In addition, ERI 

allowed EUCOM to continue our contribution to NATO's Air Policing mission by funding 

a continued fighter presence in theater with the 493rd Fighter Squadron at RAF 

Lakenheath in the UK. 

Complex Exercises with Allies and Partners. ERI expanded the scope of 

EUCOM's involvement in over 28 joint and multi-national maritime, air, amphibious, and 

ground exercises across 40 countries. In June 2016, EUCOM participated in the Polish 

national exercise ANAKONDA, which involved approximately 31 ,000 Allied troops, 

including over 14,000 U.S. personnel, and provided a robust demonstration of Allied 

defensive capabilities, readiness, and interoperability. ERI also supported Navy-led 

BAL TOPS 16, the premier maritime exercise in the Baltic region with over 6,100 troops 

from participating nations. And utilizing ERI resources, the Air Force took part in over 

50 exercises and training deployments across Europe. An Acquisition and CrossServicing Agreement concluded with the EU last December enables EUCOM to 

cooperate better with EU missions in the Balkans and elsewhere. 

Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI): EUCOM leads the Department of Defense's 

Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI), which provides a framework for understanding the 

Russian threat and a forum for coordinating efforts and requirements. RSI allows us to 

maximize the deterrent value of our activities while avoiding inadvertent escalation. In 

just over a year, RSI has created a number of analytic products for combatant 

commanders that will enable a more efficient application of existing resources and 

planning efforts. 

Deterring Russia requires a whole of government approach, and EUCOM 

supports the strategy of approaching Russia from a position of strength while seeking 
271

UNCLASSIFIED 

appropriate military-to-military communication necessary to fulfill our defense obligations 

in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Going 

forward, we must bring the information aspects of our national power more fully to bear 

on Russia, both to amplify our narrative and to draw attention to Russia's manipulative, 

coercive, and malign activities. Finally, NATO and U.S. nuclear forces continue to be a 

vital component of our deterrence. Our modernization efforts are crucial; we must 

preserve a ready, credible, and safe nuclear capability. 

Enable the NATO Alliance 

As the United States manages multiple strategic challenges, our enduring 

strength remains NATO, the most successful alliance in history. NATO's leadership 

understands that the security environment has radically changed over the past few 

years. The Alliance has placed renewed emphasis on deterring further Russian 

aggression, countering transnational threats, such as violent extremist organizations, 

and projecting stability in the Middle East and North Africa, while fulfilling its 

commitments in Afghanistan. 

The Warsaw Summit last July was a significant demonstration of unity, 

cooperation, and strategic adaptation. As the member nations declared in NATO's 

Warsaw Summit Communique, "We are united in our commitment to the Washington 

Treaty, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN), and the 

vital transatlantic bond." This unity is NATO's center of gravity, and the United States 

must continue to support solidarity among the Alliance nations. 

Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP). The signature outcome of the 2016 Warsaw 

Summit was the decision to establish an enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in the 

Baltics and Poland to demonstrate NATO's cohesion in defense of the Alliance. 

Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States have begun deploying 
272

UNCLASSIFIED 

multinational battalion task forces to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland, 

respectively, on a rotational basis. Defense Cooperation Agreements (DCAs) signed in 

2017 with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are facilitating the deployment of U.S forces 

there. The United States serves as the framework nation for eFP in Poland and is 

working closely with the other framework nations and their host nations to ensure 

NATO's key deterrence and defense measures are capable and integrated. 

European Phased Adapted Approach (EPAA). EUCOM continues to implement 

the EPAA to defend European NATO populations, territory, and infrastructure against 

ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic region. In July 2016, the U.S.-

funded Aegis Ashore facility in Romania became operational and transferred to NATO 

operational control. Work on the Aegis Ashore site in Poland (authorized and 

appropriated in fiscal year 2016 legislation) is underway and on track for completion by 

the end of calendar year 2018 and operational under NATO operational control in mid2019. 

Projecting Stability. NATO is a key contributor to ensuring security and projecting 

stability abroad. It is worth remembering that the first and only time the Alliance invoked 

the mutual defense provisions of its founding treaty was in response to the 9/11 attacks 

on the United States. Today, through NATO's Resolute Support Mission, over 12,000 

troops (including over 5,000 non-U.S. personnel) provide training and assistance to 

Afghan security forces and institutions. NATO is committed to ensuring a stable 

Afghanistan that is not a safe haven for terrorists. 

Additionally, it is notable that all28 NATO nations participate in the counter-ISIS 

coalition. NATO committed AWACS surveillance aircraft and actively contributes to 

capacity building in Iraq. EUCOM supports NATO's goal of expanding its operations 

against this terrorist threat. 
273

UNCLASSIFIED 

Support to Washington Treaty. EUCOM provides support for key articles of the 

Washington Treaty, enabling NATO members to meet their collective security 

commitments. EUCOM conducts activities, such as security cooperation, to help allies 

meet their Article 3 commitment to "maintain and develop their individual and collective 

capacity to resist attack." We have been able to reduce allies' dependencies on 

Russian-sourced, legacy military equipment thanks to ongoing congressional support 

for critical authorities and funding that provide shared resources. EUCOM also actively 

assists the Alliance when an ally declares, under Article 4, that its territorial integrity, 

political independence, or security is threatened. The last time an ally invoked Article 4 

was 2015 when Turkey sought consultation following terrorist attacks. Most importantly, 

EUCOM is the force that backs the United States commitment to Article 5, which 

declares that an armed attack on one ally is an attack on all. 

NATO Spending Trends. At the Wales Summit in 2014, the allies pledged to 

reverse the trend of declining defense budgets and invest in the development of highlycapable and deployable forces. Today, in addition to the United States, four allies 

(Estonia, Greece, Poland, and the United Kingdom) meet the NATO guidelines for 2% 

of GDP, up from three in 2014. Allies' defense expenditures increased in 2015 for the 

first time since 2009 and grew at a real rate of 3.8% in 2016, with 22 member nations 

increasing defense spending. Allies are showing demonstrable progress toward their 

commitment to contribute 2% of their GDP by 2024. 

This is a positive trend, but allied nations must meet the 2% mark with 20% 

allocated to the modernization of equipment and infrastructure. Critical ally and partner 

capability shortfalls remain, including strategic lift; intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR); deployable command and control; air to air refueling; and air and 

missile defense. Further, both EUCOM and NATO are hampered by inadequate 
274

UNCLASSIFIED 

infrastructure that affects the ability to maneuver across the continent. The expansion 

of the Alliance to include former Eastern Bloc countries has exacerbated the lack of 

common transportation networks between the newer NATO members in the east and 

the more established allies in the west. EUCOM is working closely with NATO to 

identify and address infrastructure requirements to improve U.S. and NATO freedom of 

movement throughout the theater. 

Build Partner Capacity 

EUCOM has spent several decades working with the Department of State to 

help allied and partner nations develop and improve their military and other security 

forces. This partner capacity building has been accomplished with the support of this 

Committee, which has been generous in providing us the authorization we need to 

accomplish this critical task. I would highlight two activities in particular. 

Defense Institution Building (DIB). DIB helps partner nations build effective, 

transparent, and accountable defense institutions. For example, EUCOM fully endorses 

the work of the Defense Reform Advisory Board in Ukraine, which is helping to bring 

about both political and military reform as the Ministry of Defense, General Staff, and 

Armed Forces transition from centralized Soviet-style systems and concepts towards a 

Euro-Atlantic model. We also support defense institutions in Georgia, helping them 

improve their strategic logistics, human and material resource management, and 

institutional aspects of their training management system. Overall, our DIB efforts lay 

the groundwork for broader security cooperation activities. 

Joint Multinational Training Group Ukraine (JMTG-U). Together with forces from 

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the UK, and Canada, using State Department-provided 

Foreign Military Financing and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds, EUCOM 

trains, advises, and equips Ukraine security forces, helping them build the capacity to 
275

UNCI.ASSIFIED 

defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our team, working through the 

Multinational Joint Commission, has developed Ukraine's institutional training capability 

so that Ukraine can create a NATO-interoperable armed force. Our efforts include the 

training of both conventional and special operations units, as well as advising Ukraine 

on defense reform priorities. 

Assist Israel 

EUCOM's mission to assist in the defense of Israel, one of our closest allies, 

remains a top priority. Success will depend on the continued support of Congress and 

our strong relationship with the Israel Defense Forces. Many aspects of our bilateral 

relationship have been guided by the Strategic Cooperation Initiative Program (SCIP) 

framework, which dates to the Reagan administration. SCIP enables robust 

cooperation and coordination on a vast range of security matters. Going forward, we 

are working to update the SCIP to incorporate an examination of all major exercises to 

ensure each meets the three major pillars of our security relationship: (1) missile 

defense, air operations, and counter-terrorism; (2) managing the Weapon Reserve 

Stockpile for Allies-Israel (WRSA-1); and (3) ensuring Israel's qualitative military edge. 

Counter Transnational Threats 

Adopting a whole-of-government approach, EUCOM, together with its 

interagency partners, conducts initiatives to counter transnational threats including 

countering terrorism and the flow of foreign fighters, countering illicit finance networks, 

combatting the trafficking of persons and illicit substances, and building allied and 

partner security, investigative, and judicial capacity. In conjunction with the 

Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, and other federal law enforcement 

agencies, EUCOM works to monitor and thwart the flow of foreign fighters, support the 

dismantlement of facilitation networks, and build partner nation capacity to defeat violent 
276

UNCLASSIFIED 

extremism. 

Through our counterterrorism cell, EUCOM strengthens global counter-ISIS 

efforts in coordination with and support of U.S. Central (CENTCOM), Africa (AFRICOM), 

and Special Operations (SOCOM) Commands. We have focused on those who 

facilitate the ISIS brand and network through radicalization, financing, and propaganda. 

Also, EUCOM and NATO are working to increase ties with the EU to enhance the 

capabilities Europe can collectively bring to bear against transnational threats. These 

three organizational nodes foster a shared understanding of the threats, help match 

resources accordingly, and can address all elements of national power including 

diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. In order to realize this networked 

approach, EUCOM will support NATO efforts to expand the capability and capacity of 

Allied Joint Forces Command Naples. 

Enable Global Operations 

EUCOM personnel actively support operations in AFRICOM and CENTCOM 

AORs. EUCOM's well-developed and tested infrastructure provides critical capabilities 

in strategic locations such as lncirlik, Turkey; Sigonella, Italy; and Moron and Rota, 

Spain. Basing and access in Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, and the 

United Kingdom enable more timely and coordinated trans-regional crisis response. 

IV. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 

Significant U.S. force reductions following the collapse of the Soviet Union were 

based on the assumption that Russia would be a strategic partner to the West. These 

reductions now limit U.S. options for addressing challenges in a changing European 

strategic environment. The strategic rebalance to Asia and the Pacific, combined with 

budget limitations in the Budget Control Act of 2011, have contributed to substantial 
277

UNCLASSIFIED 

posture reductions across our land and air domains. For example, between 2010 and 

2013, two fighter squadrons and a two-star numbered air force headquarters were 

inactivated, along with associated critical enablers and staff personnel. In addition, the 

last two heavy Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), a two-star division headquarters, and a 

three-star corps headquarters were removed from Europe, leaving only one Stryker and 

one airborne brigade. As a result of the BCT losses, without fully-resourced heel-to-toe 

rotational forces, the ground force permanently assigned to EUCOM is inadequate to 

meet the combatant command's directed mission to deter Russia from further 

aggression. 

Deterrence Posture. Going forward, we will need to continue maintaining 

capable forces for effective deterrence. EUCOM is coordinating across the DoD to 

obtain the forces we need in every warfare domain. This may include additional 

maneuver forces, combat air squadrons, anti-submarine capabilities, a carrier strike 

group, and maritime amphibious capabilities. We will continue to enhance our plans for 

pre-positioning equipment across the theater as a flexible deterrent measure and to 

exercise the joint reception, staging, and onward integration of CONUS-based forces 

into Europe. 

ERI Requirements. EUCOM continues to require the ability to deter Russian 

aggression and counter malign influence while assuring allies and partners. We 

anticipate needing to continue deterrence measures initiated in previous ERI 

submissions, to include Army and Air Force prepositioning, retention of F-15 

presence, improved airfield infrastructure improvements, and to address some new 

capabilities needed in the theater. 

Indications and Warnings (I&W). EUCOM's ability to provide strategic warning is 

critical to credible deterrence. A robust intelligence capability enables accurate analysis 
278

UNCLASSIFIED 

and rapid response in a changing theater security environment This capability also 

supports the design of realistic exercises, posture alignment, and future requirements. 

Furthermore, when completed, EUCOM's Joint Intelligence Analytic Center at Royal Air 

Force Croughton will provide a dedicated, purpose-built intelligence facility collocated 

with NATO and AFRICOM's analytic centers that will enhance capability and capacity in 

both combatant commands and NATO. Finally, additional intelligence collection 

platforms in theater, such as the U-2, the RQ-4, and the RC-135, are required for 

accurate and timely threat information to support strategic decisions. 

Recapitalization Efforts. The European Infrastructure Consolidation effort 

announced in January 2015 enables EUCOM to divest excess capacity and consolidate 

missions and footprints at enduring locations. However, with aging infrastructure and 

little recent investment, recapitalization and consolidation projects are required to 

support warfighter readiness, command and control requirements, deployments, 

training, and quality of life. This Committee has been key to these critical efforts. We 

continue to modernize communications facilities and schools across Europe. Last year, 

Congress authorized the final increment for the Joint Intelligence Analysis Center, which 

enables the closure of RAFs Molesworth and Alcon bury. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Let me conclude by again thanking this Committee's Members and staff for their 

continued support of EUCOM, not only by providing our requested funding, but also by 

helping us to articulate the challenges that lie before us. Support from other senior 

leaders and, above all, from the public at home and across Europe is vital to ensuring 

that we remain ready and relevant This is a pivotal time for EUCOM as we transition 

to meet the demands of a dynamic security environment. I remain confident that 
279

UNCLASSIFIED 

through the strength of our Alliance and partnerships, and with the professionalism of 

our service members, we will adapt and ensure that Europe remains whole, free and at 

peace. 
280

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The complete hearing transcript could not be 

printed due to the classification of the material discussed.] 
(281)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2017. 

UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND 

WITNESS

ADMIRAL HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. 

Today the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture of the 

United States Pacific Command. First I want to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for a motion. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move that those portions of the hearing today 

which involve classified material be held under executive session 

because of the classification of the material to be discussed. 

Ms. GRANGER. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky. 

Our witness this morning is Admiral Harry Harris, Commander 

of the United States Pacific Command. Admiral, welcome back to 

the subcommittee, and thank you for your service. Sorry you had 

to wait on us. We had a couple of votes. 

An increasingly provocative North Korea, rising tensions in the 

peninsula, and China’s military expansion in the South China Sea 

continue to threaten stability in the region and remind us of the 

challenges you face. To complicate matters, the PACOM area of responsibility encompasses nearly half the Earth’s surface. The 36 

nations comprising the Asia Pacific region are home to more than 

50 percent of the world’s population and several of the world’s largest militaries. 

Admiral, this subcommittee is committed to providing you with 

the resources you need to enhance stability in the Asia Pacific region, promote cooperation and peace, deter aggression, and if necessary, fight to win. 

As Chairwoman of the subcommittee, I believe our decisions 

should be guided by experts in uniform like you. There are limited 

resources and significant needs. We should not make decisions in 

a vacuum, and we will rely on your best military advice. We look 

forward to your testimony and your insight. 

First I would like to call on the ranking member, my friend, Mr. 

Visclosky, for his comments. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I just want to thank the Chairwoman for holding 

the hearing today; Admiral, your service. I know it is a long day 

for you. And look forward to hearing from you. 

Thank you very much. 

Admiral HARRIS. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. GRANGER. Admiral, please proceed with your testimony. The 

full written testimony will be placed in the record. Feel free to 
282

summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time to get 

to everyone’s questions if you do decide to do that. 

Admiral, thank you for your testimony, and I will call on you 

now.

Admiral HARRIS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Chairwoman and Representative Visclosky and distinguished members. It is an honor for 

me to appear again in front of this committee. 

[The written statement of Admiral Harris follows:] 
283

STATEMENT OF 

ADMIRAL HARRY B. HARRIS JR., U.S. NAVY 

COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND 

13EFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE- DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND POSTURE 

26 APRIL 2017 
284

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is my second posture 

assessment since taking command of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) in 2015. During this 

time, I've had the extraordinary privilege to lead the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Coast 

Guardsmen, and Department of Defense civilians standing the watch in the vast Indo-AsiaPacific region. These men and women and their families inspire me with their relentless 

devotion to duty, and I'm proud to serve alongside them. 

This past January I st, USPACOM commemorated its 70'h birthday. For 70 years, our joint 

military forces have protected the territory ofthc U.S., its people, and its interests throughout the 

Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Working in close concert with other U.S. government agencies, 

defending our homeland and our citizens is always "Job number l" at USPACOM. It is my top 

command priority. And together with our allies and partners, USPACOM enhances stability in 

the region by promoting security cooperation, responding to contingencies, deterring aggression, 

and, when necessary, fighting to win. This security approach is based on shared interests, 

partnerships, military presence, and readiness. 

The U.S. has enduring national interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. In fact, I believe America's 

future security and economic prosperity are indelibly linked to this critical region, which is now 

at a strategic crossroads where real opportunities meet real challenges. Of the five global 

challenges that currently drive U.S. defense planning and budgeting- ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria), North Korea, China, Russia and Iran- four are in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. We cannot 

turn a blind eye to these challenges. We must not give any country or insidious non-state actor a 

pass if they purposely erode the rules-based security order that has served America and this 

region so well for so long. 

Rising from the ashes of World War II, the rules-based international order, or what I sometimes 

call, "the Global Operating System," has kept the Indo-Asia-Pacific largely peaceful and created 

the stability necessary for economic prosperity in the U.S. and countries throughout the region. 

Ironically, China is the country that has benefitted the most. The collective respect for, and 

adherence to, international rules and standards have produced the longest era of peace and 

prosperity in modern times. These conditions are not happenstance. In my opinion, they have 

been made possible by a security order underwritten by seven decades of robust and persistent 

U.S. military presence and credible combat power. This security order has been reinforced by 

America's five bilateral security alliances with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), 

the Philippines, and Thailand. This order is further bolstered by our growing partnerships with 

India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, and Vietnam. 

This Global Operating System upholds critical principles the rule of law, adherence to 

standards, peaceful resolution of disputes, freedom of navigation for all civilian and military 

Page 1 of 34 
285

vessels and aircraft, and open access to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace domains. Its 

outcomes are two-fold: enhanced security and unimpeded lawful commerce. Sustainable 

security requires effective and enduring institutions, both civilian and military, that are guided by 

these principles. Defense, diplomatic, and development efforts are intertwined and continue to 

reinforce each other to promote stability in both conflict-affected and steady state environments 

to build and sustain stable democratic states. 

The Indian and Pacific Oceans are the economic lifeblood linking the Indian Subcontinent, 

Southeast Asia, Australia, Northeast Asia, Oceania and the U.S. Oceans that once were physical 

and psychological barriers that kept us apart are now maritime superhighways that bring us 

together. Each year, approximately $5.3 trillion in global trade transits the South China Sea and 

$1.2 trillion of this sea-based trade involves the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the global gross 

domestic product (GOP) comes from this region (including the U.S.). Five of America's top 10 

trading partners are in the Indo-Asia-Pacific and it's a destination for one-fourth of our exports. 

The diverse region drives global economic growth and is home to the world's two largest 

economies after the U.S. (China and Japan) and led by the three fastest growing large economies 

(China, India, and the 'ASEAN Five' (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and 

Vietnam)). Nine often megacities in the world are in this region (including Karachi, Pakistan). 

The Indo-Asia-Pacific has the world's most populous democracy (India), and is home to more 

than half the world's population. Some estimates predict that percentage could rise to near 70 

percent by 2050, which will lead to further competition for dwindling resources. Indonesia, an 

important security partner of the U.S., is a maturing democracy, and the world's largest Muslimmajority state. Eleven of the top 15 largest militaries in the world arc in or adjacent to the 

region, as are two-thirds of the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons. 

Simply stated, what happens in the Indo-Asia-Pacific matters to America. And the region needs 

a strong America, just as America needs the region. 

In fact, the need for American engagement in the Indo-Asia-Pacific is demonstrated in the long 

history of U.S. commitment to the region. It's overwhelmingly in America's security and 

economic interests to defend the rules-based order against challengers that would seek to 

unilaterally rewrite it or alter its fundamental principles. It's overwhelmingly in America's 

interests to deepen our diplomacy in the region while backing up peaceful resolution of disputes 

with undisputed, credible combat power. It's overwhelmingly in America's interests to remain 

the region's security partner of choice by working closely with our allies and partners who share 

our commitment to uphold peace, economic prosperity and security. 

This document is my assessment of the regional security challenges and opportunities of 

strategic value. First, I will outline some of the specific challenges we face in the Indo-AsiaPage 2 of 34 
286

Pacific including threats to the Homeland. I will highlight critical needs in order to seek your 

support for budgetary and legislative actions to improve U.S. military readiness in the Indo-AsiaPacific region. I will discuss the value of U.S. strategic force posture and forward presence and 

how these preconditions improve the readiness of our joint force to fight tonight, enhance our 

ability to reassure allies and partners, and maintain regional stability. And finally, I will discuss 

how USPACOM strengthens existing alliances and cultivates critical partnerships with regional 

actors- both of which deliver strategic benefits and improve readiness to protect and defend 

U.S. interests. 

Overview 

As we look ahead to the next quarter century, if not the next few months or years, security and 

stability are threatened by a range of regional state and non-state actors who are challenging the 

rules-based security order that has helped underwrite peace and prosperity for America and 

throughout the region for over 70 years. 

North Korea continues to disregard United Nations sanctions by developing, and threatening to 

use intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons that will threaten the U.S. Homeland. 

China has fundamentally altered the physical and political landscape in the South China Sea 

through large scale land reclamation and by militarizing these reclaimed features. Beijing 

continues to press Japan in the East China Sea, is stepping up diplomatic and economic pressure 

against Taiwan, and is methodically trying to supplant U.S. influence with our friends and allies 

in the region. furthennore, China is rapidly building a modern, capable military that appears to 

far exceed its stated defensive purpose or potential regional needs. China's military 

modernization is focused on defeating the U.S. in Asia by countering U.S. asymmetric 

advantages. China's military modernization cannot be understated, especially when we consider 

the Communist regime's lack of transparency and apparent strategy. China is committed to 

developing a hypersonic glide weapon and advanced cyber and anti-satellite capabilities that 

present direct threats to the Homeland. China's near tenn strategy is focused on building up 

combat power and positional advantage to be able to restrict freedom of navigation and 

overflight while asserting de facto sovereignty over disputed maritime features and spaces in the 

region. Russia is modernizing its military and once again exercising its conventional forces and 

nuclear strike capabilities in the Pacific, which also threaten the Homeland. Transnational 

terrorists, inspired by and in some cases led by ISIS, have set their sights on the Indo-AsiaPacific by supporting and encouraging attacks in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, and 

Malaysia while recruiting and fund-raising there and elsewhere. Drug trafficking, human 

smuggling, piracy, weapons proliferation, natural disasters as well as illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated fishing- further challenge regional peace and prosperity. 

To counter these challenges, USPACOM is enhancing U.S. force posture, presence, and 

resiliency, while modernizing U.S. force capability and training to ensure our forces are ready to 

Page 3 of 34 
287

fight tonight and win in any contingency. USPACOM is working with our many and invaluable 

allies and partners on a bilateral- and increasingly multilateral basis to address these common 

challenges. The growth in multinational "partnerships with a purpose" demonstrates that the 

countries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific view the U.S. as the security partner of choice. By working 

together, we enhance capability and capacity to respond to the range of threats endemic to the 

region. 

Key Challenges 

North Korea: North Korea remains our most immediate threat in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. It 

dangerously distinguishes itself as the only country to have tested nuclear weapons in this 

century. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry once said, we must deal with North 

Korea "as it is, not as we wish it to be." Kim Jong-Un has stated repeatedly that denuclearization 

is not an option. He is on a quest for nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles capable of 

delivering them intercontinentally. The words and actions of North Korea threaten the U.S. 

homeland and that of our allies in South Korea and Japan. That's North Korea as it is. 

I know there's some debate about the miniaturization and other technological advancements 

made by Pyongyang. But an aggressive weapons test schedule, as demonstrated by yet another 

ballistic missile launch this April, moves North Korea closer to its stated goals. As a military 

commander, I must assume that Kim .Tong-Un's claims arc true- his aspirations certainly are. 

USPACOM must be prepared to fight tonight, so I take him at his word. That means we must 

consider every possible step to defend the U.S. Homeland and our allies. That's why the ROKU.S. alliance has decided to deploy THAAD- the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system 

in South Korea as soon as possible. That's why the United States continues to call on ChinaNorth Korea's principal ally to exert its considerable influence to stop Pyongyang's 

unprecedented campaign of nuclear weapons ballistic missile tests. That's why we continue to 

emphasize trilateral cooperation between Japan, ROK, and the U.S. That's why American 

leaders and diplomats continue to rally the international community to loudly condemn North 

Korea's unacceptable behavior. 

North Korea vigorously pursued a strategic strike capability in 2016. We assess that the progress 

made in several areas will encourage Kim Jong-Un to continue down this reckless and dangerous 

path. Pyongyang launched more ballistic missiles last year than it did in the previous few years 

combined. This included the first launches of the Musudan intermediate range ballistic missile 

(IRBM) and the developmental submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Both systems 

experienced noteworthy- and often spectacular failures, but they also both achieved some 

successes. Just as Thomas Edison is believed to have failed l 000 times before successfully 

inventing the electric light bulb, so too, Kim Jong-Un will keep trying. One of these days soon, 

he will succeed. The 2016 SLBM test and the numerous land-based tests employed solid-fuel 

engines, another indication that Kim Jong-Un is continuing to modify and improve missile 

Page 4 of 34 
288

reliability and performance. Those successes advance North Korea's technical and operational 

base and allow continued development. Aggressive rhetoric since the New Year strongly 

suggests North Korea will not only continue to test these proscribed systems, but is also likely to 

attempt a first launch of a similarly prohibited intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). 

At the same time, North Korea's nuclear scientists and engineers are hard at work attempting to 

transform fissile nuclear materials into reliable nuclear weapons. Pyongyang defied the 

international community and detonated nuclear devices five times- including two in 2016. Kim 

Jong-Un has threatened the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against the U.S. and other 

regional targets. Kim's strategic capabilities arc not yet an existential threat to the U.S., but if 

left unchecked, he will gain the capability to match his rhetoric. At that point we will wake up to 

a new world. North Korea's existing capabilities arc already a significant threat to several of our 

regional treaty allies and the 90,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Western Pacific. 

North Korea fields the fourth largest conventional military in the world. Despite a number of 

noteworthy shortfalls in training and equipment, we must take seriously the substantial inventory 

of long-range rockets, artillery, close-range ballistic missiles, and expansive chemical weaponry 

aimed across the Demilitarized Zone at the Republic of Korea and U.S. forces stationed there. 

North Korea also maintains sizeable numbers of well-trained, highly disciplined special 

operations forces. Pyongyang made a point recently of publicizing a Special Forces exercise that 

attacked and destroyed a detailed mock-up of the ROK Presidential complex in an attempt to 

underscore the capability and lethality of its forces. 

Pyongyang's emphasis on strategic and military capabilities comes at the expense of the North 

Korean people, who continue to struggle with a lifeless economy and international isolation. 

In confronting the North Korean threat, it is critical that the U.S. be guided by a strong sense of 

resolve both publicly and privately in order to bring Kim Jong-Un to his senses, not his knees. 

£!!i!!.!!..;. The rapid transformation of China's military into a high-tech force capable of regional 

dominance and a growing ability to support aspirations for global reach and influence is 

concerning. A February 2017 study from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) 

concluded that Chinese weapons and air power in particular are "reaching near-parity with the 

west." Studies from DOD's Office of Net Assessment further confirm this trend in our 

decreasing capability overmatch. I agree with these reports. Our dominance in high tech 

advanced weapons cannot be taken for granted. To do so would be a strategic mistake. 

China's activities on the seas, in the air, and in cyberspace have generated concerns about its 

strategic intentions. For the past two years, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been 

implementing an extensive reorganization which has so far included the creation of 

Page 5 of 34 
289

geographically focused Theater Commands, each organized and equipped for specific regional 

contingencies. This reorganization may be the most important development in the PLA's 

growing ability to organize for modern combat. The structural reforms that created the Theater 

Commands institutionalized a joint command and control concept to allow the PLAto maximize 

the individual services' warfighting strengths into a more cohesive joint force. However, it is 

likely to take several years before the full benefit of this change is realized. One early indicator 

that China is already addressing some of the challenges of joint operations is the recent 

unprecedented appointment of a Navy Admiral to replace an Army General as the commander of 

the largely maritime-focused Southern Theater. 

China's equipment development and fielding programs are comprehensive and impressive. The 

PLA Navy (PLAN) boasts some of the most advanced warships in the region, including the Type 

0520 (Luyang-lll) guided missile destroyer and the Type 039A (Shang) attack submarine. 

Within the next two years the first Type 055 (Renhai) guided missile cruisers will join the fleet. 

These modern, multi-functional ships can support a range of missions and employ sophisticated 

air defense, surface attack, and subsurface munitions, including anti-ship missiles with ranges far 

exceeding existing U.S. Navy anti-ship weapons. The PLAN's aircraft carrier program is 

progressing with the CV -16 (Liaoning) serving as a test and development platfonn while China 

builds its first indigenous aircraft carrier, anticipated to be at full operational capability early in 

the 2020s, and expected to be a spiral upgrade in capabilities. CV-16's deployment to the South 

China Sea in December and January showed China's growing ability to employ carrier-based 

aviation. The Type 094 (Jin) ballistic missile submarine can launch nuclear missiles capable of 

reaching parts of the continental U.S. 

The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and Naval Air Force (PLANA F) are similarly fielding greater 

numbers of advanced fighters, bombers, and special mission aircraft while aggressively 

developing new platforms. Flying prototypes of 120 and JJI multi-role fighters pmtend a nearterm capability to field near-5th generation fighters. A new heavy lift transport (Y-20) will give 

China a greater ability to move troops and equipment anywhere in the world. New and/or 

upgraded bombers, electronic warfare, command and control, and anti-submarine aircraft all 

expand PLA abilities to conduct a wide range of operations. 

PLA ground forces are large, modem, and well trained. Also reorganized in 2016, the PLA 

increasingly operates in combined arms formations integrating attack helicopters, artillery, 

electronic warfare, and other arms into their training activities. They've incorporated some of 

the training methods used by the U.S. (e.g., combat training centers with dedicated opposing 

forces and instrumentation) to increase realism and sophistication in their training. 

Another component of the ongoing PLA reorganization is the expansion of capabilities and 

numbers of the PLA Navy Marines. While the full scope of the change is unclear some reports 

Page 6 of 34 
290

have the number of marines increasing five-fold to as many as l 00,000 troops what is clear is 

the growing importance China places on building the ability to project power using an 

expeditionary capability. PRC media has highlighted recent marine deployments for training in 

harsh weather conditions and on unfamiliar terrain. Chinese leadership likely envisions using the 

expanded marine capability as an expeditionary force to both seize Taiwan and protect Chinese 

interests overseas. 

The PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) controls the largest and most diverse missile force in the world, 

with an inventory of more than 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles. This fact is significant 

because the U.S. has no comparable capability due to our adherence to the Intermediate Range 

Nuclear Forces (IN F) Treaty with Russia. (Approximately, 95% of the PLARF's missiles would 

violate the INF if China was a signatory.) The PLARF is organized for a range of missions, with 

large numbers of missiles targeted against Taiwan, and others intended to strike targets as far 

away as Guam and the so-called second island chain, and intercontinental-range missile capable 

of delivering nuclear weapons to strike the continental U.S. China is also heavily investing in 

advanced missile technologies like hypersonics and, on average, launches more than 100 missiles 

each year for training or research and development. 

The PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASS F) was established last year to better manage and 

employ the PLA's impressive array of cyber, space, and other specialized capabilities. The 

PLASSF is a potential game-changer if it succeeds in denying other countries the use of space, 

the electromagnetic spectrum, and networks. 

To train and integrate these capabilities, Chinese forces have increased the scope of operations in 

number, complexity, and geographic range. Submarine deployments to the Indian Ocean, air 

exercises in the Middle East, and port visits to Europe or South America are on the rise. For 

example, President Xi will travel to Djibouti in the near future to officially open the Chinese 

naval base there. The base is strategically positioned on the narrowest point of the strategic strait 

of Bab a! Mandeb, a key intersection for intemational commercial and defense related 

navigation. This base could support Chinese force projection through the Indian Ocean and into 

the Mediterranean and Africa. 

An encouraging sign that China is willing to shoulder a greater role in international affairs is the 

expansion of Chinese peacekeeping missions, something we promote in our interactions with the 

PLA. My goal remains to convince China that its best future comes from peaceful cooperation, 

meaningful participation in the current rules-based security order, and honoring its international 

commitments. 

Territorial Disputes and Maritime Claims: A number of friction points where competing 

territorial claims overlap exist throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific, e.g., between Russia and Japan 

Page 7 of 34 
291

(Northern Territories) and between the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah) but none are as 

fraught with the potential for escalation and military conflict as the South and East China Seas. 

South China Sea: The U.S. takes no position on competing sovereignty claims in the South 

China Sea, but we encourage all countries to uphold international law, including the law of the 

sea as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention, and to respect unimpeded lawful commerce, 

freedom of navigation and overflight, and peaceful dispute resolution. 

There are three notable disputes over territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea. The first 

dispute is between China, Taiwan, and Vietnam over the Paracel Islands, which China took by 

force from Vietnam and has occupied since 1974. The second dispute is between China, Taiwan, 

and the Philippines over Scarborough Reef. In 2012, the U.S. brokered a deal between the 

Philippines and China where both countries committed to keep their naval forces away from 

Scarborough. While the Philippines honored the commitment, China continued to operate with 

its Navy and Coast Guard and, soon after, expelled Philippine fishermen. The third dispute 

involves multiple claimants within the Spratly Islands where China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, 

Malaysia, and the Philippines each claim sovereignty over some or all of the features. 

The past year included some major developments in the status of these disputes. The landmark 

ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal under the Law of the Sea Convention (the Tribunal) in July 2016 

addressed the status of features and maritime claims specified in the Philippines' arbitration case. 

While the tribunal did not rule on the sovereignty of specific features, the tribunal did declare a 

number of China's maritime claims and actions unlawful. However, China ignored the ruling 

and maintains and even articulated new excessive maritime claims throughout the South China 

Sea. All the activities underway before the ruling, including the militarization of the artificial 

landforms created by China and the provocative actions of military and law enforcement forces, 

continue unabated. 

China's military-specific construction in the Spratly islands includes the construction of 72 

fighter aircraft hangars which could support three fighter regiments and about ten larger 

hangars that could support larger airframes, such as bombers or special mission aircraft. All of 

these hangars should be completed this year. During the initial phases of construction China 

emplaced tank farms, presumably for fuel and water, at Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs. 

These could support substantial numbers of personnel as well as deployed aircraft and/or ships. 

All seven outposts are armed with a large number of artillery and gun systems, ostensibly for 

defensive missions. The recent identification of buildings that appear to have been built 

specifically to house long-rang surface-to-air missiles is the latest indication China intends to 

deploy military systems to the Spratlys. During my Congressional testimony last year, I reported 

my belief that China was clearly militarizing the South China Sea. China's activities since then 

have only reinforced this belief. We should cease to be cautious about the language we use to 

Page 8 of 34 
292

describe these activities. Despite its claims to the contrary, China has militarized the South 

China Sea through the building of seven military bases on artificial islands constructed through 

the large-scale damage of a fragile environment in disputed areas. 

The presence of these military capabilities undermines China's consistent claim that these 

massively expanded features are for safety and humanitarian purposes. Recently China has tried 

to obscure the military purposes of its Spratly Islands efforts by calling for private investment, 

residential settlement, and tourism. The latter may prove especially problematic as China's land 

creation effort over the past few years has destroyed the once vibrant marine ecosystem 

surrounding the features. 

China's naval, coast guard, maritime militia, State Oceanic Administration, and air force 

presence in the South China Sea remains substantial. China Coast Guard (CCG) ships remain 

present ncar Chinese outposts and other features. CCG and PLAN ships also continue to control 

activities near Scarborough Reef, a feature also claimed by the Philippines. In February, China 

announced it was seeking to revise its domestic Maritime Traffic Safety Law to empower its 

maritime services to control or penalize foreign ships operating in "other sea areas under the 

jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China" beyond those allowed under international law as 

reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. Given China's continued rejection of the Tribunal 

ruling and continued articulation that much of the South China Sea is "under its jurisdiction," we 

can only assume China intends to improperly apply its domestic law to foreign ships operating 

lawfully in the area. 

China protests the legal and long-standing U.S. presence in the South China Sea by falsely 

claiming Washington is the cause for tensions. U.S. military forces have been operating 

routinely and persistently on, below, and above the South China Sea for more than 70 yearsthis hasn't changed. What has changed the status quo in the South China Sea in recent years is 

the increased coercive behavior by China's military, Coast Guard, and a vast network of private 

vessels controlled by the PRC that act as a maritime militia of''little green fishermen." 

Furthermore, China's unprecedented artificial island construction and land reclamation has 

increased tensions with other claimants and its neighbors. The U.S. has consistently called for 

all claimants to find a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to their land and maritime disputes in the 

South China Sea. 

Specifically, since 1979, the U.S. Freedom of Navigation program has peacefully challenged 

excessive maritime claims by coastal states all around the world (including those of our friends 

and allies). This program consists of diplomatic communications and operational assertions, 

which arc not provocative and are not a threat to any country. These operations are conducted 

globally to maintain open seas and open skies, which underpins economic prosperity for the U.S. 

and all countries. 

Page 9 of 34 
293

Freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) are conducted for exactly what the title says to 

exercise the right of all nations to operate freely at sea and in the air wherever international law 

allows. In 2016, USPACOM forces conducted three FONOPs near disputed features in the 

South China Sea. These and future routine FONOPs demonstrate that the U.S. military will 

continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, especially where excessive 

maritime claims attempt to erode the freedom of the seas. 

East China Sea: Tensions between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands continue to 

worsen. This past year saw a sharp rise in the number PLAAF aircraft operating over the East 

China Sea. China persistently challenges Japan's administration over the islands by deploying 

warships into the area, sailing Coast Guard ships inside the territorial waters surrounding the 

Senkakus, and protesting Japanese reconnaissance flights. The presence of military and law 

enforcement assets in close proximity to one another and the accompanying rhetoric create an 

environment conducive to miscalculation and unintended incidents. U.S. policy is clear here: the 

Senkakus are under the administration of Japan and we will defend them in accordance with the 

U.S.- Japan Treaty on Mutual Cooperation and Security. Secretary Mattis recently said during 

his trip to Japan that," ... our longstanding policy on the Senkaku islands stands. The U.S. will 

continue to recognize Japanese administration of the islands and as such Article 5 of the U.S.-

Japan Security Treaty applies." 

Russia: Although focused on Europe and the Middle East, Russia is engaged militarily and 

politically in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. I share General Lori Robinson's view that Russia continues 

to exhibit increasingly aggressive behavior, both regionally and globally. 

The Russian Pacific Fleet operates and exercises throughout the region. The second Borey 

(Dolgorukiy-class) nuclear ballistic missile submarine transferred to the Pacific Fleet last fall, 

and the Kremlin announced the acquisition of 6 new advanced Kilo attack submarines for the 

Pacific by 2021. The Russian Pacific Fleet's five Project 949A (Oscar II) nuclear-powered 

guided missile submarines have a mission to track and attack aircraft carriers and other priority 

targets- including land targets- in the event of war. In late 2015 Russia announced a plan to 

upgrade the Oscar II to fire new, more-advanced long-range missiles. The first Steregushchyclass guided missile corvette was commissioned in January 2017 with more planned as part of 

ongoing military modernization efforts. Russian troops and warships held combined islandseizure training with China in the South China Sea last summer. On land, Russian forces fielded 

long-range anti-ship missiles along the coast, moved S-400 strategic air defense missiles to the 

east, and stationed the advanced Su-34 fighter-bomber to patrol the skies. Nuclear-capable 

bombers continue to fly missions focused on rehearsing strikes on the U.S. mainland or regional 

targets. Additionally, Russia has introduced a new generation of highly precise, conventionally 

armed cruise missiles that can reach the United States and our allies. 

Page 10 of 34 
294

Of particular note are Russian efforts to build presence and influence the high north. Russia has 

more bases north of the Arctic Circle than all other countries combined and is building more with 

distinctly military capabilities. 

Russian economic and political outreach brings both positive and negative impacts for the 

region. Expanding exports of Russian natural gas and oil provides new, diversified sources for 

Asia's growing energy demands. Japan and ROK are among the leading importers of Russian 

coal. Japanese investment in the Russian Far East may prove extraordinarily helpful to regional 

growth and stability. But Russia also seeks to mitigate the effects of international sanctions 

imposed in response to its military operations in Ukraine, and may be trying to wedge itself into 

new relationships by opportunistically providing economic aid packages and military assistance 

(e.g., the Philippines). 

ISIS I Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs): ISIS is a clear threat that must be defeated. 

The main geographic focus of the U.S.-led counter-ISIS coalition has rightfully been in the 

Middle East and North Africa. But, as ISIS is defeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, it will 

undoubtedly seek to operate in other areas. Increasing numbers of returning fighters alone have 

already forced USPACOM to think ahead about "what's next" in the fight against ISIS. As I 

mentioned earlier in this testimony, there are far more Muslims living in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 

than in the Middle East and North Africa. The vast majorities are peaceful people who seek to 

live lives free from the curse of terrorism. But even if a very small percentage of the Muslims in 

the USPACOM AOR are radicalized, there could be deadly results. 

In 2016 alone, we witnessed ISIS-inspired terrorism in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the 

Philippines. Additionally, it's clear to me that as our military operations in the Middle East 

continue to deny ISIS territory, some foreign fighters originally from the Indo-Asia-Pacific will 

try to return home. They'll come back to their home countries radicalized and weaponized. So 

we must stop them now at the front end and not at the back end when the threat can become 

more dangerous. But we cannot do it alone. To halt ISIS' cancerous spread, we must work 

together with like-minded nations in the region and across the globe. 

USPACOM seeks to advance multinational partnerships with a purpose. Malaysia, Indonesia, 

the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand are partners we are engaging to tackle the threat 

against ISIS and other VEOs. Many Indo-Asia-Pacific countries like Australia and New Zealand 

have joined the coalition dedicated to ISIS' complete destruction. Through multinational 

collaboration, we can eradicate this disease before it metastasizes in the USPACOM area of 

responsibility. 

Page 11 of 34 
295

Countering violent extremism in the Indo-Asia-Pacific requires close collaboration with U.S. 

government interagency partners like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of 

Treasury, and the various agencies of our intelligence community. Through an interagency 

network reinforced by liaison officers embedded in USPACOM headquarters and Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM) we are able to leverage tools from across our government to 

fight terrorist organization. 

Transnational Crime: Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), many of whom operate 

as sophisticated global enterprises that traffic in human beings, weapons, drugs and other illicit 

substances, exist throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific. The revenue from criminal endeavors 

threatens stability and undermines human rights. Corruption follows wherever these 

organizations flourish, weakening governments and contributing to regional instability. 

Methamphetamine and amphetamine-type stimulants continue to be the primary drug threat in to 

the U.S. from the region. Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W) reports that while Asiasourced methamphetamine production is significant, methamphetamine produced elsewhere 

supplements the region's increasing demand. Maritime container shipments of China-sourced 

chemicals account for the bulk of the precursors used by Latin American drug trafficking 

organizations to manufacture methamphetamine and heroin, most of which is intended for the 

U.S. market- a direct threat to the U.S. homeland. Additionally, China-sourced fentanyl and 

new psychoactive substances are now a growing threat to the U.S. 

While much remains to be done, USPACOM forces, including JIA TF-W, are coordinating with 

our interagency and foreign partners to address these threats. 

Proliferation Issues: The Indo-Asia-Pacific has the busiest maritime and air ports in the world. 

Technological advances have outpaced many countries' ability to effectively manage export 

controls to counter the proliferation of component technology. Trade includes dual-use 

technology, such as commercial items controlled by the nuclear, ballistic missile, and 

chemical/biological weapons control regimes, including manufactured or re-exported materials 

from other countries with limited export control enforcement. USPACOM's Countering 

Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD) community supports proliferation operations 

throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific by addressing concerns through key leader engagements, 

combined and joint exercises, and international security exchanges focused on counter 

proliferation activities. 

Natural Disasters: The Indo-Asia-Pacific region remains the most disaster prone region in the 

world. 75 percent of Earth's volcanoes and 90 percent of earthquakes occur in the "Ring of Fire" 

surrounding the Pacific Basin. According to a 2015 UN report, disasters over the last I 0 years 

Page lZ of 34 
296

took the lives of a half a million people in the region, with over 1.5 bill on people affected and 

damages of over a half a trillion dollars. 

In the 2015 Nepal earthquake response, in coordination with the Nepalese government and 

USAID, USPACOM's Joint Task Force 505 delivered about 120 tons of emergency relief 

supplies and transported 553 personnel and conducted 69 casualty evacuations. This last fall 

USS SAMPSON (DOG I 02) and Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft assisted New 

Zealand in its response to an earthquake on its South Island. 

While disaster response is not a primary USPACOM focus, a key clement of our Theater 

Campaign Plan (TCP) is building capacity with allies and partners to improve their resiliency 

and capability to conduct humanitarian assistance/disaster response (HA/DR). HA/DR 

cooperation is also an effective means to deepen and strengthen relationships. USPACOM's 

Center for Excellence for Disaster Management (CFE-DM) increases regional governments' 

readiness to respond to natural disasters by serving as a node for distribution of best practices. 

Our service components are prepositioning HA/DR stocks to facilitate timely response and to 

build access. And, when possible, U.S. military forces can and do assist with unique capabilities 

in the areas of air and sealift, infrastructure restoration, and emergency medical support. 

Budget Uncertainty: Fiscal uncertainty injects substantial risk to USPACOM's long-term 

mission. The Budget Control Act and yearly Continuing Resolutions degrade USPACOM's 

ability to effectively plan. 

I've said this many times before sequestration must be repealed. 

In 20 I 3, sequestration cut every defense program equally. As a result, real readiness suffered. 

For example, we were forced to cancel an important joint exercise, NORTHERN EDGE. We 

need predictable funding to meet our current mission requirements and to prepare for the future. 

Keeping self-imposed spending cuts is a long-term threat to our national security. 

Fiscal uncertainty and reduced funding levels have forced the services to make offsets in crucial 

investments toward modernization, infrastructure, and future readiness. These tradeoff's will 

continue to have a negative impact on the Indo-Asia Pacific Theater strategy. Equally important, 

the uncertainty of the current fiscal landscape places a heavy burden ofunpredictabiiity onto our 

service members and their families, our government civilians, Department of Defense 

contractors, and supporting industry. The U.S. will experience degraded warfighting capabilities 

unless decisive actions are taken to end fiscal uncertainties. 

The strategic priorities from the Services must be funded to provide USPACOM what we need in 

order to provide for the national defense. 

Page 13 of 34 
297

Without a bipartisan agreement that provides relief from the Budget Control Act caps, the 

Department of Defense will be forced to decrease investments that have given our warfighters 

the technological edge they have enjoyed for decades. Our near-peer competitors like China and 

Russia are quickly closing the technological gap. I need weapons systems of increased lethality 

that go faster, further, are networked, are more survivable, and affordable. If USPACOM has to 

fight tonight, I don't want it to be a fair fight. If it's a knife fight, I want to bring a gun. If it's a 

gun fight, I want to bring in the artillery, and the artillery of all of our allies. But as I said during 

Congressional testimony last year, sequestration could reduce us to wielding a butter knife in this 

fight. We must not let that happen. In order to deter potential adversaries in the Indo-AsiaPacific, we must invest in critical capabilities, build a force posture that decreases our 

vulnerabilities and increases our resiliency, and reassure our allies and partners while 

encouraging them to be full and cooperative partners in their own defense and the defense of the 

rules-based international order. 

Critical Capabilities 

The most technical, high-end military challenges America faces in the region continue to grow. 

While forward presence. alliances, and partnerships address these challenges, USPACOM 

requires our most technologically advanced warfighting capabilities to fully meet them. The 

critical capabilities in this section demand our attention and treasure. We must preserve our 

asymmetric advantages in undersea and anti-submarine warfare, and we must strengthen our 

abilities to counter strategies designed to limit our freedom of action. 

China has developed and fielded capability and capacity to challenge our regional maritime 

dominance. I need increased lethality, specifically ships and aircraft equipped with faster and 

more survivable weapons systems. Longer range oiTensive weapons on every platform are an 

imperative. And, then we must network this force and take advantage of man-machine teaming 

to improve our responsiveness. 

Pacing the threats we face in this region is not an option in my playbook. We must work hard 

and invest the money to outpace the competition to develop and deploy the latest technology to 

USPACOM. Examples include Navy Integrated Fires and the AEGIS Flight Ill destroyer and its 

Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) essential tools in today's complex operating 

environment. 

Munitions, Fuels, and Logistics Networks: Critical munitions shortfalls are my top 

warfighting concern. Munitions are a large part of determining combat readiness in pursuit of 

national strategic objectives. We arc short in "here-and-now" basic munitions like small 

diameter bombs. Our ncar-peer competitors continue to modernize their weapons systems and 

Page 14 of 34 
298

leverage new technologies to close capability gaps between us and them. We must maintain our 

capability to operate in contested environments. Additionally, we must continue to expand cross 

domain fires capabilities and focus on joint integration to strengthen deterrence and enable joint 

combined maneuver. 

Priorities include long-range and stand-off strike weapons, anti-ship weapons, advanced air-toair munitions, theater ballistic/cruise missile defense, torpedoes, naval mines, and a Cluster 

Munitions replacement. With respect to ship-to-ship and air-to-ship munitions that allow us to 

defeat an aggressor from greater range, we are looking at capabilities similar to Long Range 

Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile- Extended Range 

(JASSM-ER). In the air-to air realm, I am seeking advancements in munitions that will provide 

us an advantage in a denied environment, such as the AIM-120D and AIM-9X2 air superiority 

missiles. We must modernize and improve our torpedo and naval mine capabilities to maintain 

our undersea advantage. Continued improvements in the capability and capacity of 

ballistic/cruise missile defense interceptors will further enhance homeland defense capabilities 

and protect key regional nodes from aggressive action. In support of the Korean Peninsula, I 

support efforts to acquire a replacement for Cluster Munitions- we need an Area Effects 

Munition replacement now. 

As new inventory becomes available, current storage capacity will become critical. Current, 

legacy storage locations are inadequate to store specific types of modernized munitions and meet 

the requirements of FY2 I Department of Defense Explosive Safety Standards. To meet security 

and safety standards for future inventory, additional new military construction (MILCON) will 

be required. When munitions storage MILCON projects lose to competing projects and are not 

funded we put unnecessary risk on our personnel. We must fund these MILCON projects. 

Fuel is a critical commodity, and its strategic positioning is a key pillar of our logistics posture. 

Ensuring we have the right fuel, in the right amount, at the right location, at the right time, is 

vital to USPACOM's ability to project power throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific. I remain 

committed to building the capacity of our prepositioned war reserve stocks of fuel, including 

resiliency of the facilities, infrastructure, and supply chain on which these stocks depend. 

Finally, our nation's ability to project power rides on the backbone of airlift and sealift. This is 

most true in USPACOM. Our Air Force made tough decisions to transition airlift to BackupAircraft Inventory (BAI) status and transition Active Components to Guard and Reserve in order 

to meet budget constraints. Unfortunately, these decisions resulted in a lack of flexibility and 

readily available capacity for combatant command war plans. Today's global competition for 

airlift resources hinders the joint force's ability to promptly achieve operational objectives. In 

war, this shortcoming can result in greater loss oflife, increased risk on USPACOM-ficlded 

forces, and risk to our Nation's credibility with partners and allies. I remain concerned about the 

Page 15 of 34 
299

current airlift posture and support an increase in airlift capacity, resources, and innovative 

deployment technologies. The long-term health of the U.S. flag commercial fleet and the 

availability of the merchant marine is also a concern. 

Taken collectively, these individual gaps and shortfalls in our logistics capabilities represent 

overall erosion in USPACOM's operational readiness and require an initiative like APSI to 

reverse those negative trends. A strategic initiative to arrest and reverse those trends would be 

beneficial and worth consideration. 

Air Superiority: In order to deter potential adversaries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific we must 

possess the capabilities that allow us to gain air superiority at a time and place of our choosing 

and we must be able to maintain that air superiority long enough to complete critical missions. 

For the last several decades the U.S. has enjoyed unmatched air superiority including 4t1' 

generation fighters and air-battle-management platforms. Our potential adversaries, however, 

are rapidly closing the gap as both Russia and China have fielded their own versions of 5th 

generation fighters just as the U.S. has begun the fielding of our S'h generation platforms in the 

Pacific. While we continue to invest in 5th generation platforms, we must also find innovative 

ways to make our 4'h generation aircraft more capable. Regardless of the pace of S'h generation 

fielding, these 4th generation platforms will be in our active inventory for years to come and we 

will have to rely on them to address the same threats. 

Undersea Warfare: Roughly 230 of the world's 400 foreign submarines are in the Indo-AsiaPacific, of which approximately 160 belong to China, North Korea, and Russia. Potential 

adversary submarine activity has tripled from 2008 levels, requiring a corresponding increase of 

U.S. activity to maintain undersea superiority. China is improving the lethality and survivability 

of its attack submarines and building quieter, high-end diesel and nuclear powered submarines. 

China has four operational nuclear-powered Jin-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and 

at least one more may enter service by the end of this decade. When armed, a Jin-class SSBN 

will give China an important strategic capability that must be countered. Russia is modernizing 

its existing fleet of Oscar-class multi-purpose attack nuclear submarines (SSGNs) and producing 

their next generation Severodvinsk Yasen-class SSGNs. Russia has also horneported their 

newest Dolgorukiy-class SSBN in the Pacific, significantly enhancing its strategic capability. 

USPACOM must maintain its asymmetric advantage in undersea warfare capability including 

our attack submarines, their munitions, and other anti-submarine warfare systems like the P-8 

Poseidon and ship-borne systems. Additionally, the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System 

(IUSS), including the Surface Towed Array Sensor Systems (SUR TASS), plays a key role to 

theater operations and must be resourced appropriately to ensure it remains relevant. 

Maintaining pace with submarine activity growth is necessary and I support the Secretary of the 

Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment which calls for a 355-ship navy including 66 attack 

submarines. 

Page 16 of 34 
300

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): The challenge of gathering credible 

deep and penetrating intelligence cannot be overstated. The Indo-Asia-Pacific presents a 

dynamic security environment requiring flexible, reliable, survivable deep-look and persistent 

ISR to provide indications and waming and situational awareness across a vast geographic area. 

As previously noted, USPACOM faces a variety of challenges and potential flashpoints. Our 

treaty allies rely on U.S. ISR capabilities to support mutual defense treaties. ISR is required to 

prevent strategic surprise, buy decision space for national leadership, accurately assess the 

security environment and, if necessary, defeat potential adversaries. Continued advancements of 

our near-peer competitors requires additional advancements to how our intelligence is collected 

and processed including the risks involved- to avoid greater long-term risk. Our ISR 

capabilities must be suited to our unique operating environment. 

Space and Cyberspace: USPACOM relies on space based assets for satellite communications 

(SA TCOM), ISR, and Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) capabilities to support 

missions across the range of military operations. USPACOM's region spans over half the globe 

and space-based assets are high-demand, low-density resources. As the space grows increasingly 

congested and contested, our adversaries have and continue to develop means to deny our spaceenabled capabilities. USPACOM requires resilient and responsive space based capabilities to 

support operations. China continues to pursue a broad and robust array of counter-space 

capabilities, which includes direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles, co-orbital anti-satellite systems, 

cyber-attack and exploitation, directed energy weapons and ground-based satellite and PNT 

jammers. 

Freedom of maneuver across the cyberspace domain is critical to USPACOM's ability to execute 

military operation. We face constant threats in this domain from both state and non-state actors 

and must ensure we have a robust and capable cyber force, as well as the equipment necessary to 

operate and defend the U.S. military's portion of the Department of Defense Information 

Network within USPACOM's area of operations. In addition, USPACOM requires an agile and 

defensible network infrastructure to enable information sharing and collaboration with our 

mission partners. This network infrastructure will foster better command and control in joint and 

coalition efforts, and will provide a true fight tonight communication capability that does not 

currently exist. 

Our offensive cyber capabilities, currently under the responsibility of USCYBERCOM, continue 

to develop. As the command and control relationships continue to mature between USPACOM 

and USCYBERCOM, and between USCYBERCOM and its subordinate headquarters, we 

continue to advocate for increased unity of effort and unity of command for all cyber forces 

within USPACOM's area of operation. It is important that we strike the right balance between 

maintaining a sufficiently capable cyber force within our theater working directly for 

USPACOM and its subordinates and developing a capable cyber force under USCYBERCOM. 

Page 17 of 34 
301

Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD): USPACOM faces unique IAMD challenges 

despite efforts to forward station additional lA MD sensors and weapons capabilities in the IndoAsia-Pacific to protect our forces and allies. Hawaii, Guam, and our Pacific territories are part of 

our Homeland and must also be defended. North Korea's persistent research, development and 

active testing of both its missile and nuclear programs and China's development and operational 

fielding of advanced counter-intervention technologies that includes fielding and testing of 

highly maneuverable re-entry vehicle/warhead (i.e., hypersonic weapons) capabilities challenges 

U.S. strategic, operational, and tactical freedom of movement and maneuver. Other notable 

challenges include challenging new cruise missiles and Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

technologies. 

USPACOM's IAMD priority is to establish a persistent, credible, and sustainable ballistic 

missile defense presence by forward deploying the latest advancements in missile defense 

technologies to the Indo-Asia-Pacific. Accordingly, TPY-2 radars in Japan, the THAAD system 

on Guam, and the Sea-Based X-band Radar (SBX) based in Hawaii defend the Homeland and 

our allies. USPACOM and USFK with the support of the DOD, the U.S. Army and MDA are 

working bi-laterally with South Korea to ensure the emplacement of a THAAD battery on the 

Korean peninsula in the next few months. The U.S. Navy is moving forward with the port shift 

of the USS MILIUS from San Diego to Yokosuka, Japan in 2017. Since the arrival of the USS 

BEN FOLD and USS BARRY to Japan in fiscal year 2016, the U.S. Seventh Fleet is in a better 

position to support the U.S.-Japan alliance with more flexible missile defense capability. 

USPACOM will continue working with Japan. the ROK. and Australia to improve our level of 

staff coordination and infonnation sharing and the goal of creating a fully-integrated Ballistic 

Missile Defense (BMD) architecture that must also address the increasing cruise missile threat. 

Innovation: Innovation continues to be critical to addressing USPACOM's capability gaps and 

maintaining our military advantage. USPACOM partners with DOD-wide organizations, 

national laboratories, and industry to provide innovative solutions to fill capability requirements. 

USPACOM also continues to work closely with the OSD Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) to 

develop and field game-changing technologies for the Indo-Asia-Pacific. USPACOM 

recognizes that advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, large data analytics, and 

predictive forecasting will enable our warfighters to make better decisions and to confront the 

challenges of our near-peer adversaries. The DOD Third Offset Strategy provides the 

mechanism to invest in innovative capabilities that will enhance the joint warfighter given the 

challenges in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Theater. As I have stated, this is not about winning wars on 

the cheap, as some critics may suggest. It's about winning wars on the smart. USPACOM will 

continue to push the boundaries of innovation and "fail smartly" so that we can ultimately 

develop and field the best solutions for the joint warfighter. 

Page 18 of 34 
302

Fires ... Achieving Multi-Domain Battle (MDB): Over the past two decades, China has 

developed numerous ground and air launched missile systems that far outrange U.S. systems. 

They have done this at a fraction of the cost of some of our more expensive systems. 

Constrained in part by our adherence to the INF treaty, the U.S. has fallen behind in our ability to 

match the long-range fires capabilities of the new era. China is not a signatory to the INF treaty 

and the other main signatory, Russia, has repeatedly violated the treaty as they develop 

capabilities that could prevent the U.S. from fulfilling its alliance obligations. 

Just as our adversaries have adapted to counter our asymmetric advantages, we, too must adapt 

the way we fight to leverage new techno logics and approaches to operations to maintain our 

edge. We need systems that are fast, long-range, lethal, survivable, networked, rapidly 

deployable, and maneuverable. Given existing technology, such systems should be relatively 

inexpensive. 

With this in mind that I have become a strong advocate for the operational concept known as 

Multi-Domain Battle (MDB). The Deputy Secretary of Defense has called MDB, "the first 

operational concept of the third offset." MDB is the ultimate joint concept that allows a 

commander to achieve cross-domain effects. Because of this, it gives a commander multiple 

options from across the joint force and confuses our adversaries by making them face multiple 

dilemmas. MDB calls for combined arms operations across all domains with joint force 

capabilities being brought to bear in the long-range fight as well as close combat. Recognizing 

that we may no longer be able to maintain broad sea and air control as we did in the past, one 

benefit of MDB in the Indo-Asia-Pacific is the addition of ground, space, electromagnetic 

spectrum, and cyber forces operating across archipelagic regions to augment sea and air forces to 

create temporal pockets of dominance that can be exploited to gain tactical and operational 

advantage. 

We already have much of the capability for MDB in our force. However, one of the biggest 

capability gaps in terms of joint effects is the lack of connectivity between the Navy's 

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Army's THAAD and Patriot Systems, and the 

USMC's C2 systems. I know the Services are working on this problem. The technology is out 

there and the proof is in the lethal systems developed by our adversaries. More importantly, 

MOB requires a new jointness to bring it all together. MOB conceptualizes bringing jointness 

further down to the tactical levels allowing smaller echelons to communicate and coordinate 

directly while fighting in a decentralized manner that still allows for clearance of fires and 

deconfliction of efforts. I have tasked my component commands at USPACOM to test this 

operational concept in a major exercise. We are well on our way to meeting that goal thanks to a 

great team of service component commanders and their organizations. 

Strategic Force Posture in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 

Page 19 of 34 
303

The tyranny of distance and short indications and warnings timelines place a premium on robust, 

modern, and agile forward-stationed forces at high levels of readiness. USPACOM requires a 

force posture that credibly communicates U.S. resolve, strengthens alliances and partnerships, 

prevents conflict, and in the event of crisis, responds rapidly across the full range of military 

operations. USPACOM's force posture is also supplemented by the deployment of rotational 

forces and the fielding of new capabilities and concepts that address operational shortfalls and 

critical gaps. 

Global Force Management (GFM): The Department of Defense is continuing several GFM 

initiatives that include adding the Navy's newest airborne early warning and control aircraft, the 

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, to the USS RONALD REAGAN Strike Group in Japan, and 

increasing the presence of ballistic missile defense-capable surface ships. The Army is 

stationing a THAAD battery in South Korea and maintains the rotation of an Armored Brigade 

Combat Team (ABCT), plus enabling forces, to the Korean Peninsula. The Army also continues 

to support collective training and forward presence across the region through Pacific Pathways, 

thus enhancing partnership opportunities, avoiding permanent basing, and increasing Army 

readiness. The Air Force deploys a broad range of assets to the region, including F-22s, F-16s, 

E-8s, RC-135s and strategic bombers, including B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers, to maintain 

presence in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. The forward stationing and deployment of 5th generation 

airframes to the region continues to be a priority for USPACOM notably the Marine Corps has 

deployed the first F-358 squadron based in Japan. The Marine Corps continues to execute a 

reduction in the footprint on Japan by distribution of the capability across the region. Rotational 

forces west of the International Date Line are positioned to deter and defeat potential aggressors 

in the region. 

Force Posture Initiatives: As geopolitical issues and challenges in the security environment 

continue to evolve, the importance of infrastructure recapitalization and the fielding of advanced 

capabilities have increased. In support of USPACOM's ability to execute national tasking and 

meet national objectives, fiscal year 2017 military construction projects support the arrival of 

next-generation platforms and capabilities to include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Kadena Air 

Base, Japan), DDG-l 000 Zumwalt-class Destroyers (San Diego, California and forward 

operating locales), RQ-4 Global Hawk (Andersen Air Base, Guam), and C-130J Super Hercules 

transport aircraft (Yokota Air Base, Japan). Other investments support increased resiliency for 

the joint force via projects in Japan, Guam, and Australia, increased critical munitions storage 

capacity in California and Guam, and quality of life investments for our forces and their families 

in South Korea and Japan. 

Host country support at established locations remains robust. Two examples of this include our 

efforts in Korea (Yongsan Relocation Plan and Land Partnership Plan), and Japan (Okinawa 

Page 20 of 34 
304

Consolidation and the Defense Policy Review Initiative). In support of these initiatives, the 

Government of Japan committed up to $3.1 billion to help realign U.S. Marines from Okinawa to 

Guam and other locations. This funding includes approximately $300M for the joint military 

training ranges Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI). Additionally, the 

Government of Japan committed $4.5 billion to expand the airfield and associated facilities at 

Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. Finally, The Japan is also funding Okinawa Consolidation 

and the Futenma Replacement Facility at -$4 billion. Outside of the above initiatives, Japan and 

Korea continue to provide other support, which play a critical role in supporting U.S. presence in 

the region. 

Furthermore, USPACOM is expanding its activities to include the continued execution of the 

Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), Enhanced Air Cooperation (EAC) in Australia, and 

Bilateral Air Contingent Events-Philippines (BACE-P. Additionally, we arc attempting to 

increase presence by seeking the assignment of additional ISR and BMD assets in the region. 

USPACOM continues to execute five major force posture initiatives: (I) U.S.-lapan Defense 

Policy Review Initiative (DPRI) I USMC Distributed Laydown, (2) U.S. Forces Korea 

Realignment, (3) Resiliency, ( 4) Agile Logistics and (5) Agile Communications. 

DPRI/USMC Distributed Laydown: DPRI is a vital part of the larger U.S. military Integrated 

Global Basing and Presence Strategy. A major goal of DPRI is to create an environment that 

supports the enduring presence of U.S. forces in Japan. USPACOM maintains significant focus 

and effort on these initiatives. DPRI is one of the largest construction efforts since the end of the 

Cold War. Much work by both the U.S and Japan remain, but progress is being made towards 

realigning U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam and build-up of facilities at other locations such 

as Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) lwakuni. 

Another critical cooperative effort, the Futcnma Replacement Facility (FRF) at Camp 

Schwab/Henoko, will enable the U.S. to fulfill its security obligations to Japan while also 

enabling the return ofMCAS Futenma to Okinawa. More than ever before, U.S. troop presence 

in Okinawa matters today. The presence of U.S. forces brings unique capabilities that cannot be 

replicated. So it was encouraging to see the I 0 February joint statement between President 

Trump and Japan Prime Minister Abe that reaffirmed the commitment of both countries to 

construct the FRF. This solution maintains our presence at Marine Corps Air Station Futcnma 

for another decade until the FRF is completed. 

USFK Realignment: The consolidation of U.S. forces in Korea via the Land Partnership Plan 

(LPP) and Y ongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) continues to move ahead and is a success story. 

Construction will triple the size of Camp Humphreys and increase the base's population to 

-46,000 troops and family members. The ROK is bearing the majority of the relocation's cost, 

Page 21 of 34 
305

committing $10 billion. USPACOM appreciates the Congress' continued support of DOD's 

largest peace-time relocation project. 

Resiliencv: USPACOM resiliency efforts include investment in a more robust infrastructure in 

ally and partner countries, ensuring proper dispersal and optimization of critical enablers 

including communication nodes, fuel repositories, medical readiness, logistic support equipment 

and infrastructure, and the hardening of discrete facilities. For example, USPACOM continues 

to harden facilities in Guam as well as enhancing airfields at dispersed sites throughout the 

theater. 

Agile Logistics: USPACOM continues to face significant force posture challenges, the largest 

being the distance and fragility of the lines of communication within the Indo-Asia-Pacific. The 

tyranny of distance and short timelines to respond to crises require investment in infrastructure to 

properly preposition capabilities and capacity throughout the region. Ensuring that our logistics 

-munitions, fuel, and other war materiel- are properly prepositioned, secured, and available to 

meet requirements is essential to providing flexible and rapid force closure in support of national 

defense planning. 

Agile Communications: The ability to communicate with our allies and partners underpins all 

efforts from command and control intcroperability through logistics coordination. Today's 

Defense communications systems continue to be hampered by obsolete encryption technology 

that forces us to build or contort information networks to comply with restrictive infonnation 

sharing policies. Our acquisition systems cannot support the pace of rapid information 

technology advancements. As a result, we are not fully postured with the latest technology to 

intemperate with multiple partner combinations over all the phases of military operations. 

Furthermore, we will not have the communication capacity and sharable encryption capability to 

support the most modern warfighting platforms and associated weapon systems as they are built 

and deployed. 

Readiness: USPACOM is a "fight tonight" theater with short response timelines across vast 

spaces. Threats as discussed earlier require U.S. military forces in the region maintain a high 

level of readiness to respond rapidly to crisis. USPACOM's readiness is evaluated against its 

ability to execute operational and contingency plans, which place a premium on forwardstationed, ready forces that can exercise, train, and operate with our partner nations' militaries 

and follow-on forces able to respond to operational contingencies. 

Forward-stationed forces west of the International Date Line increase decision space and 

decrease response times, bolster the confidence of allies and partners, and reduce the chance of 

miscalculation by potential adversaries. 

Page 22 of 34 
306

The ability of the U.S. to surge and globally maneuver ready forces is an asymmetric advantage 

that must be maintained. Over the past two decades of war, the U.S. has of necessity prioritized 

the readiness of deploying forces at the expense of follow-on-forces and critical investments 

needed to outpace emerging threats. A shortage of ready surge forces resulting from high 

operational demands, delayed maintenance periods due to sequestration, and training pipeline 

shortfalls limit responsiveness to emergent contingencies and greatly increase risk. These 

challenges grow each year as our forces downsize while continuing to deploy at unprecedented 

rates. We are at risk of overstressing the force if the Services are not assured fiscal stability to 

establish conditions to reset their force elements. 

Fiscal uncertainty requires the Department to accept risk in long-term engagement opportunities 

with strategic consequences to U.S. relations and prestige. Continued budget uncertainty and 

changes in fiscal assumptions in the FYDP degrade USPACOM's ability to plan and program, 

leading to sub-optimal utilization of resources. Services must be able to develop and execute 

long-term programs for modernization while meeting current readiness needs. Budgetary 

constraints have limited procurement and fielding of 5th generation fighter aircraft (F-35) in 

sufficient quantities to maintain pace with potential adversary advancements. Modernization of 

4th generation aircraft (F-15, F-16, F/A-18) is essential to prevent capability gaps. Much of the 

supporting infrastructure in the Pacific and on the West Coast of the U.S. mainland was 

established during World War II and during the early years of the Cold War. The infrastructure 

requires investment to extend its service life but the Services struggle to maintain infrastructure 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts at appropriate levels. If funding 

uncertainties continue, the U.S. will experience reduced warfighting capabilities and increased 

challenges in pacing maturing adversary threats. 

Allies and Partners 

Strengthening and modernizing alliances and partnerships are top USPACOM priorities. 

USPACOM's forward presence, force posture, and readiness reassure allies and partners of U.S. 

commitment to a stable and secure Indo-Asia-Pacific. USPACOM is building a network of 

likeminded nations committed to the cun·ent rules-based order that is anchored by our treaty 

allies. Partnerships with many other countries and organizations create an environment of 

cooperation that allows us to work together on the shared challenges we face. 

Bilateral and Multinational "Partnerships with a Purpose": USPACOM is directly 

connected to regional leaders. I am in frequent communication with my regional counterparts 

and appreciate the ability to reach out at any time to share perspectives. USPACOM maintains a 

close link with allies and partners through staff exchange and liaison officers, in addition to a 

series of fonnal bilateral mechanisms. In Australia, key engagements stem from the ANZUS 

treaty obligations, and are guided by USPACOM's principal bilateral event with Australia, the 

Page 23 of 34 
307

Military Representatives Meeting. Similarly, USPACOM's military-to-military relationship with 

Japan is guided by the annual Japan Senior Leader Seminar. Military Committee and Security 

Consultative Meetings are the preeminent bilateral mechanisms that guide the ROK and U.S. 

alliance. Each year, USPACOM, with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, co-hosts the Mutual 

Defense Board and Security Engagement Board to deal with 21st-century challenges. 

USPACOM conducts annual Senior Staff Talks with Thailand to address security concerns and 

reinforce U.S. commitment to democratic principles. Formal bilateral mechanisms also exist 

with non-alliance partners throughout the region, including India, Indonesia, Singapore, 

Malaysia, and Vietnam. 

Our multilateral cooperation is further enhanced by numerous Flag and General Officer (FOGO) 

exchange officers that work for the U.S. at USPACOM. These foreign officers from our "Five 

Eye" (FVEY) partners (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and United Kingdom) serve under my 

Command as fully integrated members of the USPACOM team. Our operations and intelligence 

watch centers are FVEY environments. Our service components also have embedded FOGOs 

serving as Deputy Commanders and senior staff officers. 

The future lies in multilateral security mechanisms. USPACOM is broadening key bilateral 

relationships into multilateral partnerships with a purpose that will more effectively address 

shared security concerns. For example, U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral coordination in response to 

North Korean provocative behavior is improving. The ROK and Japan each recognize that 

provocative actions by North Korea will not be isolated to the peninsula and greater coordination 

and cooperation are required. Historical tensions between the nations have lessened and 

cooperation and collaboration with the ROK have improved. U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral 

cooperation is benefitting from these developments. The November 2016 signing of the JapanROK General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) is a major 

accomplishment in improving bilateral relations between Seoul and Tokyo, and lays an essential 

foundation for expanding cooperation enabling the U.S. to work more closely with both allies. 

This cooperation also led to two successful U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral missile defense 

information link maritime exercises in 20 !6. !look forward to increasing the frequency and 

complexity of trilateral information sharing while simultaneously enhancing trilateral security 

cooperation. 

To encourage multilateral cooperation, USPACOM hosts the Chiefs of Defense Conference 

(CHODs) annually. The CHODs conference location normally rotates between Hawaii and a 

regional partner. In 2016, 31 countries attended the CHODs conference in Manila, Philippines. 

USPACOM also participates in Australia-Japan-U.S. trilateral defense dialogues, including the 

Security and Defense Cooperation Forum (SDCF). The 2017 conference will be held in 

Victoria, British Columbia, in September. 

Page 24 of 34 
308

The trilateral relationship between the U.S., Japan, and India is growing stronger. All three 

countries share democratic values, interests in protecting sea lanes of commerce, and respect for 

international law. The three sides launched a trilateral HA/DR working group at the first 

Ministerial meeting in 20 I 5 and agreed to establish a maritime domain awareness working 

group. On the security front, all three countries participate in India's increasingly complex 

annual Malabar military exercise as well as the multinational Rim of the Pacific exercise. As a 

next step, USPACOM is encouraging the addition of Australia to form a quadrilateral partnership 

with a purpose. India, Japan, Australia, and the U.S. working together will be a force for the 

maintenance of the Global Operating System. 

Allies 

Australia: The U.S.-Australia alliance anchors peace and stability in the region. Australia plays 

a leading role in regional security, capacity-building efforts and addressing disaster response. 

Australia is a key contributor to global security and a significant contributor to counter-ISIS 

efforts in Iraq and Syria and the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan. With the 

implementation of force posture initiatives, the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin successfully 

completed its fifth deployment while increasing its presence from 1,177 to 1,250 U.S. Marines. 

The sixth deployment began this month and will include four MV -22 Osprey aircraft, providing 

a more robust capability. Cooperative activities under Enhanced Air Cooperation, another force 

posture initiative, formally commenced in February 2017 with the deployment ofF-22 aircraft to 

northern Australia. The U.S. and Australia are increasing collaboration in counter-terrorism, 

space, cyber, integrated air missile defense, and regional capacity building. Australia is 

procuring high-tech U.S. platforms that will further increase interoperability. These include the 

F-35A Lightning II, P-8 Poseidon, C- I 7 Globemaster Ill, EA-18G Growler, Global Hawk 

UAVs, and MH-60R helicopters. To enhance interoperability, the Australian Government 

provides a General Officer and Senior Executive (civilian) to USPACOM and a General Officer 

to U.S. Army Pacitic on a full-time basis. Australia has also set a goal of reaching 2% of its 

GOP on defense spending over the next decade. 

Japan: The U.S.-Japan alliance remains the cornerstone for peace and stability in the Indo-AsiaPacific region. Operational cooperation and collaboration between USPACOM and the Japan 

Joint Staff continue to increase. Japan's Peace and Security Legislation authorizing limited 

collective self-defense and the revised Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation have 

significantly increased Japan's ability to contribute to regional stability more broadly. Japan 

continues to support USPACOM activities to maintain freedom of navigation in the South China 

Sea. and remains concerned about Chinese activities in the East China Sea. 

Republic of Korea (ROK): The U.S.-ROK alliance remains ironclad. We continue to work 

with our ROK allies as they move toward obtaining the capabilities required under the 

Page 25 of 34 
309

Conditions Based OPCON Transition Plan (COT-P). In response to the evolving threat posed by 

North Korea, the U.S. and the ROK made an Alliance decision to deploy a Tenninal High 

Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to the ROK to improve the Alliance missile defense 

posture. North Korea's provocative actions, and its refusal to engage in authentic and credible 

negotiations on denuclearization, compelled our Alliance to take defensive measures. The 

decision to deploy THAAD to the Korean Peninsula is based solely on our commitment to 

defend our allies and our forces from the North Korean threat. 

The Philippines: The U .S.-Philippine alliance remains resolute. Through frank and frequent 

dialogue with Philippine leadership we continue to maintain a robust defense relationship 

comprised of 25 8 activities for calendar year 2017, which include joint and service-to-service 

exercises. All plans, activities, exercises, and construction in the Philippines are done in close 

coordination with, and with the full approval of, Philippine leadership. On January 12, 2016, the 

Philippine Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and 

the new Philippine administration is also supportive of this agreement. Project development at 

various Philippine bases will improve interoperability and build partner capacity of the Anned 

Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in Maritime Security, Maritime Domain Awareness, and HA/DR 

capabilities. We remain committed to supporting the AFP to counter-terrorism not only in the 

Southern Philippines, but in the tri-border area in Sulu and Celebes Seas. At the request of 

several Philippine administrations, Special Operation Command Pacific (SOC PAC) continues to 

provide counter-terrorism support and assistance. We will continue to consult with the 

Government of the Philippines and tailor our activities and assistance to address our shared 

security concerns. I am convinced that with some strategic patience and mutual respect, our 

Philippine alliance will remain strong and continue to stabilize the region as it has for over 60 

years. 

Thailand: The longstanding U.S.-Thailand alliance is supported by deep bilateral military-tomilitary ties that go back to our 1950 Agreement Respecting Military Assistance between the 

Government ofthe united States of America and Government of Thailand. Thailand offers 

unique training opportunities and essential logistical nodes for our forces. The most significant 

exercise being Cobra Gold, the largest multilateral military exercise in Southeast Asia. I spoke 

at the opening ceremony for this year's exercise in February and reiterated U.S. commitment to 

Thailand. Thailand is committed to a return to democracy with national elections in 2018, and 

we remain important alliance partners. I remain convinced that the best way for the U.S.to 

promote security and healthy civil-military relations in Thailand is to engage more, not less, with 

Thai military leadership. 

Page 26 of 34 
310

Partners 

India: India continues to emerge as a significant strategic partnership in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 

region. In June 2016, India was designated as a Major Defense Partner to the U.S. This 

declaration is unique to India and places it on the same level as many of our closest allies for the 

purposes of defense trade and technology sharing. U.S. and Indian militaries participated 

together in three major exercises and more than 50 other military exchanges this past year, in 

addition to conducting a joint-course in peacekeeping for ten African partners. We signed the 

Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) after more than a decade of 

negotiation to further deepen our military-to-military relationship and serve as a force multiplier 

during exercises and real world HA/DR operations. We also held our first annual2+2 U.S.-lndia 

Maritime Security Dialogue last year to help identify and implement our common strategic 

interests. The US-India Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (OTT!) continues to expand 

opportunities for cooperation, adding new working groups to focus on areas of mutual interest. 

Defense sales are at an all-time high with U.S.-sourced airframes, such as P-8s, C-l30Js, C-17s, 

AH-64s and CH-47s. We recently concluded a deal for 145 M777 howitzers. USPACOM will 

continue to advance the partnership with India as the ''new normal'' by strengthening our 

relationship and working toward additional enabling agreements that enhance interoperability 

between our forces. 

Indonesia: Indonesia plays an essential role in the security architecture of the region. We 

maintain a robust defense relationship comprising 221 activities for calendar year 2017. 

USPACOM continues to partner with Indonesia, particularly in maritime security. Indonesia 

desires to play a larger role in international economic and security issues. Their goal to provide 

4,000 deployable peacekeeping troops by 2020 is another important area where we can engage. 

Indonesia continues to build and exercise in strategic maritime border areas to bolster its defense 

capabilities, and has concerns with Chinese activities in the vicinity of the Natuna Islands. 

Malaysia: Our close security tics with Malaysia are based on our Comprehensive Partnership. 

Malaysia's regional leadership role, technologically advanced industry, sizeable economy, and 

capable military make it an important partner in securing peace and prosperity in Southeast Asia. 

We continue to assist Malaysia in building an amphibious force to address non-traditional threats 

in and around their territorial waters. Malaysia has reached a trilateral agreement with the 

Philippines and Indonesia for improving the maritime security environment in the Sulu and 

Celebes Seas. Malaysia also has an on-going dispute with China with respect to the Luconia 

Shoals, which China also claims. Nevertheless, Malaysia has demonstrated the capacity and 

resolve to contribute to regional security, and we continue to support Malaysia's emerging 

maritime security requirements. 

Page 27 of34 
311

Mongolia: Mongolia endures as a small yet strong partner in Northeast Asia and continues to 

demonstrate staunch support for U.S. regional and global policy objectives- especially those 

linked to the Global Peace Operations Initiative and security operations in Afghanistan. The 

government engages with the U.S. and other countries as part of their "Third Neighbor"' policy. 

Mongolia also markets itself as a model for emerging democratic countries such as Burma, 

Nepal, and Timor Leste. I visited Mongolia last summer and spoke at the KHAAN QUEST 

2016 closing ceremony, reaffirming that USPACOM's goals are to assist the Mongolian Armed 

Forces through their defense reform priorities to include development of professional military 

education for officers and non-commissioned officers, developing a professional NCO corps, and 

developing an Air Force and ready reserve force. The Mongolians punch above their weight and 

we should continue to support them where we can. 

New Zealand: Our military-to-military relationship has reached new heights over the past two 

years, despite longstanding differences over nuclear policy. Relations remain strong and are the 

most encouraging in decades. The November 2016 visit of the USS SAMPSON (DOG 102), the 

first ship visit to New Zealand in more than thirty years, marked a new milestone. New Zealand 

remains a respected voice in international politics and a leader in the South Pacific that shares 

common security concerns with the U.S., including the need to address terrorism, transnational 

crime, and maritime security. 

Singapore: A key strategic partner in Southeast Asia, we depend on Singapore for its insights 

on regional dynamics and its support to U.S. security priorities. Singapore has been a major 

security cooperation partner for over a decade and provides us invaluable access including 

hosting of Littoral Combat Ships, Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft, and the Seventh 

Fleet's Logistics Force headquarters. Recently, our partnership expanded into new areas 

including cyber security and counter-proliferation. We conduct dozens of military exercises with 

Singapore each year and Singaporean military officers regularly attend U.S. professional military 

education. This combination of forward deployed forces, logistics, and deep training 

relationships contributes to readiness, builds deeper ties and allows the U.S. to promote maritime 

security and stability with regional partners. 

Sri Lanka: President Sirisena, elected in January 2016, is serious about addressing Sri Lanka's 

human rights issues. Throughout the last year he continued Sri Lanka's path toward 

reconciliation and democracy following its civil war. I believe it is in America's interest to 

increase military collaboration and cooperation with Sri Lankan forces. Accordingly, I visited 

Sri Lanka last November the first 4-star to do so since 2008. USPACOM has expanded 

military leadership discussions, rule of law training, increased naval engagement, and focused 

security cooperation efforts on defense institution building in areas such as demobilizing and 

military professionalism. I look forward to continuing to expand our relationship in the future 

Page 28 of 34 
312

Vietnam: Vietnam continues to expand cooperation with the U.S. at a moderate, but steady 

pace. USPACOM provides support for Vietnam's modernization and capacity building, focusing 

on maritime security, peacekeeping, and disaster response. The U.S. will transfer maritime 

security vessels including maintenance and training packages to Vietnam's Coast Guard over the 

next few years, which will build their capacity for maritime domain awareness. In addition, we 

are discussing a proposal to improve our mutual ability to cooperate in the field ofHA/DR as 

well as enhance ongoing bilateral cooperative activities. 

Other Key Actors 

Oceania: Maintaining strategic influence in Oceania is becoming ever more important to U.S. 

national security. The provisions included in the Compacts of Free Association with the 

Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau 

are important mechanisms that guide the relationships, including U.S. obligations for their 

defense. In return, these agreements provide assured access to the three Compact Nations in a 

contingency situation. They also give the U.S. authority to grant or deny access to another 

nation's military forces which allows the U.S. to maintain a clear strategic line of communication 

across the Pacific. I strongly urge Congress to pass legislation to approve and implement the 

20 I 0 Palau Compact Review Agreement at the earliest opportunity. The passage of this 

legislation will have a significant impact on our defense relationship with Palau, and will provide 

a measurable advantage in our strategic posture in the Western Pacific. Continued U.S. 

commitment to defend the Compact Nations and to partner with other Pacific island countries 

enhances American influence and sends a strong message of reassurance throughout the region. 

A SEAN: A SEAN turns 50 this year and the U.S. will commemorate the 40th year of U.S.-

ASEAN dialogue relations. The U.S. and A SEAN share the common principles of a rules-based 

order, respect for international law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The ten A SEAN 

member states, under the chai1manship of Laos last year and the Philippines this year, continue 

to seek ways to improve multilateral security engagements and advance stability in the IndoAsia-Pacific. During this past year, the U.S. strengthened its commitment to ASEAN with 

engagements at the Secretary of Defense and Presidential levels where agreement on whole-ofgovernment approaches to shared challenges in areas of maritime security and maritime domain 

awareness were reached. Throughout the past year USPACOM participated in ASEAN 

exercises, key leader engagements, and practical multilateral cooperation related to the spectrum 

of shared transnational challenges. Malaysia and the U.S. will co-chair the A SEAN Expert 

Working Group on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief with Malaysia over the next 

three years. 

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy's election victory was a historic 

milestone. While challenges remain during the transition to civilian leadership, USPACOM's 

Page 29 of 34 
313

goal is to support and empower the civilian government, while encouraging the 

professionalization of its military. Our assistance through defense engagement programs is 

designed to bring together civilian and military officials to promote cooperation and 

understanding. These limited programs also promote the development of a professional military 

in a democratic system of government and broaden the exposure of isolated military officials to 

international norms of conduct and civilian control. 

China: The U.S.-China relationship remains complex. While Chinese actions and provocations 

create tension in the region, there are also opportunities for cooperation. USPACOM's approach 

to China is to cooperate where we can to collectively address our shared security challenges, but 

remain ready to confront its provocative actions where we must. USPACOM's engagements 

with the People's Liberation Army, governed by section 1201 of the FY2000 NOAA, improve 

transparency and reduce risk of unintended incidents. 

USPACOM conducted numerous bilateral and numerous multilateral engagements last year with 

China. USPACOM co-led the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) 

plenary and working group focused on operational safety in November 2016. Encounters 

between our forces at sea and in the air are generally safe, but the MMCA provides a forum for 

continuous dialogue to identify and address safety issues when they arise. 

Areas of common interest that allow military cooperation include counter piracy, military 

medicine, and disaster response. USPACOM forces participated in the annual Disaster 

Management Exchange with the People's Liberation Army in Kunming, China designed to share 

HA/DR lessons learned from real world events. USPACOM encourages China's participation in 

international efforts to address shared challenges in a manner consistent with international law 

and standards. 

Taiwan: Democratic elections in January 2016 reflect the shared values between Taiwan and 

the U.S. The U.S. maintains its unofficial relations with Taiwan through the American Institute 

in Taiwan and we continue supporting Taiwan's security. USPACOM will continue to fulfill 

U.S. commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Continued, regular arms sales and training 

for Taiwan's military are an important part of that policy and help ensure the preservation of 

democratic institutions. As the military spending and capability of the PRC grow every year, the 

ability of Taiwan to defend itself decreases. We must continue to help Taiwan defend itself and 

demonstrate U.S. resolve that any attempt by China to force reunification on the people of 

Taiwan is unacceptable. 

Page 30 of 34 
314

Activities, Direct Reporting Units, and Mission Partners 

Security Cooperation and Capacity Building: USPACOM's Security Cooperation approach 

focuses on building partner readiness, reducing partner capability gaps, and building partner 

capacity. One of the more powerful engagement resource tools is the State Department's 

Foreign Military Financing (FMF). FMF enables USPACOM to meet regional challenges to 

include border security issues, disaster response, counterterrorism, and maritime security. 

USPACOM will continue to leverage the FYI6 NOAA section 1263 "Southeast Asia Maritime 

Security Initiative" authority to enhance maritime domain awareness and maritime capacities and 

capabilities of partners and allies in the South China Sea region, through assistance to, and 

training of, partner and allied country maritime security forces. 

USPACOM will continue to rely on FMF as a source of providing major end items to eligible 

countries. MSI support notified pursuant to the Section 1263 authority should be viewed as 

complementary and additive in nature to these FMF plans. Under MSI, PACOM plans to 

provide niche capabilities, more multi-mission types of equipment, and connective tissue that 

will help partners better deploy and employ these maritime security capabilities- both 

domestically to protect their sovereign territory and as a means of fostering greater regional 

interoperability. 

Additionally, USPACOM is looking forward to leveraging the consolidated Security 

Cooperation authority in FYI7 NOAA as a responsive tool for building partner capacity as 

security situations and relationships evolve. I am concerned the changes in the FY17 NOAA 

could impact both operational support to foreign law enforcement and capacity building efforts 

focused on countering narcotics flows and transnational crime. We are currently working with 

the rest of the Department of Defense to develop the policies needed to implement this new law. 

Maritime Domain Awareness: Southeast Asian partners support U.S. security cooperation 

efforts in the area of maritime domain awareness. USPACOM will continue to leverage MSI 

and the new Section 1263 authority and other existing authorities to develop multilateral 

approaches to information sharing to develop a regional maritime picture. USPACOM and the 

Daniel K Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Strategic Studies (DKl APCSS) co-hosted a policy level 

workshop on best practice for information sharing. Additionally, the Philippines, Australia, and 

the U.S. co-hosted an operational level workshop to discuss regional maritime security best 

practices. These workshops facilitate whole-of-government discussions on maritime challenges 

that support creation of a regional maritime domain awareness network to share information 

between Southeast Asian partners. USPACOM will continue to support these workshops to 

improve regional awareness. We need to go beyond Maritime Domain Awareness to improve 

our partners' and allies' multi-domain awareness and increase their domain denial capability so 

that they can better protect their territory and enforce their maritime rights. 

Page 31 of 34 
315

Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPO I): Indo-Asia-Pacific countries provide over 30% of 

the world's uniformed peacekeepers to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations worldwide 

and of these peacekeepers, 62% of the peacekeepers come from the 12 GPOI partners in the 

Indo-Asia-Pacific where they support 15 of the 16 UN peacekeeping missions. Not only is GPOI 

helping to build the capability and capacity of our partners to deploy forces, the USPACOM 

GPO! is focused on providing high-quality, action-oriented, challenging scenario-based training 

so that peacekeepers arc better prepared to implement the mandates contained in UN Security 

Council Resolutions- protecting vulnerable civilians, halting conflict-related sexual violence, 

working to put a stop to the use of children soldiers, addressing misconduct and trying to bring 

long-term peace and security to conflict torn regions. Partners are working towards meeting 

program goals of achieving self-sustaining, indigenous training capability. Most recently in 

March 2017, USPACOM and Nepal cohostcd Shanti Prayas-3 a multinational peacekeeping 

exercise- training personnel from 34 countries for deployment to UN peacekeeping missions. 

USPACOM will continue improving partner military peacekeeping skills and operational 

readiness and provide limited training facility refurbishment. This program not only supports 

our efforts to improve UN peacekeeping, it is also helping to strengthen interoperability with 

U.S. forces and builds the trust required to improve interoperability in other relevant areas. 

Joint Exercise Program: USPACOM's Joint Exercise Program deliberately synchronizes 

frequent, relevant, and meaningful readiness exercises and engagements across the Indo-AsiaPacific region to ensure the joint force is prepared for crises and contingency operations. This 

important joint exercise program, funded through the Combatant Commander Exercise 

Engagement Training Transformation (CE2T2) program, provides the critical means and 

enablers to improve readiness of forward deployed assigned forces. It also advances many 

Theater Campaign Plan objectives to include strengthening our alliances and partnerships while 

sustaining USPACOM's military preeminence. USPACOM appreciates Congress' continued 

support of these important programs to maintain progress made in joint readiness. 

Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-W): The drug trade in the Indo-Asia-Pacific is a 

growing concern that threatens regional stability as drug trafficking organizations expand into 

new markets and develop new and disturbing partnerships across the globe. USPACOM 

combats drug trafficking in the region through JJATF-W by disrupting flows of drugs and 

precursor chemicals that transit the region and hardens the theater against the continued growth 

of transnational criminal organizations. 

Chinese and, to a lesser extent, Indian chemical producers continue to be the primary source of 

precursors for synthetic drugs, including powerful synthetic opioids like fentanyl, as well as 

more traditional drugs like cocaine and heroin. JIA TF-W identifies avenues of cooperation with 

the government of China on this issue to assist U.S. law enforcement with seizures of these 

Page 32 of 34 
316

chemicals and drugs. JIATF-W identified and tracked chemical flows resulting in the seizure of 

roughly 140,000 kilograms of methamphetamine precursor chemicals in 2016. 

As demonstrated by its effect on the Philippines, the illicit drug trade can have far reaching, and 

even strategic impacts. The internal pressures caused by criminal organizations and their 

operations, as well as the associated corruption and the demands placed on society by the need 

for treatment and prosecution, can and do cause enormous stress on governance. These stresses 

ultimately affect U.S. interests in the region. JIA TF-W continues to build partner capacity to 

counter illicit trafficking of narcotics in the coastal areas of the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and the border regions of Bangladesh and Thailand. 

In Australia, cocaine prices reach ten times the retail prices in the U.S., providing a strong 

incentive for drug traffickers to expand their reach across the Pacific. The drug trade feeds 

enormous amounts of cash back into the Mexican and South American drug cartels. This, in 

turn, contributes to challenges faced by our law enforcement agencies on the Southwest border. 

JIATF-W works closely with agencies throughout the South Pacific, including the French Armed 

Forces in Polynesia, as well as both Australian and New Zealand law enforcement, military and 

intelligence services to counter this lucrative drug trade. 

Center for Excellence for Disaster Management (CFE-DM): CFE-DM increases capacity of 

U.S. and partner nation military forces to respond effectively to disasters through its education 

training and applied research and information sharing programs. The Center annually trains 

about 8,000 military and civilian annually. This includes training deployable forces and foreign 

audiences. Broad based partnerships encourage a robust collection of best practices. 

The Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (DKI APCSS): While DKI 

APCSS is no longer a Direct Reporting Unit to USPACOM, I have formally designated it as a 

"Mission Partner" to underscore its importance to the USPACOM mission set. OK! APCSS 

builds and sustains key regional partnerships and partner nation capacity and in enhances 

cooperation on regional security challenges. The Center's courses, workshops, dialogues, and 

alumni engagements directly support OSD-Policy and USPACOM priorities and are integrated 

into USPACOM's Theater Campaign Order. Focus areas include rule-of-law based governance 

emphasizing civilian oversight of militaries, defense institution building, enhancing regional 

security architecture- particularly ASEAN, collaborative approaches to maritime security and 

domain awareness and counte1terrorism, and improved capability and cooperation in HADR. 

DKI APCSS has major competitive advantages in location, credibility, convening power, and 

alumni network. Those advantages and the Center's focus on substantive and sustainable 

outcomes have broadly improved security sector governance. Specifically, this organization is 

leading DOD in the implementation of UNSCR 1325 (Women, Peace, and Security) and the U.S. 

National Action Plan to achieve greater inclusion of women in the security sector. 

Page 33 of 34 
317

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC): U.S. Transportation Command's JECC 

responds rapidly and effectively to events in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. JECC's support is critical to 

USPACOM's ability to facilitate rapid establishment of joint force headquarters, fulfill Global 

Response Force (GRF) execution, and bridge joint operational requirements by providing 

mission-tailored, ready joint capability packages. JECC supports real-world real world 

contingencies and operational plans. 

Logistics Support Agreements (LSAs): USPACOM continues to view LSAs as critical 

Theater Security Cooperation (TSC) enablers. We have 14 agreements in the region, to include 

the recent agreement with India. We continue to actively work with eligible but as yet 

uncommitted partners to conclude as many of these agreements as possible, and I personally 

stress their importance in my engagements with partner country leadership. The logistics 

agreement with Japan was especially useful during the Kumamoto earthquake disaster, and I 

often share this experience with our other partners. 

Pacific Area Senior Officer Logistics Seminar (PASOLS): PASOLS is an annual forum that 

brings together senior logisticians from 30 countries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. The goal is to 

strengthen regional cooperation, improve interoperability, and develop partner capacity to 

cooperatively address regional challenges. Singapore hosted PASOLS 45 in November 2016. 

PASOLS is our most important annual logistics engagement event. 

Pacific Amphibious Leaders Symposium (PALS): PALS is an annual forum that brings 

together senior leaders of allied and partner nations throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific to discuss 

key aspects amphibious operations, capabilities, crisis response, and interoperability. 22 

countries participated in PALS 2017, which was hosted by the Republic of Korea Marine Corps. 

Conclusion 

U.S. interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific are real and enduring. The growing challenges to our 

interests are daunting and cannot be overstated. In order to deter potential adversaries in the 

Indo-Asia-Pacific, we must continue to invest in critical capabilities, build a force posture that 

decreases our vulnerabilities and increases our resiliency, and reassure our allies and partners 

while encouraging them to be full and cooperative partners in their own defense and the defense 

of the rules-based international order. Our allies and partners are hedging and need reassurance. 

We must demonstrate our commitment in actions. The good news is that America's resolve is 

strong. l ask this committee to continue support for future capabilities that maintain our edge 

and prevent would-be challengers from gaining the upper hand. 

Thank you for your enduring support to the USPACOM team and our families who live and 

work in the Indo-Asia-Pacific a region critical to America's future. 

Page 34 of 34 
318

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The complete hearing transcript could not be 

printed due to the classification of the material discussed.] 
(319)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017. 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU / RESERVE COMPONENTS 

WITNESS

GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER—PANEL 1

Ms. GRANGER. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to order. 

This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture 

of the National Guard and Reserve Components. This will be a 

two-panel hearing. Panel 1 recognizes the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau. Panel 2 will recognize the Reserve Component 

Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force Reserves. I 

would encourage all members to stay for both panels. 

Our witness for panel 1 is General Joe Lengyel, Chief of the National Guard Bureau. We are pleased to welcome General Lengyel, 

a four-star sitting member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Welcome, and welcome to the subcommittee hearing, your first 

time to testify as Chief. As Chief of the Guard Bureau, General 

Lengyel will address all joint Army and Air National Guard questions.

General, we have known each other for a long time, and as 

Chairman, I value your knowledge and your experience in leading 

the National Guard. Given the challenges our Nation faces, we 

want to ensure that you have the resources and support to accomplish your mission. This subcommittee has provided the Guard 

with additional resources to the National Guard and Reserve 

Equipment Account, an appropriation which has never been included in a President’s budget request, additional funding for 

counterdrug operations, HMMWVs, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, 

and more. 

However, we are concerned this is not nearly enough when you 

take into account the funding is significantly less than the vast resources available to the Active Components. Our country stands for 

strength, and citizen soldiers are the background and the foundation of that strength. There are limited resources and significant 

needs. We should not make decisions in a vacuum. We will rely on 

your best military advice to guide these funding decisions. We look 

forward to your testimony and your insight. But, first, I would like 

to call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his 

comments.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Well, I simply want to thank the Chairwoman 

for holding the hearing today and, General, for your service and 

your testimony. I look forward to it. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. General, please proceed with your testimony. A 

full written testimony will be placed in the record. Please feel free 
320

to summarize your oral statement so we can leave enough time to 

get to everyone’s questions. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL LENGYEL

General LENGYEL. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very 

much.

I think I say that to you and to Ranking Member Visclosky and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me 

to be here today, and I look forward to talking to you about the 

men and women of not only the Army National Guard but also the 

Air National Guard. 

In summary, the National Guard focuses on three things. It focuses on our warfighting mission, the homeland mission, and building partnerships. And thanks to the support from this committee, 

I can tell you that the National Guard that I have the honor to represent here today is the most ready it has ever been, I think, or 

the most capable National Guard it has ever been in our 380-year 

history.

As I talk to you today, we have 18,000 men and women deployed 

in every combatant command around the globe. In addition to that, 

I have 4,000—you have 4,000 of your men and women working for 

homeland defense and Homeland Security missions here today. 

And we have made and continue to develop robust partnerships 

with not only our international partners through the State Partnership Program, which is about to go to 79 partnerships when we formalize the relationship with Malaysia here in the near term— 

thanks to you and the funding that this committee has provided, 

that State Partnership Program has taken on a strategic impact 

that I think maybe, when we developed it, we didn’t see that it was 

becoming.

This committee provides the resources for us through NGREA, as 

you mentioned in your remarks, to maintain a force that is first 

ready for the war fight but used as a dual-nature force, as it is our 

job as the National Guard to be ready to provide those forces here 

in the homeland when the Governors and the States need us to do 

that. And never have we been more ready to do that, whether it 

is fires or floods or winter snowstorms or terrorists, such as bombs 

blown up in Boston, the National Guard is there, and we are 

trained, and we are ready because of the resources that this committee has chosen to give it. 

The relationship with our parent services, the Active Duty Air 

Force and the Active Duty Army, I have to tell you, has never been 

better. My relationship with General Milley and General Goldfein, 

who I understand testified yesterday, have committed to a Total 

Force that includes an operational use of the Reserve Component. 

And if I have one ask of this committee today, it is to maintain the 

Reserve Component, and, in my case, the National Guard, as an 

operational force. We have been driven to that because of the demands placed on our Department of Defense and the global nature 

of the threat. 

The services have had to rely more on the use of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard than ever before, and because of that, they are willing to invest in us, invest in our leaders, 

invest in our training, and because of the resources this committee 
321

gives us, we have the equipment, the people, and the training to 

go there. Can we use more? Can we get better? Yes, we can. But 

I report to you today, and I thank this committee today for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The written statement of General Lengyel follows:] 
322

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY 

GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL 

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

FIRST SESSION, llSTH CONGRESS 

ON 

THE NATIONAL GUARD 

AND RESERVE POSTURE HEARING 

MAY 24th, 2017 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION 

UNTIL RELEASED 13Y 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 
323

INTRODUCTION 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here today with my fellow 

National Guard and Reserve Leaders. 

Always Ready, Always There ... this is the motto of America's National 

Guard. It embodies the character and spirit of all those who have served in the 

National Guard from its founding in 1636 to those serving today. From militia 

companies mustering on village greens in response to Paul Revere's warning, to the 

ever-evolving and complex world that we live in today, the National Guard is more 

resilient, relevant and ready than ever before. 

Since assuming my duties as Chief of the National Guard Bureau last 

summer, I have traveled and talked to the men and women of our National Guard 

serving in the homeland and abroad. The locations were different and the missions 

varied, but what I took away from each encounter was the pride I felt in our Guard 

members and the dedication each of them exhibited in serving their communities, 

their states and our nation. Today's National Guard is the finest we have ever had. 

Our security environment is more dynamic and complex and our nation 

places greater reliance on its National Guard. This is why my focus every day is to 

ensure we are ready and we have the resources to accomplish our three core 

missions-- fighting America's wars, securing the homeland, and building enduring 

partnerships at the local, state, Federal and international levels. 

2 
324

WARFIGHT 

Fighting America's wars and defending our nation must be our primary 

mission. From Brigade Combat Teams deploying on schedule to get into the fight 

as fast as air and sea lift can move them, to flying manned and unmanned 

platforms anywhere around the world we are the primary combat reserve of the 

Army and the Air Force. 

After 9/ 11, our National Guard began its transition to the operational force it 

is today. Since then, Guard members have deployed more than 850,000 times to 

locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Balkans, Guantanamo Bay, and 

the Sinai. Today, we a~e an operational force that fights seamlessly with the joint 

force. With the implementation of Total Force initiatives with the Army and Air 

Force, we are more closely integrated than ever before. 

Our interoperability with the joint force will deepen and evolve as we 

confront future threats- threats that are now global, emanate from all domains, 

and are adaptable and multi-functional in their forms. Only a well-integrated and 

well-trained force will keep our nation safe and secure our national interests. 

On any given day, the National Guard has approximately 18,000 Soldiers 

and Airmen mobilized in support of combatant command missions overseas. 

During my visits with our men and women, I was told time and again they wanted 

to do more and they were not tired. I know we can judiciously increase our 

deployment numbers to relieve stress on active duty forces and help them grow 

readiness to address emerging threats. 
325

HOMELAND 

Here in the homeland, the National Guard is the nation's primary military 

crisis response force. We use the experience and capabilities we gain from combat 

to respond to threats here at home such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological and 

Nuclear (CBRN) attacks, large scale natural disasters, and cyber-attacks. 

In order to be more prepared and have the ability to respond quickly and 

effectively, the National Guard Bureau initiated an All-Hazards Support Plan to 

help state Adjutants General plan and execute response and recovery operations, 

and provide the Secretary of Defense greater awareness of non-federalized Guard 

activities. 

On average, more than 4,000 Guard members conduct operations here in 

the United States on any given day. Whether we are providing security forces, 

logistics, communications, emergency medical assistance, or other types of 

support to civil authorities, we do it with speed and proficiency. We also help 

facilitate a unified response across local, state and Federal agencies using legal 

authorities that permit the Guard to be employed under state or Federal command. 

In my first 120 days as Chief of the National Guard Bureau, our nation 

encountered two large-seale disasters, flooding in Louisiana and Hurricane 

Matthew on the East Coast. At the height of the record flooding in Louisiana, 

approximately 3,000 Guard members supported civil authorities with water 

evacuation, search and rescue, and shelter support. During Hurricane Matthew, 

over 8,300 Guardsmen and women worked with our Federal, state and local 

4 
326

government agencies and first responders to support recovery efforts along the 

eastern seaboard. 

Although these events serve as reminders of the devastation that disasters 

can wreak on our communities, businesses, and families, I am inspired by the 

skill, professionalism, and dedication I witnessed from our Guard members. I 

could not be more proud of how seamlessly, and professionally we augment and 

integrate our entire emergency response network. The National Guard is essential 

to All Hazards recovery and the resilience of our communities when disaster 

strikes. 

While our combat and homeland response missions are what we do, building 

enduring partnerships is an essential part of how we do it. We accomplish our 

missions overseas and at home only through the partnerships we forge at the 

international, Federal, state and local levels. The relationships that the Guard 

develops on a continuing basis play a critical role in our ability to maintain 

preparedness and respond quickly to disasters and emergency events. 

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS 

On the international level, our State Partnership Program (SPP) will be 79 

nations strong once we formalize our partnership with Malaysia. The SPP allows us 

to partner with nations around the globe to realize mutual understanding, 

friendship, and security cooperation. This low-cost, high-leverage program has 

built enduring partnerships and bonds of trust with approximately one-third of the 

nations in the world -- relationships that assure our allies, deter our foes, and 
327

support the transition of many nations from security consumers to global security 

providers. This program is a part of the long game. We build relationships, 

friendships, and build our future. 

On the Federal and state levels, we work with our partners on matters such 

as cybcr defense; counterdrug; all-hazards planning; CBRN defense; and 

emergency response. Close relationships with partners such as the Department of 

Homeland Security, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are 

essential in helping to synchronize Federal, state, and local efforts and resources 

when disasters strike. National Guard partnerships bring a holistic approach to 

coordination that promotes unified response efforts and an exchange of 

information before, during, and after an event. We build and provide resiliency in 

our communities and help our nation respond, rebuild, and heal from 

catastrophes like no other military component. 

Across the nation in hometown America, our Guard members are active in 

both Federal and state statuses with programs and services such as Youth 

ChalleNGe, Joining Community Forces, and rendering military funeral honors for 

veterans. These programs provide critical support to families and individuals when 

they need it the most. 

Our nation faces a myriad of challenges. Emerging near-peer competitors, 

rising regional powers, and the constant threat of violent extremist organizations 

pervade our security environment. Threats emanate from both state and non-state 

actors, who often conduct operations that stop short of direct conflict, yet provoke, 

6 
328

disrupt, and destabilize- both abroad and here at home. Resource challenges 

require we make every dollar count. 

In response to these challenges, I have established three priorities I will 

focus on during my time as Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

READINESS 

My first priority is to provide ready forces to the President and our 

Governors. Readiness begins with our force structure. I am working with the Army 

and Air Force to have a balanced array of combat and enabling forces that largely 

mirrors the active component and is modernized concurrently. We must prepare by 

providing high-level collective training opportunities such as Combat Training 

Center rotations and Red Flag exercises. Realistic training improves the readiness 

of the National Guard and develops leaders that are able to support joint force 

requirements. 

Readiness also includes plans to replace and upgrade obsolete or aging 

National Guard facilities and warfighting equipment. Ensuring proper training 

facilities and the latest equipment greatly enhances the readiness of our force. 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

For the Army National Guard, Total Army readiness continues to be the top 

priority. The nation must ensure all three components of the Army arc trained and 

interoperable to project land and air power across all warfighting domains. The 

Army began its Associated Units pilot program, a multi-component initiative 
329

bringing together capabilities from the Army, the Army National Guard and Army 

Reserve. These partnerships allow our soldiers to train and build readiness 

together as a Total Army. 

In order to achieve and maintain our readiness, the Army National Guard is 

identifying the appropriate levels of end strength, full-time support, and 

modernization such as Armored Brigade Combat Teams, Stryker Brigade Combat 

Teams and aviation platforms. We are also reviewing the locations of our Army 

National Guard Readiness Cc:ntcrs, some of which are in isolated rural areas, to 

ensure our stationing reflects changing U.S. demographics. It will also give us the 

ability to respond to emergencies in densely populated areas. 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

The Air National Guard continues to leverage its existing model of multicomponent forces with its associate wings. The Air Force and the Air National 

Guard maintain the same standards of operational readiness and cross-component 

operational capabilities for daily and surge operations. Developing 21st Century 

Guard Airmen, readiness, and modernization and recapitalization arc essential Air 

Guard efforts. This past year, National Guard Airmen supported more than 16,120 

deployment requirements to 56 countries. At home, we are the primary force 

provider to the North American Aerospace Defense Command protecting America's 

skies, while continuing to respond to state and local emergencies when requested. 

The Air National Guard is always ready when our nation calls. 

8 
330

My second priority is our people. The well-being of our Soldiers and Airmen, 

including support for our families and employers, is the foundation that underpins 

our service. We are committed to establishing a respectful environment that always 

strives for a diverse force where all members have the opportunity to reach their 

military goals. Acts that demoralize units and degrade readiness, such as sexual 

assault and sexual harassment, will never be tolerated. We must ensure all victims 

receive our utmost support and care. 

The number of Soldiers and Airmen taking their own lives is a tragedy. 

Simply put, we can and •will do more to prevent suicides. We will ensure first-line 

supervisors, battle buddies and wingmen have the training they need to look out 

for each and every Soldier and Airman. We will place great emphasis on mental 

health programs and provide resiliency training to units and leaders as we strive to 

prevent further suicides in our ranks. 

We will also ensure increased awareness of family readiness programs and 

employment assistance programs so that families know where to turn for help. We 

will do our best to provide our Guard members and their families more 

predictability in order to better plan and prepare for deployments and training 

obligations. We owe these measurt's to our service members and their families for 

their dedicated service and the sacrifices they undertake for our nation. 

Employers arc critical to the success of the National Guard. Our employers 

deserve the same predictability as our service members and families, particularly if 

9 
331

our deployments increase in the future. The National Guard benefits from our 

part-time force's civilian skills and experience, which is a unique strength of the 

reserve components. In return, our employers can leverage the military training 

and experience our Guardsmen and women take back with them. It is truly a winwin situation. 

INNOVATION 

My third priority is innovation. As the character of war and threats continue 

to evolve, creative minds are necessmy more than ever. We need to develop 

imaginative solutions to our most serious challenges. We must inspire a culture 

willing to change. While we have been fighting for the past 15 years, the rest of the 

world has not remained idle. Our adversaries have improved their technology and 

our technological superiority is waning. 

The National Guard will continue to work with our active component 

counterparts in high-priority mission sets such as Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance and Remotely Piloted Aircraft. Our ability to use our civilianacquired skills and partner with critical infrastructure owners, government 

entities, public and private utilities, and other non-governmental organizations 

uniquely positions the National Guard to protect America's critical infrastructure. 

Although innovation often relates to technology, we also have to think about 

innovation in other ways. We have to leverage our culture, our skill sets, our 

authorities, and our way of doing business. Innovation will help us strengthen our 

ability to recruit and retain, forge the most resilient force, implement more efficient 

10 
332

processes, and update obsolete doctrine in order to better protect our states and 

nation. 

CONCLUSION 

I am proud to serve with each and every member of the National Guard. 

Although we have daunting challenges ahead, we will employ our skills to the 

fullest and continue to contribute in ways not seen before. Every Citizen-Soldier 

and -Airman is indispensable to our operational force, and we can succeed only 

through their commitment and extraordinary talent. We must strive to be more 

innovative, responsive, capable, and affordable as we continuously move forward to 

confront the challenges ahead. 

Thank you for your continued support of the National Guard and their families. 

11 
333

SEQUESTRATION

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you so much. I want to make our members 

aware that we will be using a timer for each member and that you 

have 5 minutes, including questions and responses, for the witness. 

A yellow light on your timer will appear when you have 1 minute 

remaining. If time permits, we will have a second round of questions.

I am going to ask a question to begin. General Lengyel, full-spectrum readiness training has been suppressed over the past 15 

years due to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent 

years, sequestration further squeezed the readiness dollars needed 

to resume such training. Could you describe the impact this has on 

military readiness now and in future years, and how does the fiscal 

year 2018 request begin to address those concerns? 

General LENGYEL. Yes, ma’am. I think you address the problem 

that the service Chiefs have talked about in terms of the ability to 

maintain full-spectrum readiness for their force, mostly because of 

the demand on that force and the limited funding to sustain things 

like flying hour programs, complex training scenario programs. But 

we are beginning to dig out of that and rebuild readiness inside the 

services and inside the National Guard. 

The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard have been 

used in an operational sense, which has allowed the services in 

some cases to maintain or rebuild their readiness. 

Sequestration clearly is going to limit every aspect, would limit 

every aspect of our ability to do that, should it come in the future. 

And I would tell you that predictable and dependable funding is 

probably the single most important factor that we in the National 

Guard need so that we can plan to recruit our people, so that we 

can plan to train our people, and so that we can maintain our 

equipment and recapitalize our equipment through the services as 

we normally do. So I think that clearly readiness is funding-related, and this budget begins to build some of that back, but it is 

going to take a long time before all of the things, the recapitalization and modernization of the force, are fully complete. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will pass. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Ms. McCollum. 

FAMILY ASSISTANCE SPECIALIST

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. Thank you. Good morning. I am 

going to touch on something, and then I have a question. So I am 

glad you are here today, in part because we are going to learn a 

lot more on how we can be a proactive partner in making sure that 

the Guard remains the successful part of our military force that it 

is.

But I also want to take this opportunity to reinstate some concerns that I have with you about the family assistance specialists. 

It is still causing a lot of concern among my Guard members, family members, constituents which include the businesses that employ these Guard members and many, many other people in Minnesota and, I know, other States as well. 
334

As we talked about in my office, these specialists provide critical 

benefits and assistance. And in Minnesota alone, there were 1,700 

cases handled by these folks. I understand there has been a new 

contract issued, but, folks, when someone’s hourly wage increase 

for a job that they are doing is cut from $21 to 11—to $14 an hour, 

it sends a message to the people who had been previously doing 

this job: You can work for less money, or your work is not valued. 

So we are going to be watching to see what happens with county 

veterans service offices in Minnesota’s caseloads, what happens in 

our congressional office with caseloads now that the expertise isn’t 

there. So I know you are going to be monitoring this, too, and 

change is always an option, and we need to maybe work with a 

new vendor or figure something out if this is a problem. Maybe it 

won’t be, but we are a little alarmed. 

ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

What I would like to focus on is the five National Guard armored 

brigade combat teams. Currently, the operating tempo has been 

drastically increased so the number of training days for National 

Guard soldiers went from 60 to 90. That is an extra month, right, 

on average. So we know this increase in training days is important. 

But along with what we have happening with mobilization, deployments, it is putting more and more of a burden on the quality of 

life for soldiers, their units, and their families. So I am concerned 

and the Minnesota National Guard is concerned about long-term 

retention in these brigades. I know we want to make sure that we 

have a great readiness posture so everybody is able to perform 

their job successfully and come home safely. 

But can you tell me how you are going to be monitoring and 

some of the concerns that you might have with going from 39 to 

60 days on average? 

General LENGYEL. Well, yes, ma’am. I can tell you that we are 

aware of this issue, and that is one of the things as the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau that I track closely, is I worry about 

the business model of the National Guard, which means our soldiers and airmen have a civilian life and a military life. And if I 

lose support from the soldier or airman to support both of those 

lives, if he is forced to make a choice or she is forced to make a 

choice, then I know which one they will pick, and most likely I will 

lose that soldier or that airman. 

So what we are trying to do, as you are aware is, yes, it is true 

that the armored brigade combat teams will require more training 

to be ready should the United States Army need them to fight in 

any of the various scenarios where they will be. 

I will tell you that some of this transformation has already happened in terms of the Army force generation model previously has 

been for several years now a graduated increase in the training requirements as the brigade progresses through its training cycle just 

before it is available to be deployed, and that is not new. 

What is new is that the United States Army has decided to increase the training available to the brigade combat teams. We are 

going to go from two combat training center rotations a year to four 

combat training centers a year. In my estimation, that is a good 

thing in that it is going to make this operational Army National 
335

Guard more valuable to the country, more valuable to the Army, 

and more ready so it can be ready quicker should it go out the 

door.

To your point about how are we going to monitor them, well, I 

think that this is a leadership issue. This is something where we 

have to watch the people, personal engagement on my part, on the 

adjutant general’s part, on the commander’s part, with making 

sure that the schedules that we give these soldiers are predictable, 

that we let the employers know that you can count on these soldiers, and that these increased training times actually result in a 

deployment for the soldiers at the end. Otherwise, they won’t be 

seen as a reason why—why should an employer endure the extended time away from their jobs if, at the end of that training period, they don’t use them? So, as we are going through this now, 

the plan is for the Army to use these forces and deploy them. 

This is the first cycle of this, and some people have decided that 

they have to change. They can’t support it, and they will change 

MOSes and go someplace else. I lived this in the Air National 

Guard myself as a guardsman in the mid-1990s, when we began to 

deploy regularly, and it definitely changes the paradigm. So there 

will be a change as this goes forward, and we are going to have 

to work with the employers and the members to the maximum extent possible so that we don’t lose them. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. Well, thank you for your answer, 

and I am taking it in the spirit in which I think you totally meant 

it, but I am going to put a cautionary tale on it. This just isn’t 

about leadership to put up and to be quiet about it. This is also 

about leadership to see if we need to go back and review and figure 

out how these folks are not only trained but deployed in the future. 

Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. Chairman Emeritus Rogers. 

END STRENGTH

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Welcome, General, to these premises. Let me ask you, the Guard 

has a dual responsibility, one to the State of their location, the 

Governor, and, of course, then the combatant commands on the 

Federal level. The previous administration proposed cuts, continued cuts, to Guard end strength. But our 2017 bill reversed those 

cuts to end strength and will add 1,000 Army Guard troops above 

the 2016 level. Tell us how you are going to utilize that extra manpower.

General LENGYEL. Yes, sir. Thank you. That is true, and we are 

happy to see that the reduction in end strength stopped for the 

Army National Guard. And because of the two missions we have, 

when force structure leaves our States, it is a double hit. It is a 

hit against the Federal mission, and it is a hit against the ability 

to do our homeland mission. So our plan is to take the additional 

manpower that we have. If you recall, we were on a glide path to 

335,000 force structure inside the Army National Guard. It stopped 

at 342,000 last year, and we were able to grow it back 1,000 to 

343,000 this year. Our intent is to take that additional manpower, 

and as I talked about on the five brigade combat teams, is we are 

going to place it against and increase the readiness of these high- 
336

demand, operationally deploying units that will make them more 

ready, be able to get ready quicker, and train as they go. 

One of the concerns, frankly, of the increased manpower is we 

got the people back, but we didn’t get the increased full-time support back with it. We got the part-time soldiers back. We took the 

full-timers out all the way down to 335,000. We built the Army 

Guard back up to 343,000, but they were part-time billets and not 

full-time billets. And that hurts our ability to generate the force 

quickly and keep it ready and minimize the time it takes to get it 

ready to go out the door. 

COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

Mr. ROGERS. In my State, and I suspect I speak for all States 

when I say this, we have got a tremendous, incredible drug problem. And in my area, the Guard has had a great program to eradicate marijuana in the remote hills of Appalachia, where it is apparently a very great climate for the growth of marijuana. But that 

Guard unit has just been tremendous. In joint support operations, 

they have eradicated 13 million marijuana plants. They have 

seized tons of marijuana, illegal weapons, and so forth, all to the 

tune of $25 billion. 

And we are seeing now across the country an effort apparently 

to make marijuana legal. But in the hills of Kentucky—and I have 

been on a couple of these missions where they fly into a very remote area of mountains, no homes or properties of any kind—mainly the marijuana is grown under high-tension electric wires rightof-way. Number one, you can’t prove who owns it. And, number 

two, you can’t get there with a helicopter because of the electric 

lines and the like. And the troopers have to rappel down a rope, 

cut the marijuana, put it in a big bag, put it over their shoulder, 

and they are picked up by the helicopter and carried 50 miles dangling 100 feet from below a helicopter. Very dangerous work but 

very productive. Do you see that continuing, and what can we do 

to help you see that? 

General LENGYEL. Well, first, let me thank this committee for 

the $234 million we got in this year’s appropriation for the 

Counterdrug Program. That Counterdrug Program, as you said, sir, 

is incredibly important, I believe, to leverage the skill sets that we 

have in the National Guard to facilitate and work with law enforcement to detect, disrupt, curtail illegal drug activities in every State. 

As you mentioned, the State of Kentucky has an issue with marijuana, and I think that, you know, as you look across the Nation, 

every State’s program is tailored for the individual requirements 

that they have inside their State, and that is the way it should be. 

So, as we look at the disbursement of the $234 million, we have 

what is called the threat-based resource model, which has about 70 

different factors. It allows each State to prioritize what is important to them such that when they come into the pool, their particular problem gets resourced, and then the States use those funds 

and develop their own plan, and in your case, sir, it is the eradication of marijuana inside Kentucky. And so I want to be able to 

continue to support that. 

I want to thank this committee for the continued funding of that 

program. Your funding of that program has enabled not only a ro-
337

bust liaison with law enforcement, but the schooling, the five additional schools that are funded have allowed us to build additional 

capacity to fight this drug issue, whether it is marijuana or opioids 

or heroin or synthetics. And we all know the significant toll that 

that has taken on our country across the Nation. 

Mr. ROGERS. You mentioned opioids. My area was ground zero 14 

years ago at the outset of an OxyContin rage that raged across the 

country. But these marijuana growers frequently are the dealers in 

opioids, and it is a double whammy with the money that we put 

into the antimarijuana program because it does bring in additional 

breakers of the law. 

Well, we appreciate your service, sir. 

General LENGYEL. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

RUSSIA AGRESSION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you for being here, and also we do 

appreciate your service and what you do in our hometowns and 

also what you are doing to fight the war with ISIS and the other 

issues we deal with. 

I come from local government, so many, many times with storms 

and hurricanes, the National Guard has been there. And I also 

want to get a little local, but I want to acknowledge the Adjutant 

General Linda Singh, who is doing a great job in Maryland, is 

heading that area. 

As you know, the National Guard also plays a critical role in deterring Russia’s aggression. I was just in Estonia about 3 weeks 

ago, and Maryland National Guard has about 500 members there 

right now that are working on the cyber capability and helping Estonia deal with the Russian aggression and Russian hacks and 

those types of things. 

And when we met, I think a couple months ago, you said it was 

critical that Russia must respect the frontline National Guard combat units as well as the full time. And do you believe at this point 

that Russia sees the National Guard units in a strength position? 

Where do you feel we are at this point? Are there additional capabilities that this committee needs to help fund to get you to that 

level? And then also if you have time—I think we do—I want to 

talk, if you can talk a little bit about that Maryland National 

Guard in Estonia and what their mission is and what they are 

doing, and what is their future there? 

General LENGYEL. Congressman, I think when the Russians look 

across in Estonia or anywhere else in uniform and they see men 

and women in the Army, wearing an Army uniform, they see the 

United States Army. That is what I think they see. I think that 

is thanks in many ways to this committee. It is in thanks to 15 

years or more now of continuous deployments, of integration of 

Army National Guard formations with Active Component formations, of a Total Force policy from General Milley and those on his 

staff that support this associate unit pilot program that is training 

our brigades with the Active Army brigades, aligning their formations so that we can train together and fight together. 

And I do think that everywhere I go—I was in the Sinai Peninsula this past week. I saw the swap out of an infantry brigade from 
338

Minnesota National Guard to the Massachusetts National Guard in 

the Sinai for the multinational force and observer mission, and I 

can tell you that they see no difference when they look across and 

they see, whether it is combat maneuver forces or whether it is 

combat support services, they are wearing the United States Army 

uniform. And there is one training standard for the Army, and the 

National Guard doesn’t have a different one. The National Guard 

will train, will deploy, will be ready at the same training standard 

as the United States Army, and that is what I think Russia sees. 

And the second part of your question, Estonia, the State Partnership Program—and, again, thanks for the significant amounts of 

plus ups that you gave us for this year; I believe we got an additional $9 million added to the program from this committee—that 

enables the engagements we have. The cyber relationship with Estonia and their Cyber Center of Excellence over there, is a model 

for programs around the globe. That engagement since 1993, they 

were among the first three programs that started in the Baltics 

with us there. That ability to assure our allies of the United States’ 

commitment to the region, that ability to train together with the 

forces in the region, have had a strategic impact on our ability to 

assure and strengthen the NATO alliance. And my thanks to Linda 

Singh, who has been a great supporter of that, the State Maryland, 

and everyone else who is part of that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You know, Estonia is only 120 miles from 

Russia, and Putin is continuing to threaten it. And they had one 

of those severe attacks, and as a country, they only have close to 

a million people. They decided they were going to take on Russia. 

And with our help, the United States’ help and working with them, 

they have become pretty sophisticated, I think, from all the countries in that region dealing with the Russian aggression and trying 

to counter the Russian attacks. 

General LENGYEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

MODERNIZATION RECAPITALIZATION STRATEGY

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good morning, General Lengyel. Thank you for appearing before 

the committee, and thank you for your dedicated service to our 

great Nation, especially on the eve of honoring those who sacrificed 

everything in the service of our country this coming Memorial Day. 

Readiness is the most dangerous limiting factor across all 

branches of our military, ranging from the timely training of personnel to aging aircraft. Congress, as you are aware, has appropriated additional funds for Army aircraft procurement, specifically 

for Black Hawk helicopters. In fiscal year 2017, Congress provided 

the Army National Guard with 15 additional Black Hawks. As you 

may know, my home State of California is one of the country’s most 

active emergency response forces, and its primary workhorse for 

aerial support is the Black Hawk helicopter. California flies one of 

the oldest fleets of Black Hawks in the country. Sixty-five percent 

of them were built before 1990. In 2015, only 55 percent of the 

State’s Black Hawk fleet was operational at any given time. 
339

Please explain to us your current modernization recapitalization 

strategy for allocating these aircraft and those projected in fiscal 

year 2018 and 2019. When do you expect the States to receive the 

first of those additional aircraft? 

General LENGYEL. Yes, sir. Thank you and to this committee for 

the funding for the 15 Black Hawks. I think that, as we do with 

all our dispersion of equipment and recapitalization and modernization decisions, we look across the enterprise and see where 

it best makes sense to recapitalize a fleet at the time. I am not exactly sure yet when those Black Hawks are going to get delivered. 

I think that will make a case to determine when we get them. We 

will look at things like readiness as a fleet, maintenance statistics 

of the fleet, the sustainment levels of the fleet, potential deployments and utilization of those for our three missions—war fight, 

homeland, and partnerships—and, at the time, work with the 

Army National Guard to determine where its best to deploy those 

additional 15 Black Hawks. That is how we look at every stationing 

of all equipment, sir, and I thank you for your support of getting 

those Black Hawks. 

Mr. CALVERT. I hope in that process you think of good ole California.

General LENGYEL. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

COUNTERDRUG OPERATION

Mr. CALVERT. To carry on with Chairman Rogers’ line of questioning, combating terrorism and protecting our national interests 

abroad is only a part of the Guard’s expansive mission. Protecting 

the homeland through the counterdrug operation is a vital mission 

I know that you take very seriously. In my area and throughout 

the United States, what are you seeing from these drug cartels, 

and do you see any association or collaboration between cartels and 

terrorist organizations? 

General LENGYEL. So, sir, I think the consensus is that they are 

one in the same. I think that the money from the drug cartels is 

part and parcel to terrorist organizations. And counterterrorist organizations, countertransnational criminal organizations are all 

networked and aligned and work against the security of the United 

States.

Mr. CALVERT. Do you see any collaboration outside of organizations in South America, or are there organizations outside of South 

America involved in the drug activities? 

General LENGYEL. It is a global network, no question. It is not 

limited to South America. The funding streams, part of the things 

that the National Guard provides is counterthreat finance analysis. 

We train people who do these kinds of analysis in great detail, and 

it is clear that funding streams in these networks are not geographically limited. They are global in their nature. No question. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Cuellar. 

NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And, again, thank you for your service. 
340

A couple things. There are some of us who pushed for two items. 

One was the million dollars more to the National Guard State 

Partnership Program, from 8 to 9. I would like to get your 

thoughts, what you are looking at doing with that extra money. 

And the other item was the, I think, fiscal year for the 

Counterdrug Program was 192, and some of us pushed it to $234 

million. So I would like to get your quick thoughts on those, and 

then I would like to ask you a question about Operation Phalanx. 

General LENGYEL. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I mentioned the State 

Partnership Program and thanks to your funding, it is an incredible tool, strategic tools, for the Department of Defense, for the 

country, for our States. And the $234 million, my only worry is we 

got it so late in the year, I am worried that getting the money this 

late will be difficult for us to execute some of it because, as you 

know, we have the posture in the SPP, troops and people to go, and 

events, and work with host-nation countries, and some of these 

things take time to develop. 

Mr. CUELLAR. And we understand. 

General LENGYEL. But, clearly, we can spend every bit of money 

you give us for the State Partnership Program, given the lead time 

to spend it. And the same thing for the Counterdrug Program. 

There is no shortage of requirements or asks from law enforcement 

agencies for what we do across the program. So absolutely thank 

you for the—— 

OPERATION PHALANX

Mr. CUELLAR. If you want to just share with the committee and 

ourselves later on what your plans are, I would like to do that. I 

know the last time we were with Chairman Rogers and Mr. 

Womack, we went down to South America, and there are some 

partnerships out there. Chile has one with Texas, and you have 

other States also. Do you all have anything with Mexico? I know 

we have been trying to do something with Mexico. If we can help 

you, it would only make sense that our largest neighbor, at least 

to the south, is one. So if we can help you on that, let me just say 

that. We can follow up. 

I do want to ask you about Operation Phalanx. I know that 

Chairman Carter and Governor Abbott and I have been working on 

it. As you know, when you have Border Patrol, and they are doing 

night operations, the Air Marine, with all due respect, they do it 

during the day. They don’t want to go out at nighttime. But you 

still have Border Patrol that are going out there, and you got to 

have something at nighttime, and unfortunately, some of our Air 

Marine folks, and we can address this later, but they don’t go after 

5 o’clock. And now they are trying to move away from the border, 

trying to set up—like they have a base in Laredo. They want to 

move to San Antonio. They want to be away from the border, which 

is counterintuitive. But the National Guard has done a heck of a 

job.

We added some money, the leadership of John Carter and other 

folks, we added some money for Operation Phalanx, but what happened was that the Homeland Secretary, the previous Homeland 

Secretary, even though the money was there, they never asked. 

Then they send this little letter that really didn’t mean anything. 
341

It was a feel-good letter. Then we contacted the new Secretary of 

Homeland, and his people are not familiar with it. You are familiar 

with it. We would ask you to get a hold of the new Secretary’s office, and I believe the money is there. And whatever you all can 

do, because we got to give our men and women of the Border Patrol 

support at nighttime. It is unfair that they are out there in the 

night and there is no aerial support for them. So I would like to— 

I got about a minute and a half, but if you can finish on that 

thought, some of us, including Governor Abbott and ourselves, are 

big supporters of this. 

General LENGYEL. Sir, I thank you for the $19 million for Operation Phalanx. I have already spoken to Secretary Kelly. I went to 

his office, and I met with him, and I told him about my recent trip 

to the Southwest border, McAllen was one place I went, and also 

in Nogales in Arizona, at the request of Senator McCain, to see the 

Southwest border. And I saw firsthand the need, the requirement, 

for additional air support to the folks who are on the border, the 

Customs and Border Protection agents who are there. I rode in an 

Army National Guard helicopter at night flying as part of the 

Counterdrug Program, with a Customs and Border Protection 

agent in the helicopter, and I must share with the committee it 

was not much different than what you see on TV for taking down 

a spot in Afghanistan. There weren’t bullets and things flying 

along, but there were escorters. There were people running. There 

were police officers trying to apprehend them. And it is absolutely 

useful. So I commit to go back to Secretary Kelly, and I already 

have, and provided his staff a briefing on the capability we can provide.

Mr. CUELLAR. I know John Carter and other folks are interested, 

but if you can keep us informed, we really would appreciate it. 

Thank you for your time. 

My time is up. I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Womack. 

FULL-TIME MANNING

Mr. WOMACK. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks 

to General Lengyel for his leadership and the work of our National 

Guard both on the Army and the Air side. Great questions coming 

from my colleagues today, talking about things like Border Patrol, 

security, counterdrug, operational tempo, Black Hawks, and those 

kinds of things. 

I am going to open a line of questioning about what I consider 

to be the single biggest issue facing our Guard today, and that is 

in relation to full-time manning. It is not a sexy subject. But it is 

a critical subject if we are going to continue to utilize our National 

Guard, as we should, as an operational force. As an example—and 

you correct me if I am wrong—when we were doing the drawdown 

on end strength, the Army Guard was scheduled to go to a number, 

and we were on the glide path to get to that number. And proportionately, full-time manning was cut based on that number. And 

then when this Congress gives money back to the Guard for end 

strength and we increase that end strength, not increased was the 

proportionate loss of the full-time manning. That is insane that we 

would allow this to happen. 
342

So my question for you, General Lengyel is, how has this happened, and what is this doing to impact the readiness of a critical 

operational force for our military and our National Guard? Take all 

the time you need. 

General LENGYEL. All right, sir. Thank you very much for that 

question. And so our business model in the National Guard is different. And I am a protector of that business model. I don’t want 

to look like the United States Army. I do not want to look like the 

United States Air Force. We need to remain a preponderantly parttime force. That is the value in it for this country and for what we 

do.

The United States Air National Guard is about 35 percent fulltime. In its 100,000 people, 105,000, it is about 35 percent fulltime. In the Army National Guard, 343,000 people, we are about 

16 percent full-time. What that full-time force does, and the only 

reason we have them and the only reason I am here before you 

today is to make ready for the United States Army and United 

States Air Force and the Governors in our States, is to make ready 

that force, to be ready, to be manned, to be trained, to be equipped, 

so that we can do the missions. That is why we have full-time people in the Army National Guard. 

So you need to understand why they were gone. Money—I understand why they are gone, why we took them. We had incredible 

bills to pay. In our budgets, that is where all our money is. Our 

money is in that small chunk of change, $16 billion in the Army 

Guard. Two-thirds of that is people. Most of that is people. Same 

thing for the Air National Guard. So that is why it went. We had 

bills to pay and sequestrations and drawdowns and budgets. But 

what this force does is it prepares the force so that, when they 

come to drill for the 39 days or the 45 days or the 60 days, they 

have the structure to do the collective training they need to do to 

do their wartime tasking. They make sure that the equipment that 

they need to train on, the tanks and the Bradleys, that they work, 

that the aircraft are flyable, so that when the people come in, they 

can fly not only together, but they can fly in collective training, and 

they can do the kinds of training that the Army needs them to do. 

Same thing for the Air Force side. So the full-time support piece 

is what enables us to make the Army National Guard ready 

quicker. They come in and they prepare for a military unit training 

assembly for people to come in for a drill, and they put them together for 3 and 4 days at a time so that they can do some more 

training. They build the battlefield. They build the command post. 

They build everything so the soldiers come in, they get out of their 

pickup truck, they walk into the field, and they train. So, without 

the full-time support, then they waste time. They have to come in. 

They have to build the battlefield. They have to train. They have 

to fix the equipment so they can fly it. It is incredibly important. 

I am not looking for huge numbers of—by the way, I am looking 

at my staff, NGB, where do we have full-time people right now so 

that, if I could, I could put some back out into the fields so that 

they can help make the operational force more ready. And I would 

tell you that I think if we are going to be ready quicker, stay an 

operational force, we are going to have to slowly increase the percentage of full-time support in the Army National Guard. 
343

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Ryan. 

RESERVE COMPONENT BENEFITS PARITY ACT

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me associate myself with all of my colleagues’ remarks. Since 

I have been here, I agree they have got some great questions. 

First, thank you. Obviously, Ohio is a huge part of the team and 

has deployed and will continue to deploy around the globe. And we 

know that post-9/11 use of the Guard has been a big part of our 

plan. One of the things I am concerned with is making sure that 

we are providing the benefits that match the service our National 

Guard are providing. And I understand there are significant differences in the benefits provided to our National Guard based upon 

minor administrative coding orders, and I will give you an example. I have cosponsored the bipartisan Reserve Component Benefits 

Parity Act designed to ensure National Guard who are activated in 

administrative codes, such as 12304(a) and 12304(b) of title 10, 

U.S. Code, are treated in the same manner as other Active Duty 

orders for determining veterans’ benefits. This issue and many like 

it were documented in the October 1, 2014, Reserve Force’s policy 

board memorandum, and yet we are still struggling to make sure 

that our National Guard and Reserve get the correct benefits that 

they have earned. 

So what have we done to focus on educating our National Guard 

and Reserve on the differences administrative coding can make in 

veteran benefits? And how is your leadership making every effort 

to correctly reflect the importance of military service of our National Guard and Reserve by using the appropriate coding so their 

service counts toward their earned benefits? 

General LENGYEL. Sir, I think this is one of the more important 

issues that we need to fix going forward, is the parity of benefits 

for service. I am thankful for the Parity Act. I completely think it 

is the right thing to do. 12304 bravo was a flexible mobilization authority given to the service Secretaries which has enabled access, 

mobilization of the force. However, when they created it, funding 

numbers being what they were, they didn’t attach all the entitlements that go with it. So the soldiers who are in the Sinai who I 

just spoke to, they want this fixed. 

Mr. RYAN. How are we coming with it? We are getting calls on 

this, and this is obviously a pocketbook issue for so many? Are we 

making some progress on this? 

General LENGYEL. The awareness that thing has got is we have 

got to fix it here. We have got to find the resources to put against 

it so that there is no difference so that they are entitled to 

healthcare beyond 180 days when they come back, so that they are 

entitled to post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits, so that they have 

access to early retirement as per other mobilization authorities. 

So what my soldiers are doing, what the soldiers from the States 

are doing, is they are changing their mobilization authority to voluntary status, which doesn’t give them the protections of the dwell 

periods that we talked about earlier with Congresswoman McCollum; that is, they are voluntarily giving up their rights to serve 

their employers and their families and give themselves their dwell 
344

period as citizens so that they can get the health benefits and retirement benefits that they deserve. So I ask for your continued 

support here. It is an important issue that needs to be fixed. 

I think that the commission that was established a couple years 

ago, MCRMC commission—I am sorry; I can’t spit out that acronym for you, exactly what it is—retirement benefits and duty status reform, OSD is actually working on behalf of all of the Reserve 

Components, not just National Guard, to streamline and make 

right the entitlements that go with pay and duty status, like service equals like pay in benefits. So I do sense, inside the Department at least, there is a push to make that happen and a push to 

make the reform. There will be a bill with it to do it, but it is the 

right thing to do. 

OPIATE DRUG ISSUE

Mr. RYAN. Well, we need you to continue to push us, and we will 

push you and hopefully make some progress. Real quick because I 

only have 30-some seconds, I know the chairman brought up earlier the opiate drug issue. Are you starting to make a distinction 

in prioritization of opiates versus marijuana because the problem 

is so big? Are you prioritizing how you are deploying your resources, I guess I should say? 

General LENGYEL. So, because of the rise and the devastating effects of the opiate piece, it has taken on a more important role in 

the threat-based resource model. That team has come together, 

which is adjutant generals from the States, its academic institutions who study this. It is subject-matter experts who come together. There used to be 20 variables per State, because, as I said 

earlier, every State has a unique and distinct environment that 

threatens their State. So we need a model that is flexible so that 

each State can articulate it. And so the opioid issue has risen inside that threat-based resource model, and we will apply the right 

authority to it. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Carter. 

ASSOCIATED UNITS PROGRAM

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

General Lengyel, I welcome a fellow Texan. 

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Cuellar, for raising the issue on 

the border, and I associate myself with all the conversation we 

have had today. 

General, our Associated Pilot Program, high-demand National 

Guard units see more training days in combat training center rotations as part of the Army Associated Units Pilot Program. We 

talked about that a little bit. The Army requires training together 

to increase the readiness across all three components, keep up the 

demand for soldiers around the world. Can you provide the committee with an assessment of the Associated Pilots Program to date 

and if you feel like you are meeting the accomplishments that you 

are seeking to meet? And are there any additional funding requirements that you feel like we should know about as we go forward? 

And I am reading a book called ‘‘Fast Tanks and Heavy Bombers’’ that General Milley gave me. And I would venture to say that 
345

the National Guard trains more than the regular Army did. Today, 

we train more than the regular Army did during this period of time 

between World War I and World War II, and that is an amazing 

change in the Guard’s requirements. Would you tell us a little bit 

about that, sir? 

General LENGYEL. Thank you, sir. 

I am thankful for the Commission and their recommendations 

that came up with the Associated Units Program. It is a test, and 

I am thankful that General Milley has embraced it. And by all 

counts so far, I am willing to say that, from every indication I have, 

it is a success. It has been embraced by the Army. It has been embraced by the Army National Guard. It has resulted in people 

swapping unit patches and becoming part of each other’s uniform. 

It is a fundamental cultural change of integrating the Air National 

Guard into the United States Army, and I think only good things 

will come from it. 

Time will tell. We will look at the end of this, and we will determine, has our readiness increased? I will tell you what is increasing: the trust in each other, the ability and the awareness of the 

commanders, the sharing of resources and training, the utilization 

of our force. Everything has gotten better since we have become 

this operational force, and I believe the Army Unit Pilot Program, 

the Associated Units, is nothing but good. That is incredible. 

With respect to how we train, I couldn’t be more impressed. I 

spent the last 5 years of my life learning about the Army and the 

Army National Guard and how we train. It is an amazing undertaking to train a brigade combat team. It is logistically complex. To 

amass the forces and equipment and training that you need in the 

right places where you can actually use them and train on them, 

it takes an immense amount of coordination, and, quite frankly, it 

is expensive. 

Where we save the money is the 27 brigades that we have in the 

Army National Guard save you a little money when they are not 

training. We cost the same when you use us. We cost the same 

when you train us, but when you are not using us, we save some 

money. So it is my job, I think—you don’t want 27 brigades in the 

Army National Guard at C–1. That is not where you save money 

because it will spoil that readiness before you use it. So we want 

to meter that readiness. We want to make them ready faster. General Milley needs us inside of 60 days, inside of 90 days, if something happens in North Korea. 

We have to look hard at our business models. We have to look 

hard at the mobilization process. How do we mobilize? How can we 

mobilize faster? I think that is what we are trying to do in the 

Army National Guard Service, is make that force ready quicker, 

and be ready to participate as part of the Army as fast as they 

need us. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. We are very proud of you. 

General LENGYEL. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mrs. Roby. 
346

CURRENT OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you, sir, for 

being here. It is great to see you again. I have a few questions but 

first a few comments. 

As you know, the Site Survey Team is in Montgomery right now 

with the 187th Fighter Wing and at Dannelly Field for the future 

fielding of the F–35. And as a long supporter of the F–35 program, 

it is exciting to see how much progress the program has made, and 

I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to say to you 

that, if there are any questions from the Guard for the community 

or for any Member of the Alabama delegation, we continue to make 

ourselves available to you. The Alabama delegation, of course, in 

the community and our State is so excited about this possibility. 

In your testimony, you highlight the numerous deployments that 

the Guard has performed since 9/11 and the fact that the operational tempo today remains very high. And so I want to thank you 

and all members of the National Guard for your selfless service in 

protecting the Nation in these challenging times and the sacrifice 

of your families. 

I am concerned, however, and have recently had some conversations with friends of mine who served about how sustainable current operational tempo is and what has been brought to my attention as it relates to dwell time. We have placed a huge burden on 

our Guard families and not to mention their employers. And the 

question I have, are we placing too much on the Guard to constantly be an operational partner? And I have heard the comments 

of my colleagues in here, and I listened to you as well. But when 

my phone rings and it is a member of the Guard who has served 

both in the Active, for many years in the Active Component, and 

now as a pilot in the Guard, and what is being communicated to 

me is that there is concern by those who continue to serve their 

country hearing these rumors about a decrease in the dwell time 

from 5-to-1 to 4-to-1, and then is that a slippery slope? So I just 

really wanted you to take an opportunity to address these concerns 

that I have heard and I am sure others have as well. 

General LENGYEL. Yes, ma’am, the concerns are real. I think you 

probably heard from the fellow Joint Chiefs yesterday that the 

threats that the country is facing is absolutely going to require the 

continued operational use of the National Guard. 

One of the things that you are seeing in Alabama, particularly 

in the 135 arena, KC–135 arena, so, because all of these issues that 

we are dealing with are far away, they require a lot of air refueling 

capability. For the past 15 years, the Air Force has had the good 

fortune to have, you know, pretty much a downturn in the airlines 

cycle in which they had pilots available and willing to work who 

were either waiting or not engaged in an airline job. And so the 

volunteerism of people who were able to deploy beyond normal mobilized deployment was high. And so what has happened now is the 

availability that the airline industry is booming. They have a large 

draw on our pilot force who are now fully engaged in a civilian job, 

and so that volunteerism is beginning to be harder to get. 

You have to keep in mind what our units are funded to do. So 

there are areas that are being stressed on the utilization, and I 
347

would tell you that KC–135s are one of them. Writ large across the 

force, we are using, as I mentioned in my remarks opening statement, 18,000 men and women deployed right now today. If you go 

back 10 years ago, we had 70,000 men and women deployed today, 

and an average of that for over 10 years. So I characterize the sustainability of our force, the utilization of our force right now, as a 

normal walk, maybe a brisk walk. Whereas, 10 years ago, 2005, 

with 100,000 people deployed plus 50,000 during Hurricane 

Katrina, that was a full-out sprint, and that would not have been 

sustainable. Overall, writ large across the force, we can sustain 

what we are doing today, but we have to be careful and look at specific threatened areas like KC–135s and work to do that, and 

maybe associations can help. Maybe we can put additional Active 

pilots in there, and they can take on some of those flying responsibilities.

Mrs. ROBY. I certainly don’t claim to have the solution, and that 

is why I wanted to just bring it to your attention and continue to 

have this conversation. These men and women are there because 

they want to be there and because they love their country, and I 

know we all recognize that, but I do appreciate your commitment 

to them, and I would like to continue to have this conversation 

with you down the road. 

General LENGYEL. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Visclosky. 

COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

A couple of statements. First of all, General, there is a series of 

questions for the record on the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy 

for the Guard and certainly attaching importance to that program. 

I will be interested in the Guard’s response. 

I would join with a number of my colleagues who have mentioned 

the Counterdrug Program, very important in our State, particularly important in my congressional district, and I do appreciate 

the Guard’s work with the local communities. 

Also, it has been talked about, the partnership act. I think it is 

a very enriching program for the Guard, for our country, for the 

other countries we are involved with. I am very proud again that 

our State now has two such partnerships. I was interested in the 

exchange you had with Mr. Ryan, and I will be interested in the 

Guard following up on his question. Some years ago, I asked in a 

different fashion the same question. Some years ago, the Guard 

said they were working on it. So I would hope that some progress 

is being made. 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND NATIONAL DISASTERS

For the questions I have, there has been mention of the Guard’s 

responsibility for homeland security, for responses to national disasters. You just mentioned Katrina. As far as equipment in the 

Guard, as far as training of the Guard, when you do have a hurricane—it could be in Florida; it can be a tornado in a Midwestern 

State, wildfire—are there enough training dollars? Are there particular types of training programs that we should be attuned to 

that may not be fully funded? Are there types of equipment for 
348

some of these natural disasters that Guard units across the country 

may not have adequate resources for? We are always thinking of 

overseas deployment, homeland protection, but if there is that natural disaster, is there something we are missing here as far as the 

needs that you and the Guard have? 

General LENGYEL. Sir, I thank you. You know, I think one thing 

I would point out is thanks for NGREA money that we get that allows us to buy some of the equipment that we use specifically for 

the homeland, communications stuff, engineer stuff, modernize our 

aviation fleet with things that help us do our homeland mission. 

A lot of that is done for and used by the NGREA account. 

The money that we get in the Counterdrug Program to have the 

schools and to train our servicemembers to be value-added, for that 

helps us. And I consider the counterdrug a huge part of the Homeland Security mission and support mission that we do. 

I don’t have a specific additional ask for you. I would tell you 

that we are looking right now at our cyber training requirements. 

Although I will say, for the most part, our cyber training schools 

are on track, the money that this committee gives us—I think we 

had $12 million this year for the Army National Guard to fund the 

positions that allow us to build and grow out our cyber network— 

we wouldn’t be able to do that without the money. Although the 

training is validated by the Army, it is not yet funded, is straight 

in our baseline budget. So, without the funding that we get from 

this committee, we wouldn’t be able to complete those kinds of 

training things. So I will give you a more direct list, but those are 

the things that come to mind as I sit here right now. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I mean, as far as natural disasters, there is nothing that comes to mind that we are missing as far as resources? 

Okay, thank you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. General Lengyel, thank you for your time and 

your attention to this concern. 

This will conclude panel one. 

[The information follows:] 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) has identified several domestic operations 

equipment priorities. The ARNG requires $4.1 billion to modernize its Black Hawk 

inventory A models to M models and $100 million for HMMWV modernization. 

Equipping needs for disaster response include Hydraulic Excavators, High Mobility 

Engineer Excavators, and Heavy Scrapers ($117.5 million), nine additional Disaster 

Incident Response Emergency Communications Terminal systems ($13.5 million), 

and CBRN detection and protection equipment for ARNG first responders ($1.2 million). The Air National Guard (ANG) domestic operations equipment needs include 

personal protective equipment, such as modernized EOD bomb suits ($3 million) and 

Emergency Responder Personal Protective Gear Decontaminators for ANG Fire and 

Emergency Services flights ($1.8 million). Aircraft modernization priorities include 

KC–135 Fuel Off-Load Hoses ($0.3 million), HH–60 Firefighting and Search and 

Rescue modernization ($1.7 million), and RPA Sense and Avoid systems for MQ–9 

Launch and Recovery elements ($25 million). 
349

RESERVE COMPONENTS 

WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY, CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE

VICE ADMIRAL LUKE McCOLLUM, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL REX McMILLIAN, COMMANDER, MARINE 

FORCES RESERVE 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARYANNE MILLER, CHIEF OF THE AIR 

FORCE RESERVE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER—PANEL 2

Ms. GRANGER. We will now move to panel two: The Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves. I would encourage all members to please stay for this panel. We are going to break for just 

3 minutes to change panels. 

General LENGYEL. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

[Recess.]

Ms. GRANGER. If you will be seated, please. 

Our second panel this morning consists of leaders of the Reserve 

Components: Lieutenant General Charles Luckey, Chief of the 

Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Luke McCollum, Chief of the Navy 

Reserve; Lieutenant General Rex McMillian, Commander, Marine 

Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, Chief of 

the Air Force Reserve. 

We are pleased to welcome these four very distinguished general 

officers as witnesses today, and the subcommittee thanks each of 

you for your service. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks for the first panel, this 

country relies now, perhaps more than ever, upon the service of 

your soldiers, sailors, and airmen to ensure mission success. The 

committee commends the Reserve Components for their dedication 

to service and to our Nation. We look forward to your testimony 

and your insight, but first, I would like to call on the ranking member, my friend, Pete Visclosky, for his comments. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate again that you are 

holding this hearing, and appreciate the panel before us for your 

testimony and your service, and I look forward to hearing it. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

General, please proceed with your testimony. Your full written 

testimony will be placed in the record. Please summarize your oral 

statement so we can leave enough time to get to everyone’s questions.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL LUCKEY

General LUCKEY. Chairwoman Granger, Vice Chairman Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, I will keep my remarks brief, as the chairwoman just requested. I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. It is an 

awesome opportunity and an honor for me to represent the 200,000 

soldiers of America’s Army Reserve, who are serving today across 

20 time zones and around the globe. On behalf of them, their families, the employers of America, and the Department of Army civil-
350

ians who support us, I want to thank each of you for your unwavering support and commitment to this team. 

As I noted in my posture statement, which has been filed with 

the committee, as the leader of this team, I am well attuned to the 

persistent presence of the asymmetric threat of terrorism and radical groups, as well as the emerging and compelling challenges presented by near-peer competitors, potential adversaries with the capability, propensity, and willingness to contest American power in 

all domains. We have not faced these conditions for over a quarter 

of a century. And the Army Reserve must take action, along with 

the rest of our Army, to meet the new and evolving threats. 

In this environment, an operational reality where the lethality 

and complexity of the battlespace presents new challenges to our 

Army, America’s Army Reserve’s practice of building rotational 

readiness and units over time will no longer be sufficient. We must 

prepare some units for full-spectrum operational environment immediately. This includes making ready significant portions of our 

team able to go fast, in some cases in days or weeks, in order to 

immediately complement and augment the Active Component formations who rely on America’s Army Reserve to fight and win on 

the battlefield for the first round downrange. 

In this new threat paradigm, some 300 units of action or approximately 30,000 soldiers, need to be able to deploy in harm’s way in 

less than 90 days, many in less than 30. I refer to this force as 

Ready Force X. It is a fast-deploying set of capabilities, which I will 

be happy to discuss with the committee in more detail. We need 

to deliver these units for the mobility, survivability, connectivity, 

and lethality needed to win on the modern battlefield. 

As always, consistent and predictable funding for essential training, equipment, and modernization is crucial to our success. The 

degree of funding which the committee has afforded us in the past 

and continues to is of tremendous benefit to America’s Army Reserve. It is a superb tool, which in accordance with your guidance, 

enables me to procure certain high-priority capabilities that can be 

used for both combat operations and, as appropriate, domestic response operations. I thank you for your continued support in this 

regard.

Let there be no doubt that my team’s number one priority is 

readiness. In fact, as I testified today, America’s Army Reserve has 

just completed the largest crew-served weapons gunnery operation 

in its history, Operation Cold Steel, conducted up at Fort McCoy, 

Wisconsin. There, we rapidly accelerated the training qualification 

of our master gunners, of our vehicle crew evaluators, and individual soldiers, while reinvigorating the Noncommissioned Officers 

Corps of America’s Army Reserve, which, as you all well know, is 

the first line, if you will, the core role in our Army of training and 

leading our soldiers when the lead hits the air. This is money and 

time well spent and much needed as we move into the future, and 

I appreciate this committee’s support in that regard. 

As for the future, America’s Army Reserve is uniquely postured 

and empowered to leverage the wide-ranging reservoir of professional talent to understand, develop, and exploit emerging commercial markets and cutting-edge technologies by partnering with private industry in order to stay on pace in a very dynamic world. 
351

Working closely with Defense Innovation Experimental Unit here 

in Washington, D.C., and spread around the country, as well as 

Military District 5 over at National Defense University and other 

partners, we are well on the way to strengthening linkages between the private sector and America’s Army. 

I want to reiterate the message I shared with the American people in closing. I shared this with them on the Army Reserve’s 109th 

birthday last month in Times Square, joining that stage, if you 

will, with the Army’s noncommissioned officer of the year, who, by 

the way, happens to be an Army Reserve soldier from the Golden 

State of California: My team relies, as I told the American people, 

on our families, on the commitment to support them, and the persistent willingness of America’s employers to share their finest talent with us, and working the delicate balance between being ready 

enough to be relevant, but not so ready that my soldiers can’t 

maintain good rewarding civilian employment. As I reach out to 

the influences across America and around the globe, I ask them 

and press them to act and to encourage their communities, cities, 

campuses, congressional districts, and the employers located therein, to see themselves as full partners in national security, sharing 

America’s best talent with us, America’s Army Reserve, as we support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Distinguished members, your Army Reserve has always met the 

challenges of the time. With the committee’s help, we will continue 

to provide the capabilities and readiness, live the example, and 

exude the ethos that the people of the United States expect and deserve. We will remain your premier team of skilled professionals, 

serving the Nation’s both soldiers and engaged civilians around the 

globe. That is just who we are. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The written statement of General Luckey follows:] 
352

The 20 1 7 Posture of the United States Army Reserve 

The Army Reserve: America's Global Operational 

Reserve Force 

Submitted by 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES D. LUCKEY 

33d Chief of Army Reserve and 

8th Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command 

May24, 2017 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

Title I 0 USC 3038(f) specifies the Chief of Army Reserve shall submit to the Secretary of 

Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, an annual report on the state of the Army Reserve 

and the ability of the Army Reserve to meet its missions. 

The report shall be prepared in cot~ unction with the Chief of Staff of the Army and 

may be submitted in classified and unclassitled versions. 
353

INTRODUCTION 

For the past 15 years, the United States has embarked upon a far-reaching battle to defeat the 

forces of radical terrorism and bring a measure of peace and stability to a region that presented a 

direct threat to the safety and security of the American people. While this undertaking focused our 

time, treasure and attention on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, current and potential 

adversaries seized the opportunity to study our tactics and invest in the modernization of their forces 

and capabilities. 

Russia is arguably the best case in point. Having developed, tested and opcrationalized 

significant capabilities across all domains, Russia has clearly demonstrated its prowess as a global 

competitor, and its propensity to unilaterally use military force to achieve its perceived security 

objectives. China's emerging capabilities across a variety of domains, coupled with its own 

economic objectives, make it a rising challenge to American security partners in the Western 

Pacific. Less capable as a competitor, but arguably more immediately problematic as a strategic 

challenge, North Korea's unyielding quest for a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile 

(ICBM) that can reach the United States with a nuclear warhead raises obvious concerns that could 

drive hard choices for America. Iran's funding of terrorism and pursuit of highly-capable missile 

technologies can reliably be expected to continue into the future. Taken together, these 

developments, combined with emerging technologies in hypcrsonics, cyber-strike, artificial 

intelligence and digital disruption, create a new and disrupting threat paradigm for the United 

States and its allies. 

U.S. dominance in positioning, navigation and timing, stealth technologies, global reach, global 

command and control (C2), air supremacy, space operations and all aspects of maritime flexibility 

have been the foundational underpinning of America's relative freedom-of-action in military 

operations. Indeed, the vast majority of Soldiers serving today have never experienced a time in 

which America's status as the preeminent global military power was open to challenge or 

contention. Nor have they been subject to an operating environment in which large concentrations 

of U.S. troops. supplies, or C2 nodes could be strafed; however, U.S. technological supremacy on 

the battlefield is a planning assumption we can no longer take for granted - in fact is quickly 

eroding. Such an environment demands that America's Army Reserve be ready to operate in a fullspectrum environment that spans the continuum from persistent asymmetric warfare against the 

forces of radicalism and threat networks to the high-end demands of one or more peer competitors. 

We must move quickly to deliver the mobility, survivability, connectivity and lethality to win on 

the battlefield of tomorrow. 

America's Army Reserve has always risen to meet the challenges of our time. evolving from a 

nascent corps of doctors and nurses, to an Organized Reserve and, later, a strategic reserve under 

Federal control, to what is today an integral and essential element of the operational Army and a 

force-provider to the Joint Force. Yet, our mission remains the same: to provide mission-critical 

capabilities for the Army and the Joint Warfighter whenever and wherever they arc needed, 

anywhere on earth. Our vision for the future is clear. It is to forge and sustain the most capable, 

combat-ready and lethal Army Reserve force in the Nation's history. 
354

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction 

II. The State of the Army Reserve 

• Most combat-tested and experienced Army Reserve in the Nation's history 

• Provides enabling capabilities essential to major combat operations 

• New vision and action to increase combat readiness, capability and lethality 

III. Global Environment, Readiness and the Future Force 

• Peer and near-peer states arc challenging U.S. technical supremacy 

• Indicators point to an increasing lethal and disruptive battle-space for the future force 

• Building and Sustaining the Ready Force 

• Readiness -Manning, Training, Equipping and Leadership 

• Families and Employers 

• Suicide Prevention 

• Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention 

• Shape and Grow the Future Force 

• Resourcing and Sequestration 

IV. America's Army Reserve: Capable. Ready. Lethal. 

• Balancing the requirements of today with training for tomorrow 

• Highly skilled and educated Citizen Soldiers match the military needs of the Nation 

• The world is changing but the Army Reserve will remain ever capable, ever ready 
355

STATE OF THE ARMY RESERVE 

The United States Army Reserve is the Army's sole, dedicated federal Reserve force, providing 

operational capability and strategic depth to the Total Army and the Joint Force in support of U.S. 

national security interests and Army commitments worldwide. The Army Reserve comprises 

nearly twenty percent of the Army's organized units, almost half its total maneuver support, and a 

quarter of its mobilization base-expansion capacity. Its unique status as both a component of the 

Army and a singular Command imbues it with the flexibility, agility and unity of effort needed to 

respond to any mission at home or abroad, often with little notice. 

Manned, trained and equipped primarily to enable combat formations, the Army Reserve 

provides quick access to trained and ready Soldiers and units and the critical enabling and sustaining 

capabilities the Army needs to win. These include key strategic and operational capabilities such as 

Petroleum Pipeline and Terminal Operations. Rail Units, Biological Identification Detachments, 

Broadcast Operations, Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations, a variety of Military Police 

capabilities, Horizontal and Vertical Construction, as well as Combat Engineers, Assault Aviation, 

Logistics, and an array of Medical Commands and formations. 

Engaged globally, the Army Reserve plays an integral role in America's national defense 

architecture, meeting high operational tempo demands, generating forces as required, and 

providing reliable capabilities all Combatant Commands. Since 200 I, more than 300,000 Army 

Reserve Soldiers have been mobilized and deployed to not only Iraq and Afghanistan but to worldwide missions in support of Theater Security Cooperation, Foreign Humanitarian Support, 

Homeland Defense. Defense Support of Civil Authorities and other military missions at home and 

around the world. Today, nearly 15,000 Army Reserve Soldiers are suppot1ing global combatant 

command operations, around the world, to include Civil Affairs missions in the Horn of Africa, 

deterrence operations in Kuwait, Military Police operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and 

Medical Support operations in Honduras. Today's Army Reserve is the most combat-tested and 

experienced force in its history. However, we now need an Army Reserve that is ready to win in 

an environment that is growing in lethality and complexity. We must build an Army Reserve that 

is a more capable, combat-ready, and lethal force in the Nation's history. 

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, READINESS AND THE FUTURE FORCE 

In 2016, America's Army Reserve continued to meet the current and evolving threats of our 

time. In addition to the emergence of ncar-peer competitors on the global stage. the rapid 

technological evolution of offensive and defensive weapons across all domains presents the 

opportunity for adversaries to enhance their capabilities, reach, and lethality in new ways. For 

example, low-cost and highly adaptable technology platforms, like unmanned aerial vehicles 

systems (UAS), can threaten exponentially larger and more powerful platforms such as aircraft 

carriers. Next-generation cruise missiles, attack submarines, deep submersibles, space, and cyber 

2 
356

capabilities can place all U.S. Forces within an enemy's reach at any given time. New hypersonic 

and electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapons and increasingly sophisticated cyber-actors portend a 

progressively lethal and disruptive battlespacc at home and abroad, while emerging technologies. 

such as artificial intelligence, 3-D printing and human performance modification, will likely 

disrupt the battlefield in ways we do not yet understand. 

In this evolving global security environment in which both U.S. technological supremacy and 

vital national interests are subject to challenge by states who potentially possess both the means 

and proclivity to challenge U.S. dominance in critical areas and non-state actors who may acquire 

capabilities to acutely challenge our forces for discrete attacks, the mandate is clear: increase the 

readiness of Army Reserve fl1rces- primarily units with a bias for action- in order to enable them 

to deploy and engage on short notice. This focus on readiness, of both individual Soldiers and 

action oriented units, drives the Army Reserve's strategy for manning, training and equipping its 

·•fight tonight" formations and adds credence to the Nation's deterrence posture. 

Readiness is our first priority, and full-spectrum threats demand full-spectrum readiness. In 

addition to sustaining the counter-insurgency and counterterrorism capabilities we have 

developed. the Army Reserve must be ready to respond to evolving threats in several theaters. and 

be prepared for the warfighting demands of large-scale, nearly simultaneous contingencies in more 

than one of them. Should they materialize, these contingencies would require significant and rapid 

mobilization, and require lead formations from America's Army Reserve to provide technical 

enabling capabilities crucial to opening, synchronizing, and sustaining major operations. 

In this new threat paradigm, the time-tested model of rotational readiness will no longer 

suffice. Our traditional "patch chart'' approach will not generate the significant surge capacity that 

such contingencies -arising quickly with little strategic indications and warning- will demand. 

To that end, the Army Reserve must now focus its training. equipping and manning priorities to 

meet the challenge of generating full-spectrum readiness for a Ready Force of some 25,000 to 

33,000 Soldiers who are capable of deploying to the fight in a matter of days and weeks. This vvork 

includes having suftlcient critical Army Reserve enabler capabilities and ensuring there are no 

intcropcrability gaps in areas such as mobility. lethality. banleficld communications and mission 

command systems. 

Building and Sustaining the Ready Force 

Work is well-underway at the United States Army Reserve Command at Fort Bragg, to assess 

and identify those types of units that will be most critical to rapidly support the wartighter through 

the Army Service Component Commands around the globe, and to win in contested environments 

across multiple domains. These units, which include early-entry/set-the-theater capabilities, arc 

being specifically identified to ensure that leaders throughout the chain-of-command are cognizant 

of potential deployment timelincs and, accordingly, steady-state readiness requirements. These 

units will be appropriately manned (or capable of being augmented in days to meet manning 

requirements), trained and equipped to meet the timclines driven by the wartightcr and will be 

0 

,) 
357

maintained at that level until further notice. This Ready Force construct will enhance unit and 

Soldier stability, mitigate the cascading impacts of cross-leveling, and rationalize training, 

equipping and modernization strategies. Drafting off of the Army's Sustainable Readiness model, 

other units will remain sized. trained, and postured to protect the ~ation and its interests as 

required, to include Homeland Defense (HD) and Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) 

missions. 

At its heart, readiness begins at the Soldier level with deployable troops who arc able to 

mobilize and deploy quickly in highly capable units to win the Nation's wars. Individual Readiness 

is the fi.1undation of combat power and the decisive edge. It relics on energetic leadership and 

execution, the ultimate force multiplier. and depends upon both the families who support and 

sustain out· Soldiers. and the employers who enable them to serve the Army and the Nation. 

Readiness- Manning. Training. Equipping and Leadership 

There are lour essential components of Readiness: Manning. Training, Equipping, and 

Leadership. They are all critical, and they are largely interdependent. 

A4anning is the cornerstone of readiness for America's Army Reserve. This applies across the 

force in general and all the more so in quick-turn deployable units. It begins by positioning force 

structure in the right locales to leverage national demographics and emerging trends in order to 

capitalize on a mixture of population densities, predisposition to service, as well as other factors, 

that set units up tclr success in recruiting and retaining talent in an <111-volunteer environment. This 

also includes re-aligning l-ull Time Support (FTS) personnel from lower priority units - from a 

deployment timcline perspective- to those units in the Ready Force which are tagged to move 

more quickly. 

'/l·aining is the second component of readiness. To maintain operational readiness and prepare 

for current and future threats to our Nation, the Army Reserve is revamping its collective training 

strategy, returning to its expeditionary Army roots, and focusing on mission-essential tasks. 

Soldiers and units will not only be proficient in their warrior tasks and drills, but focused 

collectively on the unit and occupational specialties required to win decisively in a complex and 

dynamic operational environment. The Army Reserve will train to Objective T standards, which 

means that Commanders, at all levels, will ensure that units achieve participation rates and execute 

decisive action training required to meet these new readiness requirements. Because predictable 

multi-component integrated training is essential to building the readiness required to meet shortnotice contingency requirements, the Army Reserve will prioritize resources to ensure early entry 

enabler fonnations participate in /lrmy and Joint training cvcms that leverage live. constructive, 

viriual and gaming capabilities. 

Equipping is the third component of readiness, and modernized equipment ensures that Army 

Reserve early enablers remain both interoperable and readily available as a vital component of the 

operational force. Equipping requires sustained and predictable funding to maintain a fully 

4 
358

operational Army Reserve. Insufficient funding widens capability gaps which jeopardize the Army 

Reserve's ability to support the Joint Force. Although the Army Reserve represents nearly 20 

percent of the Total Army, it received less than 3.4 percent of the Total Army's equipment 

procurement budget in FY 2016. Lack of interoperability puts all Army formations at risk when 

deployed. Equipping, funding and fielding should ensure Army Reserve is ready and interoperable 

with deploying forces within the timelincs expected for supporting the Army and Joint Force in 

decisive action operations against a peer adversary. 

Leadership pervades all aspects of readiness, and serves as the ultimate force multiplier. 

Leaders are the most effective hedge against complexity and uncertainty. and a resource that can 

neither be replaced by technology nor substituted with weaponry and platforms. The Army 

Reserve has combat-seasoned force leaders, at every echelon, who have led in combat. We will 

build on that experience and harness it to meet our Nation's future tactical, operational and strategic 

objectives. The Army Reserve will also usc its unique position with the private sector to access 

talent and develop leaders with advanced technical skills for use in military formations. 

Families and Employers 

Readiness is built and sustained by garnering and retaining the support of both our families 

and, for America's Army Reserve, the employers who enable us to serve the Army and the Nation. 

The reason for this is as simple as it is self-evident: in a Nation that depends upon an all-volunteer 

force for its survival, if you arc unable to hold the support of our families and fellow-citizens, you 

do not have an Army. Families who feel embraced, appreciated and integrated in to the Army 

Reserve are our key enablers. Similarly, the unwavering support of employers for Army Reserve 

Soldiers often determines their ability to continue to serve the Nation without being forced to 

choose between a civilian career or continued service to the people of the United States as an 

American Soldier. 

Translated into action, this reality requires a coherent and integrated approach whereby a 

variety of Family Support programs and initiatives are leveraged to support Families and sustain 

a sense of community and mutual support in spite of the geographic dispersion of our units and 

Soldiers who are spread around the world. Sustaining employer support becomes an even more 

complex and demanding challenge when seen in the context of the Army's appropriate reliance 

upon the Army Reserve to generate the requisite combat power the nation requires. Persistent and 

persuasive engagement with employers and the communities in which they reside through a variety 

of outreach tools, is the key to reminding American businesses of the essential linkage between 

their "patriotism" and national security. We cannot, and will not, throttle back on this eff01t. Our 

U.S. Army Reserve Ambassadors, Public-Private Partnership Program and community support 

initiatives at the local level arc all critical enablers in this push. 

By way of example, the Army Reserve maintains an around-the-clock capability to support our 

Soldiers and Families. Manning a 24/7 watch floor, via phone or email, the Fort Family Outreach 
359

and Support Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina provides a direct conduit to command and 

community resources with comprehensive and confidential information, assistance, and referrals 

for every aspect of military life. Moreover, the Army Reserve Volunteer Program promotes and 

strengthens volunteerism by uniting community volunteer efforts, enhancing volunteer career 

mobility, and establishing volunteer partnerships. 

Our Survivor Outreach Services Program maintains a family's connection with the Army 

family in times of loss, regardless of a fallen member's duty status or component Child and Youth 

Services helps geographically dispersed Soldiers and families find affordable childcare and youth 

supervision options within local communities, Army Family Team Building is a readiness training 

program to educate Army Families about military life. These and other Family Readiness programs 

support more than a quarter of a million dependents in America's Army Reserve. 1 They are 

initiatives that have proven themselves effective time and again. 

Suicide Prevention 

Suicide prevention is the shared responsibility of commanders, leaders, Soldiers, Family 

members, and Army civilians at all levels and our efforts arc a key component to personal unit 

readiness. Ensuring prompt access to quality care is an essential component of suicide prevention 

but we must also reduce risk, and one of the greatest risks is stigma. In the Army Reserve, we arc 

working to reduce or eliminate the stigma associated with seeking help for suicidal thoughts or 

feelings, and are working to providing supportive environments for those with emotional and 

psychological issues. The Army Reserve is diligent in raising awareness of the many tools and 

resources available to increase individual resiliency and eliminate the incidences of suicide. For 

example, Military OneSouce provides free financial counselors for military members facing 

serious financial issues - a key suicide risk factor. The Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) 

Program helps Soldiers learn resiliency and have the tools to grow through demanding 

experiences. The Army Reserve's Fort Family Outreach Support Center (l-866-345-8248)2 

provides live assistance for Soldiers and Families in need, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 

Army Reserve is unleashing the power of the team to take care of our teammates and eliminate 

suicides within our team. 

Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention 

Sexual harassment and assault arc taken seriously across the entire Army Reserve. The Army 

Reserve is a family, a close-knit team. Sexual harassment and assault is an attack on our team, 

and it is not tolerated. Just as we would not let anyone hurt our immediate family members, we 

will not let anyone harm a member of our Army Reserve team and our unit readiness. The leaders 

at all echelons of the Army Reserve are the shields of trust lor each Soldier. We must have high 

levels of mutual trust to get after those who would break that bond. As the shields to our team, the 

entirety of the Army Reserve is committed to I) Protect victims, provide compassionate care, 

protect their rights and privacy, and prevent sexual assaults from occurring in the first place; 2) 

6 
360

Report every allegation, ensure that they are thoroughly and professionally investigated, and take 

appropriate action based on the results of those investigations; 3) Create a positive command 

climate, and an environment of trust and respect in which every person can thrive and achieve their 

full potential; 4) Hold individuals, units, Commanders and leaders responsible for their actions or 

inactions; 5) Fully engage the chain of command, and hold it accountable for everything that goes 

on in the unit. 

The Army Reserve is fully committed to preventing harassment and sexual assault,3 caring for 

the victims, and holding those who commit such egregious acts accountable. 

Shape and Grow the Future Force 

Staying current with force structure changes, unit positioning, leader development, and 

leveraging emerging technologies, capabilities and opportunities arc key aspects of the agility the 

Army Reserve will use to shape and grow the future force. 

The positioning of force structure, units and capabilities is a vital part of developing 

tomorrow's Army Reserve. Building for the future means ensuring that America's Army Reserve 

not only anticipates and flexes to meet new and emerging force structure requirements, but that 

ready units are positioned where future Soldiers arc living and working in their chosen fields. 

Aligning force structure and unit locations with trending demographics will also help overcome 

perennial recruiting and retention challenges. 

Developing agile leaders who can thrive in a full spectrum environment. are capable of making 

hard decisions under stress. and enn operate in a complex and potentially digitally- disrupted or 

austere environment is a key component of our strategy to shape and grow the future force. 

The Army Reserve's deep connection to the private sector is a substantial advantage m 

understanding and exploiting cutting-edge technology advances and capabilities, such as those in 

the eyber domain. For example. we are already positioning structure to support high tech-focused 

Department of Defense (DoD) initiatives leveraging "digital key terrain'' in select locations in the 

United States, and seizing on further opportunities to draw upon our civilian skills and 

relationships with the private sector to meet critical needs of the Army. 

Finally. infrastructure is also a critical component of generating readiness. No one installation 

is ideally suited to providing first-class training to all formations at all times of the year. Training 

platforms their location, capabilities and limitations - must be assessed and leveraged in a 

manner that optimizes their ability to provide relevant. combat-focused training experiences for 

Army Reserve units, and maximizes their ability to increase the combat-readiness of discrete 

capable units in the minimum time possible. 

Resourcing and Sequestration 

7 
361

Consistent funding is critical to current and future readiness. Without predicable funding, the 

Army Reserve, along with all components of the Total Army, will have difficulty meeting the 

operational capability requirements of the Army and Combatant Commands in a full spectrum 

environment. When the Budget Control Act of2011 caps return in FY 2018, the Army Reserve 

will incur significant risk in training, facility restoration and modernization, and equipping and 

modernization programs vital to generating the readiness necessary to win our Nation's wars. 

Military Construction (M!LCON) funding is necessary to restore critical aging and decaying 

infrastructure and replace facilities that can no longer be economically sustained. Army Reserve 

Training Centers are essential readiness platforms enabling home station training and generating 

individual and collective readiness within and among units. Under current MILCON funding 

levels, the Army Reserve is taking significant risk to readiness in the ability to sustain, restore, and 

modernize enduring facilities that are necessary to execute the Army's training strategy. 

As with training and facilities investments. equipping the force requires predictable and 

sustained funding to achieve full spectrum operational readiness. Current funding levels require 

continued reliance on less modern or interoperable equipment. Additionally, the combination of 

aging equipment and constrained depot maintenance funding drives higher levels of risk to unit 

readiness and the operational force. If the threat of sequestration is not eliminated, training for 

decisive action will be at high risk. 

Areas of high risk for the Army Reserve include Mission Command Systems. Speci fie 

capability shortfalls include battle command systems, tactical radios and satellite transport 

platforms. The velocity of technological change continues to outpace the Army's procurement 

and modernization strategy. 

Since 2013, as the Army Reserve's share of base modernization funding decreased, the 

importance of the National Guard and Reserve Equipping Appropriation (NGREA) has increased, 

accounting for 26 percent of the Army Reserve's total procurement funding. The Army Reserve is 

grateful for the support Congress has provided through NGREA. 

AMERICA'S ARMY RESERVE: CAP ABLE. READY. LETHAL. 

America's Army Reserve is a capable, ready, and lethal team providing critical capabilities to 

Army Service Component Commands and all Combatant Commands. Although the threats to 

America are dynamic and ever increasing, the Army Reserve remains a highly effective and 

responsive force for the nation. As it has since its founding in 1908 as the Medical Reserve Corps, 

today's Army Reserve- anchored in civilian employment and local communities across the nation, 

and highly trained and educated in 148 different military career fields- stands ready to serve the 

Nation at home and abroad. America's Army Reserve- a force of technically and highly skilled 

Soldiers, leaders, and units: Capable. Ready. Lethal. 

8 
362

ENDNOTES 

I 

Army Reserve Family Programs; database available online at: http: iarfp.org{ 

The Fort Family Outreach and Support Center at http:/iarfjwrg/fortfamily,html or via the Fort Family phone number 

at l-866-345-8248 provides live, relevant, and responsive information to support Army Reserve Soldiers and 

Families. Available 24 hours a day, seven days a \\'eek. and 365 days a year, it provides unit and community- based 

solutions that connects people to people. Assistance is provided during times of crisis as well as routine assistance 

for other immediate needs to help maintain Soldier and family readiness and resiliency. By pinpointing Families in need and local community resources, the Fort Family Outreach and Support Center can quickly connect the Soldier 

and Family to resources, providing installution-commensurate services in the geographic location of the crisis. Fort 

Family Outreach and Support Center has established a community-based capacity by engaging our Nation's "Sea of 

Goodwill" to support Soldiers and !'ami lies close to their residence. Simply staled, Fort Family via web or phone 

connects Soldiers and Families with the right service at the right time. 

The Army Reserve established four full-time Special Victim Counsel (SVCs) positions, located al each of the four 

Regional Support Commands; 42 Troop Program L:nit (TPU) SVCs, located at the Army Reserve General Officer 

Commands (GOCOMs); and 27 SVCs, located within each Legal Operation Detachment The Anny Reserve also 

established 50 full-time Sexual Assault Response Coordinator/Victim Advocate (SARCIVA) positions that span the 

footprint of the Army Reserve. Forty-three of the 50 SARC/VA positions are currently filled with personnel in a 

MILTECH and AGR status. Previously, the Am1y Reserve maintained five hotlines listed on the Department of 

Defense (DoD) Safe Helpline website, which were accessible f(lr referral through the Helpline operators. To improve 

responsiveness, accessibility and breadth of resources, the Army Reserve consolidated all hotlines under the Fot1 

Family Outreach and Support Center. The Army Reserve routinely participates in and hosts forums and panels at all 

levels of command in the Army. This includes meetings with the HQDA SHARP Program Otllce and the SHARP 

Academy to improve- Army Reserve participation in policy formulation, training. and future developments. The 

Army Reserve also utilizes improved analytics to inform current and future mitigation etTorts. Finally~ our adoption 

of a more aggressive focus ilnd stance on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault demonstrated a positive impact in the force. \Ve arc fu!lv committed to maintaining an cnvironrnent free of sexual harassment and sexual assault throughout the Army R~eserve. ~ 

9 
363

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MCCOLLUM

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, 

Ranking Member Visclosky, and certainly the distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a distinct honor to be here this 

morning to talk to you about the state of the Navy Reserve and 

talk to you about the Navy’s fiscal year 2018 budget request and, 

probably more importantly, to report on the dedicated men and 

women of our Reserve Force. 

The Navy Reserve is the busiest it has ever been, and as an integrated force with the Active Component, we are experiencing competition in the maritime environment. This environment, it is fastpaced, it is complex, it is ambiguous, and, at times, uncertain. And 

the demand signal for the Reserve support has now exceeded over 

79,000 individual mobilizations around the globe. And as you may 

know, these individuals, our sailors have left their civilian jobs, 

sometimes up to a year, and their families as well. 

In addition to these mobilizations that I referenced, we have 

about 20 percent of the force that is engaged day to day performing 

what we call operational support. The Navy Reserve works out of 

123 operational support centers, and these support centers are 

across the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Guam. And the force structure is the result of the Navy’s imperative to optimize interoperability and operational effectiveness of the Navy. 

We spread our units around the country, beyond our fleet concentration areas, and this has allowed the Navy to retain valuable 

human capital and provides reservists a convenient place to train 

while remaining close to their businesses and their homes. One 

highly successful example of this strategy is the Naval Air Station 

Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth, Texas, and this facility alone is 

a model for inter-service cooperation and community support that 

achieves the readiness that I am referring to. This installation 

holds 40 Tenant Commands, encompassing nearly 10,000 personnel 

across all four services. This is just one example of how the Navy 

Reserve is operating around the country in each of your districts. 

The fiscal year 2018 budget request is focused on restoring balance and wholeness and laying the foundation for future investments. This is both in our equipment and our people. And as an 

integrated force, the Navy knows that its heartbeat is its people. 

And this investment addresses Reserve personnel wholeness in 

areas such as unmanned aircraft, cyber shipyard maintenance, and 

tactical operations. 

While our Navy Reserve continues to execute at extremely high 

levels, our hardware, specifically our aging aircraft fleet, is facing 

some obsolescence challenges and rapidly approaching the end of 

its designed service life. Sixteen years of hard use has accelerated 

this effort. Accordingly, aircraft recapitalization remains the Navy 

Reserve’s top equipping priority. The fiscal year 2018 budget request allows us to restore wholeness in aviation maintenance accounts and sets a solid foundation for next and future years’ investments. And to continue restoring the wholeness of our force, we 

need stable, predictable funding mechanisms that allow us to plan 

effectively and react to contingencies. 
364

Additionally, your increased support for flexible funding authority for the NGREA is needed. Providing us this authority as well 

as flexible funding methods enables the Navy Reserve to provide 

operational support where and when needed, and that will maximize the total effectiveness of the Total Force. 

While the challenges ahead of us are significant, I could not be 

more proud of our Navy Reserve force. Every time I set foot in one 

of our operational reserve centers around the country, I come away, 

as you can imagine, very impressed with the dedication and the 

commitment of these sailors. And the pride that they take combining their civilian skill sets with their professional competence in 

military operations, I must admit, is very inspiring. 

So, on behalf of the Navy and the Navy Reserve, I thank the 

members of the committee for your support, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The written statement of Admiral McCollum follows:] 
365

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 

RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

STATEMENT OF 

VICE ADMIRAL LUKE M. McCOLLUM, U.S. NAVY 

CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 

RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

MAY 24,2017 
366

Vice Admiral Luke M. McCollum 

Chief of Reserve 

Navy Resc1·vc Fo1-cc 

Vice Adm. Luke McCollum is a native of Stephenville, Texas, 

and is the son of a WWJI veteran. He is a 1983 graduate of the 

U.S. Naval Academy and is a designated surface warfare 

officer. McCollum holds a Master of Science in Computer 

Systems Management from the University of Maryland, 

University College and is also a graduate of Capstone, the 

Armed Forces StatTCollcgc Advanced Joint Professional 

Military Education curriculum and the Royal Australian Naval 

Staff College in Sydney. 

At sea, McCollum served on USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), USS 

Kinkaid (DD 965) and USS Valley Forge (CG 50), with 

deployments to the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean. Arabian 

Gulf and operations off South America. Ashore, he served in 

the Pentagon as naval aide to the 23rd chief of naval operations (CNO). 

In 1993 McCollum accepted a commission in the Navy Reserve where he has since served in 

support of Navy and joint forces worldwide. He has commanded reserve units with U.S. Fleet 

Forces Command, Military Sealift Command and Naval Coastal Warfare. From 2008 to 2009, he 

commanded Maritime Expeditionary Squadron (MSRON) I and Combined Task Group 56.5 in 

support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He also served as the Navy Emergency Preparedness liaison 

ofticer (NEPLO) for the state of Arkansas. 

As a flag officer, McCollum has served as reserve deputy commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. 

Pacific Fleet; vice commander. Naval Forces, Central Command, Manama, Bahrain; Reserve 

deputy director, Maritime Headquarters, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; and deputy commander, 

Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. 

McCollum became the 14th chief of Navy Reserve in September 2016. As commander, Navy 

Reserve Force, he leads approximately 60,000 Reserve Component personnel who support the 

Navy, Marine Corps and joint force. 

He is the recipient of various personal decorations and campaign medals and has had the distinct 

honor of serving with shipmates and on teams who were awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit 

Award, the Navy Unit Commendation, the Meritorious Unit Award and the Navy "E" Ribbon. 
367

Contents 

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... ! 

FORCE STRUCTURE .................................................................................................. 2 

CURRENT OPERATIONS ........................................................................................... 3 

NEW & EXPANDING MISSIONS .............................................................................. 5 

ENABLERS ................................................................................................................... 7 

FISCAL PREDICTABILITY ............................................................................ 7 

CIVILIAN SKILLS ........................................................................................... 8 

TALENT MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 8 

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 9 

EMPLOYERS .................................................................................................. IO 

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ....................................................................... !O 

RESILIENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS .................................................... !! 

READINESS ................................................................................................................ I3 

EQUIPPING THE FORCE .............................................................................. 14 

FACILITY INVESTMENT ............................................................................. 16 

NOSC SECURITY .......................................................................................... 17 

ACCESS .......................................................................................................... 18 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ l9 
368

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, as Chief of Navy Reserve it is my distinct honor to report to you on the state of 

the Nation's Navy Reserve and its sailors. Navy Reserve proudly provides properly trained and 

equipped sailors to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Force. As an essential component of the 

Navy, the Navy Reserve provides operational capability and surge capacity, both overseas and at 

home, across the full spectrum of naval missions. 

Navy Reserve is comprised of 58,000 citizen sailors from every state and territory. Since 

200 I. these dedicated men and women have mobilized over 79,000 times to every theater of 

operations, including 5,755 personnel in FYI6. This morning, in addition to individual 

mobilizations, Navy Reserve has over 12,000 sailors performing Operational Support directly to 

the tleet around the globe; approximately 20 percent of the force. 

In 2016, the Navy Reserve continued its century-long tradition of supporting Navy, 

Marine Corps and Joint Operations in superb fashion, including the most recent conflicts in Iraq, 

Afghanistan and against violent extremists. Furthermore, in order to keep pace with improving 

technology and pivot to confront new and emerging threats, a strategic "deep dive" into the 

structure and organization of the future Navy Reserve has begun. The resulting Strategic 

Campaign will be underpinned by lines of effort (LOEs) clearly articulated in the Nm~v 's Design 

for lvfaintaining Maritime Superiority Meanwhile, Navy Reserve will continue to do what it 

does best - combating the complex network of threats that the nation faces across multiple 

domains. 

On behalf of the Navy Reserve, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your 

continued support. 
369

Today's force structure is the result of Navy's imperative to optimize the interoperability 

and operational effectiveness of the Navy Reserve. As a direct result of the Navy Reserve's 

force structure realignment, most Reserve sailors now routinely work and train alongside their 

Active Component (AC) counterparts. Due to the high levels of personnel and mission readiness 

attained as a result of this synergy, Reserve sailors arc able to provide a rapid response to calls 

for support, often on a moment's notice. Additionally, where appropriate, Reserve Component 

(RC) hardware units are aligned and integrated with AC unit training and deployment cycles. 

These RC units, comprised of military professionals with extensive operational experience, act as 

force multipliers through mission augmentation and provide surge capacity where and when 

needed. This is one of the most cost-efficient and mission-effective models available across all 

reserve components today. 

Commander Navy Reserve Forces Command (CNFRC) operates six region headquarters 

(Reserve Component Commands (RCCs)) and 123 Navy Operational Support Centers (NOSCs). 

Located in all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico and Guam, these facilities collectively serve over 

I ,400 RC units. NOSCs reside both on and off DoD installations as a mix of stand-alone 

facilities, Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Centers, and joint Armed Forces Reserve Centers. 

Commander Naval Air Forces Reserve (CNAFR) is comprised of three air wings, two 

Joint Reserve Bases (JRBs) and one Naval Air Facility (NAF): Fleet Logistics Supp011 Wing 

(FLSW) and Tactical Support Wing (TSW) at Naval Air Station (NAS) JRB F011 Worth, TX, 

Maritime Support Wing (MSW) at NAS North Island, CA, NAS JRB Fott Worth, TX NAS .IRB 

New Orleans, LA and NAF Washington, D.C. In addition to these standalone commands, the 

Navy Reserve operates multiple Squadron Augment Units (SAU) which directly support various 

2 
370

AC Navy squadrons around the country. In all, the Navy Reserve owns and flies approximately 

150 aircraft across the force. 

The Navy routinely responds to combatant commander requirements with tailored 

Reserve units and personnel. This force structure provides integration options ranging from the 

mobilization of an entire unit to the activation of a single Individual Augmentec (lA) sailor. This 

model delivers the increased flexibility and depth needed for the Total Force to face the dynamic 

nature of the global security environment. As of March 31'', 2017, 3,018 Reserve sailors were 

mobilized, 1,576 Reserve sailors were preparing to mobilize, and 343 were de-mobilizing. 

These sailors arc involved in operations directly supporting Central Command (CENTCOM), 

Southern Command (SOUTHC0\11), Africa Command (AFRICOM), and European Command 

(EUCOM). These individual mobilizations arc in addition to the Operational Support that Navy 

Reserve units provide to combatant commanders on a daily basis in the Expeditionary Warfare. 

Naval Air Warfare, Fleet Air Logistics, Cyber Warfare, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and 

Shipyard Maintenance domains. 

Navy Reserve Operational Support missions are broad, diverse, and critical to the mission 

of each of the geographic combatant commands. For example: In the continental United States, 

Navy Reserve Coastal Riverine Squadrons (CRS)- specifically CRS 1, CRS II, CRS 8, and 

CRS I 0- form the backbone of the Navy's High Value Unit (HVLJ) escort mission. These units 

conducted 622 HVU Escort missions in FY 16, and have conducted 151 to date this FY, 

providing afloat escort security for Navy vessels at strategic ports. Outside of the Continental 

United States a rotating team of CRS personnel (69 sailors strong) conduct HVU operations at 

3 
371

Djibouti, Africa. Additionally, rotating CRS personnel based out of Bahrain continue to support 

Embarked Security Team (EST) operations, providing maritime security for port visits. 

underway replenishments, and chokepoint transits in the Middle East. 

In the Southern hemisphere, Navy Reserve forces provide timely support to every 

SOUTHCOM sponsored Humanitarian Assistance exercise, and contribute thousands of man 

hours to operational and exercise intelligence. medical, and logistics in support of 

SOUTHCOM's efforts to be the region's preferred security partner. i\t Joint Interagency Task 

Force South (JIATF-South). Navy Reservists serve an integral role in the Counter Drug/Counter 

Narcotcrrorism (CD/CNT) detection and monitoring mission. At Joint Task Force Guantanamo 

Bay (JTF-GTMO) Navy Reserve manpower contributions to medical. intelligence, legal and 

Chaplain support services are critical to the mission. In Central America. Navy Reservists 

provide 40 percent of the Force Protection and Information Technology manning requirements at 

the OCONUS Cooperative Security Location in Comalapa, El Salvador, where deployed P-3C 

aircraft conduct the Counter Illicit Trafficking (CIT) mission. The Navy Reserve is a significant 

force multiplier in SOUTHCOM's continuing effort to encourage strength and unity of purpose 

between the U.S. and our regional partner nations. 

In the Pacific, the Reserve Maritime Support Wing (MSW) is supporting Pacific 

Command (PACOM) objectives to advance stability and security in a volatile region. 

Specifically, Navy Reserve P-3C squadrons are deployed and flying maritime patrol and 

reconnaissance missions alongside their sister AC patrol squadrons. This operational 

deployment of RC capacity has eased the workload of AC units, helping facilitate the transition 

of the Navy's Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force from the legacy P-3C to the new P-8A 

aircraft. Meanwhile, Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 85 is deployed and flying 

4 
372

missions in support of Special Operations Command, Pacific (SOCPAC). HSC-85 flies the HH60H, and is the Navy's only rotary wing squadron solely dedicated to supporting the mission of 

Naval Special Warfare. 

Around the globe, Navy Reserve's Fleet Logistics Support Wing (FLSW) provides I 00 

percent of the Navy's intra-theater air logistics capability. FLSW aircraft and flight crews are 

essential to sustaining maritime operations, transporting naval personnel and priority cargo to 

forward deployed units throughout the world. In FYI6, FLSW transported more than 115,000 

naval personnel and nearly 22 million pounds of cargo in support of Fleet operations while 

maintaining 2417/365 C-40A and C-130T support in the CENTCOM, PACOM, and EUCOM 

AOR's. Additionally, the Naval Information Force Reserve (NAVIFORES), which comprises 

15% of the uniformed Navy Reserve, provided over 4 70,000 man-days of operational support 

over the course of FY 16. a I 0% increase over FY15. The command filled over 76% of the total 

Navy Information Warfare Community Individual Augmentation requirement, providing support 

in I I different countries and afloat. 

The volatile, complex and ambiguous nature of the threats facing the nation demand a 

Navy that can generate forces and capabilities with the agility and adaptability to respond 

efficiently and effectively. Specifically, Navy Reserve is expanding in three key emerging 

mission sets: Cyber warfare, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and Surge Maintenance Units 

(SurgeMain). 

As the cyber warfare threat continues to grow. the Navy Reserve is growing its capacity 

to meet this challenge. The Reserve Information Warfare Community will grow by over 300 

5 
373

personnel to provide support to the Cyber Mission Force integration strategy within the Navy 

Reserve's authorized strength levels. Moving forward. Commander. U. S. Fleet Cyber 

Command will continue to assess requirements for Reserve integration into Navy's Cyber 

Mission Force, and the potential for creating Reserve Cyber Mission Suppott Units or 

Detachments. 

With reliance on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) continuing to expand, the Navy 

Reserve is well positioned to provide remote operator support, as the planned and periodic 

operating construct of UAS operations is a perfect fit for RC sailors. For instance, the Navy 

Reserve maintains two Navy Special Warfare SEAL Teams to provide additional capacity to the 

AC. In 2015, these teams began adding unmanned aircraft systems to their mission inventory to 

meet the increasing requirement for expeditionary Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 

(ISR) capability. Reserve sailors provide operational support to these ISR detachments on a 

rotational basis. 

The MQ-4C Triton, formerly known as Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS, is a 

maritime UAS that provides real-time ISR over vast ocean and coastal regions. Twenty percent 

of the Navy's MQ-4 mission will be suppotted by over I 00 members of the Navy Reserve. These 

reservists consist of Full Time Support Reservists (FTS) and Selected Reservists (SELRES) 

whose ranks arc filled with pilots, naval Oights officers and aviation warfare operators as well as 

reservists in various administrative and supportive roles. As a group they will operate as a SAU, 

providing valuable stability to the ever growing and evolving missions in which UAS participate. 

Navy Reserve SurgeMain Units arc made up of a part-time, flexible, fully qualified 

maintenance work force that provides skilled labor vital to Navy shipbuilding. These teams of 

RC sailors become a mobilization force when the Navy needs to "surge" its maintenance 

6 
374

infrastructure to support fleet readiness and the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Over I ,400 

SurgeMain sailors provided over 12,000 man-days of shipyard support in FY !6. These units 

have been instrumental in mitigating risk by filling capability and manpower gaps created as a 

result of an increased shipyard workload and civilian work force attrition. In addition to 

providing additional manpower. SurgeMain sailors oflen bring new perspectives to problem 

solving as well as best practices from their civilian experience at a significant cost savings. 

Accordingly, '-'avy intends to increase its investment in RC SurgeMain manpower moving 

forward. Over the next few years. the shipyard augmentation work force is forecast to grow by 

394 billets to I ,856 personnel (within authorized end strength levels). which is a testament to the 

success of the Surge Main program and the skill and dedication of its sailors. 

FISCAL PREDICT ABILITY 

Predictable and dependable funding ensures that Navy Reserve sailors are able to provide 

consistent and timely operational support to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Force. Reserve 

Personnel, 1\:avy (RPN) funding is the primary fiscal means with which the Navy Reserve 

provides this support. Currently. the RPN account is funded to a level that enables the Navy 

Reserve to support 31 percent of operational demand. Your continued suppot1 in ensuring RPN 

funding remains robust, consistent, and predictable is a key enabler in maintaining readiness and 

accomplishing the Navy Reserve's mission. 

7 
375

CIVILIAN SKILLS 

Many of the civilian skill sets of Reserve sailors add invaluable expertise and capability 

to the force. In some cases, RC sailors' civilian skills have provided exclusive and much needed 

capabilities in critical mission areas. Conversely, their military training and professional 

development make them more capable leaders in their civilian communities. Citizens who serve 

in the Navy Reserve strengthen the bond with the American public while educating families, 

employers and communities about military service. 

Whether a tradesman, first responder. executive, or licensed professional, the Navy has 

long benefitted from the civilian experience and maturity of RC sailors. Moving forward, the 

Navy Reserve is focused on developing and improving its processes so it can more consistently 

leverage these abilities. This unique combination of civilian and military experience and skills 

provided by Reserve sailors offers the diversity of thought and insight which inspires innovation 

and acts as a force multiplier. 

Military commanders often comment that the value of Reserve sailors' civilian expertise 

enhances their unit's mission effectiveness. As one Joint Task Force Commander noted. "The 

background and contemporary industry knowledge members of the Navy Reserve bring to my 

organization cannot be overstated- they bring a unique set of skills which consistently results in 

a better solution or product when they work side-by-side with their active duty counterparts, 

government civilians and contractors." 

TALENT MANAGEMENT 

The Navy Reserve bas numerous initiatives underway to retain and extend the service of 

thousands of men and women in uniform as they transition from active duty. This ability to 

8 
376

retain their training and experience is a critical element in managing Navy talent and is vital to 

the future health of the Total Force. 

Many of Navy's talent management programs fall under the concept of Continuum of 

Service (CoS), a transformational approach to personnel management that provides opportunities 

for seamless transitions between the active and reserve components. CoS provides flexible 

service options and improves life-work balance, which directly helps RC sailors. CoS provides 

both full-time and part-time service opportunities, depending on the Navy's needs and sailors' 

own personal desires. This supports CNO's vision of a seamless Navy Total Force that is valued 

for their service, and enables them to volunteer for meaningful work that supports the Navy 

mission. Retaining sailors in the Navy Reserve when they leave active service enhances 

readiness and reduces personnel training costs by capitalizing investments made when serving on 

active duty and building a Total Force team of trained and experienced professionals. 

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY 

Mobile access to a myriad of Navy IT systems is a key enabler for Navy Reserve sailors 

to maintain mobilization readiness and to perform their mission requirements, even when not at 

their assigned command. Navy Reserve must consolidate and modernize the systems used to 

enable and manage readiness, while improving access to those systems. Navy Reserve has taken 

a full-spectrum approach and has patinered with industry to produce creative and advanced IT 

solutions. Reserve sailors can now securely conduct business utilizing a mobile application to 

access various Navy and Navy Reserve IT systems, a cloud-based pilot to provide access to 

office productivity and collaborative tools, and expanded Navy NOSC hotspot capabilities to 

optimize the use of personal devices during drill weekends. Collectively, these solutions reduce 

9 
377

the time and effort required to meet readiness and training requirements. Every Reserve sailor's 

time must be focused to the greatest possible extent on the mission and not on administrative 

overhead. 

EMPLOYERS 

The RC relics heavily upon the sacrifice and dedication of local employers in each 

member's home state to support the nation's hundreds of thousands of reservists. Many 

companies provide flexible work options for both drilling and deploying RC service members. 

Some companies even go above and beyond what is required by law and continue to support 

members of the RC with pay and benefits while they are activated. For both large and small 

companies, this sacrifice can be considerable. Most importantly, supportive employers send a 

clear message to RC members that they need not worry about their civilian jobs while serving 

their country. The value of this reassuring message cannot be overstated -an employer's level of 

cooperation and encouragement is directly related to the productivity and mission focus of RC 

members when they put on the uniform. Employer support is a vital component ofthe success of 

the entire RC, and the Navy Reserve goes to great lengths to recognize supportive employers 

every year through various programs and initiatives. 

MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS 

RC sailors must be healthy, tit, mobilization ready and mission capable. To ensure high 

levels of medical and dental readiness throughout the force, Navy Reserve continues to leverage 

the skills and experience of the Navy Reserve's Medical Professionals in support of completion 

of Periodic Health Assessments (PI-lAs), immunizations and dental screenings. These medical 

10 
378

personnel contribute to all Reserve sailor Individual Medical Readiness (IMR) requirements. 

Drilling medical personnel, primarily in the Operational Health Support Units (OIISUs), support 

RC sailors drilling at the NOSCs on a regular basis on drill weekends. Additionally, since 2001, 

over 6, 700 Navy Reserve Medical Professionals and Hospital Corpsmen have been deployed 

across the globe in support of combat operations, bringing critical skills that have directly 

contributed to the impressive and unprecedented combat survival rate experienced over the past 

16 years of conflict. 

Navy Reserve resilience programs connect with other military and family programs to 

promote the mission-ready sailor. Key to this effort is providing a support network. programs, 

resources, and training needed to build life skills and winning in adverse environments. Building 

resilience through a culture of well ness- physical, mental, social and spiritual -will remain one 

of the Navy Reserve's top priorities. 

Serving as a reservist requires RC sailors to balance many priorities associated with their 

civilian jobs, family commitments, and duties as a part-time sailor. The Navy Reserve utilizes 

several tools to help sailors manage the stressors that can accompany this busy lifestyle. The 

Navy Reserve's Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP) ensures all Reserve sailors 

have access to appropriate psychological health care services. Regional PHOP counselors 

provide Operational Stress Control (OSC) briefings and behavioral health screenings to Reserve 

sailors across the nation. The Resiliency Check-in tool allows PHOP counselors to provide oneon-one behavioral health assessments that include on-the-spot initial and follow-up referrals 

when needed. This is a proven way to ensure sailors have access to counseling support from 

11 
379

providers who are trained in resiliency methods to deal with common issues associated with the 

military lifestyle, including the stress related to family separation, continuous deployments, and 

post-mobilization reintegration. 

The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP) supports Reserve sailors and their 

families through all phases of the deployment cycle. All deploying sailors participate in PreDeployment Health Assessments (PDIIA) and Post-Deployment Health Reassessments 

(PDIIRA). Thanks to Congress, the language in the f'YI6 NDAA amended the number of 

YRRP phases from f\1ur (Pre/During/Demobilization/Post) to three (Before/During/After) which 

helps to simplify and streamline service delivery. A key program within the YRRP is the 

Returning Warrior Workshop (RWW), which focuses on the reintegration process for service 

members and their spouse/family members. and helps identify sailors in need of follow-on care. 

663 service members and an additional 530 spouse/family members attended an RWW in FYI6. 

l\avy leadership routinely receives positive feedback on the impact that this dynamic program 

has towards the reintegration process. Continued funding for the YRRP is vital to Navy 

Reserve's continuum of care. 

The Navy Reserve remains committed to eradicating self-destructive behavior. The 

Navy's mantra of "Every Sailor, Every Day" promotes a culture that educates. trains, and 

empowers sailors to identify signs and trends that are indicative of impending self-destructive 

behaviors. Navy Resilience and Suicide Prevention Programs promote community and embody 

comprehensive well ness. 

The Navy Reserve fosters a climate that is intolerant of sexual assault. Navy leadership is 

committed to preventing sexual assault by training sailors to intervene in unethical situations. 

while further improving victim response and care. Navy Reserve sailors are trained and 

12 
380

empowered to intervene and take action to stop behaviors contrary to the Navy's Core Values 

and Ethos. Navy Reserve promotes a culture of dignity and respect for all, and emphasizes the 

importance of living with honor, courage and commitment - both on and off duty. To further 

DoD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) efforts, Navy Reserve recently released 

guidance to reinforce and clarify proper handling of SAPR issues unique to Reserve sailors. 

The Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC) program provides sexual assault victims with a 

dedicated attorney to help explain the investigation and military justice process. and protect the 

victim's legal rights and interests. The Navy Reserve has played an imp01tant role in the VLC 

program since its inception in August 2013 by consistently filling VLC billets with Reserve 

judge advocates. A trusted VLC program made up of experienced. dedicated judge advocates 

encourages reporting by giving victims the confidence that their rights will be protected. 

The Navy Reserve's primary mission is to provide mobilization ready sailors, available at 

a moment's notice, to the Navy. Marine Corps, and Joint Force. Traditionally, the Navy Reserve 

maintains readiness as a result of an integrated force structure. enforcement of military standards. 

and the operational support that RC sailors routinely perform. In any given week. nearly 20 

percent of the Navy Reserve is delivering operational support to the Navy and the Joint Force 

across the globe. Due to the tight integration with the active force, Navy Reserve's readiness 

levels very closely mirror that of the AC. 

13 
381

EQUIPPING THE FORCE 

Aircraft recapitalization is without question Navy Reserve's number one equipping 

priority and is critical to the Navy Reserve's ability to provide required operational support to the 

Naval Aviation Enterprise. Almost fifteen years of increased operational tempo within a 

constrained procurement environment has taken a toll on the aircraft and equipment that RC 

sailors operate. Navy Reserve's integrated force structure depends on the ability to quickly and 

seamlessly assimilate with AC units to execute the mission. Accordingly, the Navy Reserve 

depends on the availability of modern, compatible hardware. As the Navy continues to prioritize 

investments in advanced aircraft, weapons systems and equipment, the total force will ensure 

that RC procurement is adequately resourced in these accounts as well. This will ensure that RC 

forces maintain high levels of safety, interoperability, and readiness. 

For example, the Fleet Logistics Support Wing (FLSW), made up entirely of RC sailors, 

executes the Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift (NUFEA) mission to provide responsive, 

flexible, and rapidly deployable air logistics support required to sustain combat operations at sea. 

The aircraft that support this mission are the C-40A, C-130T and C-200. The C-40As, payload, 

reliability. cost effectiveness, and unique ability to transp01t hazardous cargo and passengers 

simultaneously make it the preeminent platform to conduct fleet air logistics support in all of 

DoD. Procurement of the C-40A began in 1997 as a replacement for Navy Reserve's fleet of 

legacy C-9 and C-200 aircraft. The wartime requirement for the C-40A was assessed to be 23 

aircraft; however the risk adjusted inventory objective was determined to be 17 aircraft. To date, 

the Navy Reserve has taken possession of 15 C-40As. Furthermore, the Navy's venerable fleet 

of 23 C-130T aircraft is aging rapidly. These C-l30T aircraft are 23 years old and maintenance 

14 
382

issues are beginning to impact their reliability. In the not too distant future, the C-lJOT will 

require increase maintenance modifications, upgrades and follow-on recapitalization. 

RC strike-fighter aircraft are also in need of recapitalization. The F-18A+ aircraft being 

flown by Navy Reserve arc some of the oldest in operation. Significant maintenance and 

systemic compatibility limitations negatively impact aircraft availability rates and cause these 

squadrons to struggle to meet their strategic and operational mission. Navy plans to address this 

shortfall through a "waterfall'' process in which F/A-18C and eventually F/A-18E/F aircraft are 

to be transferred to the RC. This will occur as 1'-35C and additional F/A-18E/F aircraft are either 

procured or available via increased depot production throughput. 

The Navy's surge capacity within the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force (MPRF) 

consists of two RC patrol squadrons that operate legacy P-3C Orion aircraft. These RC patrol 

squadrons will be relied upon for operational capacity and capability to support P-3C sensor 

requirements for Combatant Commanders through mid-2023. Due to current fiscal constraints, 

there are no plans to fund P-JC sustainment after the AC patrol squadrons have completed the 

transition to the P-8A. 

Navy Reserve executes 100% of the CONUS High Value Unit (HVU) escort mission 

performed by the Coastal Riverine Force within Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 

(NECC). The work horse of the HVU mission is the 34ft Patrol Boat. These boats have a 12 

year service life, and 79 percent of the Reserve boats will exceed their service life by the end of 

FY 19. Continued operation of a normal 34ft patrol boat beyond the 12-year service life requires 

a modernization and overhaul service life extension to bring the boat up to current standards. 

This extension program takes up to 8 months. with an associated cost between $600,000 and 

$800.000 on average per vessel. To operate a boat past the 12-ycar service life without the 

15 
383

modernization/overhaul risks catastrophic mechanical and/or mission failure. The future 

platform for HVU operations. and NECC operations as a whole, is the Patrol Boat-X (PB-X) 

program, which is set to begin production during FY 17. In cooperation and coordination with 

NECC, Navy Reserve will seek to begin this recapitalization effort next year. 

FACILITY INVESTMENT 

As part of the integration and alignment efforts, Navy Reserve consolidated many of its 

facilities, closing 23 percent of NOSCs since 2005. Where able, Navy Reserve has partnered 

with other service components to relocate NOSCs onto military installations in order to leverage 

existing infrastructure and force protection resources. Navy Reserve has also partnered with 

other service components to establish joint reserve facilities. The resulting optimal footprint has 

allowed us to make best use of limited military construction and facilities sustainment funding in 

order to provide an environment for RC sailors to maintain their mobilization, training and 

readiness standards. 

As a piece of the Navy's Energy Program for Security and Independence, the Navy 

Reserve continues to seek opportunities to gain energy efficiencies through facilities 

modernization and new construction. Navy Reserve military construction projects focus on 

building modern, energy-efficient, and technologically up-to-date facilities. For example, 

current plans prioritize vacating obsolete buildings, such as those currently occupied by NOSC 

Augusta, Georgia and NOSC Reno, Nevada. Navy Reserve bas also prioritized the 

modernization and construction of two Joint Reserve Intelligence Centers. These facilities are 

''hubs" of intelligence expe1tise that facilitate direct support to forward deployed warfighters and 

arc a critical part of the Joint Intelligence Program. 

16 
384

Each year Navy Reserve directs allotted Facilities Sustainment, Repair and 

Modernization funds to address the highest priority modernization and repair projects. However, 

the funds in any given year are only sufficient to address a portion of the total facilities 

sustainment requirement. Adequate facilities are necessary to keep Reserve sailors ready to 

mobilize and deploy forward. Your support represents an essential investment in the future 

health and readiness of Navy Reserve sailors. Stable, predictable funding levels across the 

FYDP will allow the Navy Reserve to modernize facilities in the most cffectiv~ and expeditious 

manner. 

Military Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR) investments enable the Navy Reserve to 

support the Navy's operational mission and maintain the readiness of the force. Investments 

were targeted across the FYDP toward facilities that directly support operations, such as the 

aforementioned intelligence center, and towards relocating old NOSCs from otT-installation to 

on-installation locations. Navy Reserve projects remain a priority despite budget constraints and 

limited funding for military construction, requesting MCNR funds for four projects from FY 17 

through FY 19, and additional MCNR projects are being considered for inclusion in the 

upcoming budget submission. The FY 17 Request for Additional Appropriations also includes a 

request for additional funding to complete construction of the Fallon NOSC. The Navy will 

continue to appropriately prioritize Navy Reserve projects to ensure the most critical mission 

requirements are attended to first. 

NOSC SECURITY 

Navy Reserve has embarked on an initiative to provide armed security for the 71 NOSCs 

located outside the confines of a major miliwry installation. Assisting in this process are 78 

17 
385

SELRES sailors serving as Master-at-Arms who maintain the NOSC weapons programs and 

train select NOSC personnel on Standing Rules for Usc of Force and Pre-Planned Responses. 

Currently, more than 284 Reserve sailors arc qualified and serving in the NOSC Armed Watch 

Stander Program. These sailors provide armed security at their respective facilities during 

working hours and on drill weekends. 

Additionally, in coordination with Navy Installations Command and Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, the \lavy Reserve conducted a broad Anti-Terrorism Force Protection 

(ATFP) assessment of all off-installation NOSCs to identify measures to enhance each facility's 

force protection posture. These physical security surveys were completed in June of 2016. 

FY 16 funds were obligated to address high priority security improvements at 14 NOSCs. 

and additional funds were provided for Selected Reserve armed security watch slanders. Navy 

Reserve will continue to enhance physical security at the remaining NOSCs to mitigate security 

concerns identified during the A TFP assessments. 

ACCESS 

The Navy has grown dependent on regular and reliable access to the RC over the past 

decade. Under the Presidential Declaration of National Emergency (DNE), the services and 

combatant commanders have benefitted from involuntary access to the RC via Title I 0 USC 

12302 authority. When there is no longer a need for an annual DNE. access to the RC could be 

constrained under Title I 0 USC 12304b authority, which only provides involuntary access for 

preplan ned missions of units supporting combatant commander requirements. 

18 
386

'·Citizen Sailors'' continue to carry on the proud tradition of supporting the Navy, Marine 

Corps and Joint Force looking optimistically to the future in terms of their ability to contribute to 

vital national security interests. The broad spectrum of capabilities they can bring to bear in the 

fight against burgeoning superpowers and violent extremists are both effective and efficient. 

With over 3,000 personnel mobilized around the world and over 12,000 personnel providing 

global operational support each week, Navy Reserve sailors deliver unique skill sets to the 

battlefield. Driven and dedicated to serving their country, the men and women of the Navy 

Reserve have become a cornerstone in the Navy's Design for Maintaining Maririme S'uperiority. 

19 
387

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL MCMILLIAN

General MCMILLIAN. Chairman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on behalf of 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your Marine Corps 

Reserve. I am honored to be here with my fellow Reserve Component chiefs, and with me here today is my force sergeant major, 

Sergeant Major Kimble. 

I have been at the helm of the Marine Forces Reserve for a year 

and a half, and I am pleased to inform you that your Marine Corps 

Reserve is thriving. On average, we are 95 percent manning, and 

our leadership, morale, and personnel health of the force is at unprecedented levels. I am continually impressed by the professionalism, competence, dedication, and motivation of our Reserve 

Marines. Like their Active Duty brothers and sisters, they serve 

selflessly to protect our Nation while at the same time balancing 

their civilian careers and their families. The strength of Marine 

Forces Reserve is the talent, skill, and discipline of our individual 

Marines and sailors. 

I am motivated by the most common question that I receive from 

your Reserve Marines, which is, when do we get to deploy? They 

maintain the same mindset as the Active Component Marine 

Corps. We are ready to fight tonight, and we are ready to respond 

to any mission. 

My primary focus remains being combat-ready and having Reserve Marines and units capable of moving, shooting, and communicating across the battlefield. Reserve Marines are viewed the 

same and are expected to respond the same as our Active Duty 

counterparts on a moment’s notice. We are integrated with the Active Component as part of the Total Force. We are expected to be 

a force that is fully complementary, seamless, and an equal teammate to the Active Component. We are manned, trained, and 

equipped to support Marine Corps operational requirements across 

the full range of military operations. We are 39,000 strong, formed 

into major commands that comprise the Marine Air-Ground Task 

Force, and we are unofficially known as the Fourth Marine Expeditionary Force. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps has said, 

we are one Marine Corps, a Total Force Marine Corps. 

To seamlessly integrate with the Active Component, Marine 

Forces Reserve must maintain equipment parity. Shortfalls in 

equipment modernization result in less interoperability with the 

Active Component, which slows the pace of operations and increases risk to your Marines and risk to mission accomplishment. 

Marine Forces Reserve continues to see shortfalls in modernization, 

like our most pressing shortfall, the KC-130J, which is used for tactical assault support, air-to-air, and ground refueling, and combat 

logistics support. It is the major end item which facilitates moving 

to and across the battlefield. We should not send our Marines to 

a fight with legacy equipment. Transition to modern equipment requires budget resources. 

NGREA, as you are all familiar with, is a complement to the 

Presidential budget. And while we greatly appreciate NGREA, 
388

greater spending flexibility, combined with a more representative 

funding proportion that is more aligned with our historical percentage, would significantly contribute to the ability of Marine Forces 

Reserve to modernize legacy equipment, transition to new systems, 

improve our readiness, and better support our young marines. 

We owe it to our Nation’s most precious assets, the young men 

and women in uniform, to send them into combat with the most 

modern equipment available. With the continued support of Congress, Marine Forces Reserve will continue to serve as a crucial 

operational and tactical shock-absorber to the Active Component. 

In conclusion, I want to leave this distinguished body with two 

final thoughts: Number one, I want to personally thank you for 

passing the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill. Having a 

predictable and consistent budget in the future will significantly 

improve readiness across the services. And, number two, we need 

a flexible NGREA that complements the budget to assist your Marine Corps Reserve in funding major end items, as defined by law. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The written statement of General McMillian follows:] 
389

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL REX C. McMILLIAN 

COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

BEFORE 

THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

CONCERNING 

THE GUARD AND RESERVE 

ON 

MAY 24,2017 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE HOUSEAPPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 
390

Lieutenant General Rex McMillian 

Lieutenant General Rex C. McMillian assumed the duties of Commander, U.S. Marine Corps 

Forces Reserve and Marine Forces Northern Command on 12 September 2015. A native of 

Norfolk, Virginia, he graduated from the University of Southern California and was commissioned 

in 1980 via the Platoon Leaders Class program. 

As a Lieutenant, he trained with VT-21 in Kingsville, Texas and remained as a flight instructor 

flying the TA-4J.ln 1983, he repmted to Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 101 for 

transition training in the F-4S. In 1986, Captain McMillian transitioned to the F-18 at Strike Fighter 

Squadron I 06, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Florida, and tlew the Hornet with VMFA-531 in El 

Taro, California. 

In April 1989, Captain McMillian transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve and joined Marine 

Fighter Attack Squadron 134. As a Major, he served as the Operations Officer and Executive 

Officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 134 in Miramar, California. 

Lieutenant Colonel McMillian served as the Assistant Air Operations Officer, lst Marine 

Expeditionary Force Augmentation Command Element I I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp 

Pendleton, California. In January 2000. he assumed command of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 

134 in Miramar, California and relinquished command in January 2002. 

While a Colonel, in 2003 he was mobilized and reported to 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing as the Chief 

of Staff for both overseas and stateside duties in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In June 2005, 

he was demobilized and transferred to MAG 46 in order to serve as the Deputy Commander. 

Upon selection to Brigadier General, he served as Deputy Commanding General of Marine Corps 

Forces Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii. From 2009 to 2010, Brigadier General McMillian assumed the 

duties as the Deputy Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. 

Major General McMillian served as the Commanding General. 4th Marine Aircraft Wing from July 

20 I 0 to August 2012. Following command. he served as the Director, Reserve Affairs Division, 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps until May 2013. Prior to his current assignment, he served as the 

Senior Advisor to the Commander for Reserve Affairs, assigned to North American Aerospace 

Defense Command and United States Northern Command. His secondary responsibility was a 

Threat Assessor for NORAD and NORTHCOM. 

Prior to his return to active military service, Lieutenant General McMillian was a Captain f(Jr Delta 

Air Lines in his civilian employment. He has been a career airline pilot since 1989. 

2 
391

Introduction 

The United States Marine Corps is the Nation's force-in-readiness. For approximately 

eight percent of the defense budget, your Corps provides an immensely capable and immediately 

responsive national security insurance policy for the American people. When our Nation calls, 

the American people expect quick, decisive action from Marines- both the Active and Reserve 

Components. All Marines must be disciplined, focused, and lethal. As the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps previously stated, we are one Marine Corps, a Total Force Marine Corps. 

Your Reserves have been fully engaged across the Globe over the past 16 years in theater 

security cooperation activities and overseas contingency operations, serving side-by-side with our 

Active Component. Organized as a traditional Marine Air-Ground Task Force, Marine Reservists 

from each of our major subordinate commands --4th Marine Division, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, 

4th Marine Logistics Group, and Force Headquarters Group -- have made a tremendous impact 

across a diverse spectrum of operations in suppolt of every geographic combatant commander's 

operational and theater security cooperation requirements in addition to Service commitments. 

I continue to be deeply impressed by the professionalism, competence, and dedication of 

our Reserve Marines. Like their Active Component counterparts, they serve selflessly to protect 

our great Nation. I am inspired by the way they balance family responsibilities, civilian careers, 

and military service. They do so with humility, without fanfare, and with a sense of pride and 

dedication that is consistent with the great sacritices of Marines from every generation. Without a 

doubt. the success of the Marine Corps hinges on the quality of our Marines. 

Your Marine Corps Reserve is recruited, organized, manned, equipped, and trained to 

provide a professionally ready. responsive, and relevant force as a Marine Corps solution to enable 

Joint and Combined operations. Today's force will remain ready to fight and win across the range 
392

of military operations and in all five warfighting domains- maritime, land, air, cyber. and space. 

While we remain ready, I thank you in advance for ensuring your Marine Corps Reserve achieves 

competitive readiness levels and equipment modernization. 

A Total Force 

Over the past year, the Marine Corps Reserve supported each combatant commander by 

providing forces focused on theater security cooperation. crisis response, crisis prevention activities 

and combat operations. Marine Forces Reserve has sustained a robust operational tempo while 

providing critical capabilities essential in maintaining national security at the strategic level. 

Global deployments. along with participation in Service, Joint, and Multi-national exercises, 

develop the desired depth of experience of the Reserve Force, ensuring the Marine Corps Reserve 

is relevant, ready and responsive to meet combatant commanders" requirements for highly trained 

general-purpose forces. The performance of our Reserve Forces in recent Total Force operations 

demonstrates this fact. 

In 20 I 6, more than 612 Reserve Marines mobilized supporting 18 operational requirements 

in five of the six geographic combatant commands. Likewise, nearly 5,200 Reservists participated 

in 34 training exercises. supporting requirements in 18 countries across the globe. Additionally, 

more-than 170 Reserve Marines volunteered to serve as Individual Augmentees, providing support 

to nearly every combatant commander. 

During 2017, Marine Forces Reserve continues to support the combatant commanders by 

mobilizing an additional 813 Reservists and providing 4,500 Marines for a multitude of theaterspecific exercises and security cooperation events. These operations and exercises greatly increase 

the Reserve Component"s interoperability with the Active Component. Joint Force, and our allies. 

Though the necessity to activate Marine Corps Reserve units on a large scale has decreased 

4 
393

in recent years, the demand for the Marine Corps' unique capabilities has increased. For example, 

this year we plan to provide forces for a new emerging security force requirement in southwest 

Afghanistan. In addition, for the second year in a row, we have mobilized and will deploy a taskorganized Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force to U.S. Southern Command in support 

of theater security cooperation objectives. Last year, this formation of ground, air, and logistical 

capabilities supported U.S. Government humanitarian assistance that was provided to Haiti 

immediately after Hurricane Matthew. 

Marine Forces Reserve continues to provide daily support to combatant commanders in a 

wide range of roles that include multi-lateral exercises. such as African Lion in Morocco, Ulchi 

Freedom Guardian in South Korea, and Maple Resolve in Canada. I anticipate Marine Forces 

Reserve will continue to deploy and integrate with the Active Component to meet combatant 

commander high-priority requirements through the usc of existing mobilization authorities. 

In addition to participating in operational requirements across the globe, Marine Forces 

Reserve continues to support the Total Force by dutifully executing the sensitive and crucial 

mission of providing casualty assistance to the families of our fallen Marines. Inspector-Instructor 

and Reserve Site Support Staffs are geographically positioned to accomplish the vast majority of 

Marine Corps casualty assistance calls and arc trained to provide compassionate and thorough 

assistance to families. Indeed. the majority of Marine Corps casualty notifications and follow-on 

assistance calls to the next of kin are made by our Marines. During Calendar Y car 2016, our 

Inspector-Instructor and Reserve Site Support staffs performed 85 percent of the 361 casualty calls 

performed by the Marine Corps. 

There is no responsibility that we treat with higher regard than the solemn mission of 

providing casualty assistance. The professionalism and compassion of our Casualty Assistance 

5 
394

Calls Officers (CACOs) continues well heyond the initial notification. We ensure that our CACOs 

are well trained, equipped. and supported by all levels of command through the combination of inperson and online training. Once assigned, the CACO serves as the family's central point of 

contact and coordinates with funeral homes. government agencies, and other organizations. They 

assist family members with planning the return and final resting place of their Marine; and ensure 

the tiling of appropriate documents is completed so that the family receives any veteran benefits to 

which they arc entitled. In many cases, our CACOs provide a long-lasting bridge between the 

Marine Corps and the grieving family. 

Additionally, Marine Forces Reserve units and personnel provide significant support for 

military funeral honors for our veterans. The Inspector-Instructor and Reserve Site Support staffs, 

with augmentation from additional Reserve Marines, performed more than 19,000 Military 

Funeral Honors. which represented 91 percent of all funeral honors rendereJ by the \1arinc Corps 

during Calendar Y car 2016. As with casualty assistance, we place enormous emphasis on 

providing timely, compassionate, and professionally executed military funeral honors. 

Finally, Marine Forces Reserve serves as the most wide reaching link between the Marine 

Corps and communities across the Nation. We present the face of the Marine Corps to the 

majority of the American public. With Reserve units located across the country, Marine Forces 

Reserve is uniquely positioned to interact with the public and communicate the Marine Corps story 

to our fellow citizens; most of whom have little or no contact with the Marine Corps. For 

example, last year Marine Forces Reserve personnel and units conducted more than 500 local and 

regional public engagement and community relations events across the country. 

Predictabili(l' 

6 
395

Operationally focused, the Marine Corps Reserve remains an integral part of the Total 

Force. We remain manned, trained, and equipped to seamlessly integrate with and support the 

Active Component whdhcr conducting combat operations. serving within a Special Purpose 

Marine Air-Ground Task Force, or assigned as advisors with security cooperation teams in support 

of steady-state requirements. 

We work to augment, reinforce and sustain the Active Component across the range of 

military operations while maintaining Force readiness to support major contingency operations. 

We ensure units and personnel are ready to meet any challenge by employing a Force Generation 

Model that rotates Marine Reserve units through a five-year Training and Readiness Plan. At any 

given time. the Force Generation Model enables the Reserves to provide combat ready units and 

detachments, which includes two infantry battalions; artillery, combat logistics. and multiple 

aviation capabilities; as well as an assortment of other forces. In total. a ready bench of more than 

3,000 Reserve Marines and Sailors is prepared to augment and reinforce Active Component forces 

in support of a contingency response or as part of a theater security cooperation mission. 

Our Force Generation Model provides a level of predictability for Force planners and our 

Reserve Marines, while maintaining the ''train as we fight" philosophy. The Model provides our 

Reservists, their families. and their employers the ability to plan for upcoming duty requirements 

five years and beyond. This empowers service members to achieve the critical balance between 

family, civilian careers. and service to our Nation while enabling informed employers to plan for 

and manage the temporary absence of valued employees. 

The key clement in the Force Generation Model is the consistent integration of Reserve 

units, detachments, and individuals into Service, Joint and Multi-lateral exercises, thereby building 

increasing interopcrability over the plan's live-year cycle. The units are assessed through a 

7 
396

culminating Integrated Training Exercise during the fourth year of the training cycle to certify their 

readiness for use on the "ready bench" during the fifth year. Seamless integration with the Active 

Component in training exercises is conducted in the United States and abroad; this training 

facilitates the Active and Reserve Components interoperability. thus achieving success with the 

Total force Marine Corps. 

Personnel 

Marines. Sailors and civilians arc the foundation of all that we do. The resources we 

dedicate to sustaining and developing this foundation directly contribute to the success of our 

institution. The vast majority of the Marine Corps Selected Reserve's authorized end strength of 

38,500 fall under Marine Forces Reserve. The Selected Reserve is composed of Marines in four 

categories: Selected Marine Corps Reserve Units, Active Reserve, Individual Mobilization 

Augmentees. and service members in initial training. Embedded with these Marines arc 1,800 

Active and Reserve component Sailors who serve critical roles in the operational and medical 

readiness of our Reserve Force. The success of Marine Forces Reserve would not be possible 

without the continued support from the U.S. Navy. 

In addition to the Marines and Sailors of the Selected Reserve. Marine Forces Reserve 

administratively controls approximately 65,000 Marines who serve in the Individual Ready 

Reserve (IRR). Marine Forces Reserve continues to monitor the mobilization viability of these 

Marines who have fulfilled their active service commitment and returned to civilian life. The 

mobilization potential of the IRR is monitored through the use of muster events that are conducted 

at multiple locations across the country. These muster events are the Marine Corps' opportunity to 

physically inspect these Marines to ensure they meet the requirements for mobilization. These 

events also provide the opportunity to address administrative issues. complete mental health and 
397

post-deployment assessments. review Reserve obligations and new opportunities, meet with prior 

service recruiters. and reconnect with fellow \1arines. During the past year. Marine Forces 

Reserve conducted 26 muster events with 6.545 !vlarines who serve in the IRR. 

The Marine Corps Reserve completed its current decrease in end strength to 38,500 in 

Fiscal Year 2016. We will continue to strive to retain the very best Marines capable of fulfilling 

our leadership and operational needs. The option of continued service in the Reserve Component 

has become increasingly appealing to young Marines leaving active duty. Marines approaching the 

end of their current contraCls, whether Active or Reserve Component, receive counseling on the 

tangible and intangible benefits of remaining associated with the Selected Reserve. We educate 

each transitioning Active Component Marine on opportunities lor continued service in the Marine 

Corps Reserve through the \1arinc Corps' transition assistance and educational outreach programs. 

Despite reduced authorized end strength, our personnel readiness has reached record high 

levels. To sustain this high level of readiness we have concentrated on improving our personnel 

administration and retention programs. Throughout the past year. our Marines have worked hard to 

initiate enhancements to our administrative processes and standard operating procedures. 

Additionally, we are improving the timeliness and accuracy of Reserve pay and entitlement 

disbursement through the consolidation of administration at the battalion, squadron, and group 

levels. 

Recruiting and retaining high quality Marines remains essential to the Marine Corps· 

reputation as the Nation·s force-in-readiness. Marine Forces Reserve enjoys high affiliation and 

retention rates enhanced through incentive programs, such as occupational specialty retraining, 

inactive duty travel reimbursement, and bonus payments. These programs remain essential to 

ensure we continue to meet authorized end strength and retain our most talented Marines. Over the 

9 
398

past three years your support for these critical programs has helped bolster our overall personnel 

end strength to 99 percent of the total requirement with a grade and Military Occupational 

Specialty match rate of85 percent. This high rate of personnel readiness is not only reflective of 

the health of the Force, but directly contributes to our overall operational readiness. While we fltll; 

expect to meet our Selected Marine Corps Reserve retention and recruiting goals again this year, 

continued use of these incentive programs are critical to optimally align our inventory against our 

requirements. maintain individual and unit-level readiness, address shottfalls in staff noncommissioned officers, and fully rebuild readiness from previous force stmcture changes. Your 

continued support for incentives that promote service in our Reserve Force will ensure our ability 

to recruit and retain the very best service members. 

Equipment 

For the most part, Reserve Component units remain highly interoperable with their Active 

Component counterparts due to the Marine Corps' Total Force approach to equipment lielding and 

management. Active and Reserve Component Forces are manned. trained and equipped to the same 

standards, facilitating the seamless employment of Reserve Component Forces to meet combatant 

commander requirements. Marine Forces Reserve mission essential equipment readiness levels are 

sufficient and capable of supporting all home station training requirements, as well as current 

operational deployments. 

In the Reserve Component. personnel resources to identify and conduct maintenance arc 

limited to the small full-time support staffs at each Reserve Training Center. These statTs are 

augmented by Reserve Marines during the monthly drill and annual training periods. Focusing 

these limited resources on the combat essential readiness reportable items constrains routine 

preventative and corrective maintenance on the remainder of equipment. Recent modernizations, 

10 
399

coupled with the increase in equipment density and complexity, have compounded this challenge. 

For many years, Marine Forces Reserve has mitigated risk to maintenance readiness in two 

ways. First. by continually refining the Training Allowance, which is the portion of the unit's full 

Table of Equipment kept on-hand at the Reserve Training Center. Our goal is to balance the 

minimum amount of equipment necessary to effectively conduct training with the amount of 

equipment that can reasonably be maintained within the personnel and fiscal resource constraints. 

Second, by leveraging Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) dollars to pay for mobile 

maintenance supp011 teams tl·om :V1arine Corps Logistics Command to travel to Reserve Training 

Centers and augment the organic maintenance capacity. Previous reductions in the availability of 

these OCO dollars have caused Marine Forces Reserve to reduce mobile maintenance supp011 

capacity, resulting in a noticeable decrease in the readiness of non-reportable items. Consequently, 

this negatively affects the quality of training that can be conducted by Reserve units. 

Congressional support for our amended FY 2017 Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps 

Reserve budget request. both OCO and non-OCO, is paramount to our continued success in 

maintaining high equipment readiness. 

The top procurement priorities of Marine Forces Reserve are the KC-130J Super Hercules 

and the RQ-21A Blackjack Small Tacticall:nmanned Aircraft System. The Marine Corps Active 

Component has fully fielded the KC-l30J. However, the remaining 23 Reserve Component 

aircraft are not scheduled to be fully fielded until 2027. This extended fielding time! inc f(Jrces the 

Reserve Component to simultaneously operate the KC-130.1 and the legacy KC-130T aircraft over 

the next ten years. These two aircraft models have vastly different logistics, maintenance. and 

aircrew requirements, resulting in an increased outlay of resources necessary to maintain the 

readiness of the Reserve Component squadrons. 

II 
400

Our second procurement priority is the RQ-21A Blackjack Small Tactical Unmanned 

Aircraft System. The RQ-21 A will provide a dedicated intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance system capable of delivering intelligence products directly to the tactical 

commander in real time. The program is still in low-rate initial production. The Active 

Component began initial procurement in Fiscal Year 2014 and the Reserve Component is 

scheduled to receive its first RQ-21A in Fiscal Year 2021. 

Training 

During June 2017, Marine Forces Reserve will conduct its fifth Service-levellntegrated 

Training Exercise aboard Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-nine Palms, 

Catirornia. This exercise consists of a two Battalion assessed live-tire and maneuver exercise, 

featuring Reserve Component Forces from the Marine Air-Ground Task Force clements (i.e. 

command, ground, air, and logistics). The unique nature of this exercise ensures maximum 

training benefits for the ground, aviation. and logistics combat elements under the command of a 

regimental headquarters. The Integrated Training Exercise is an indispensable component of our 

Training and Readiness Plan by serving as an annual capstone exercise, the principal mechanism 

for examining our training and readiness levels, and assessing our operational cap~bilities. Units 

pat1icipate based on future activation potential in accordance with the Marine Forces Reserve 

Fiscal Years 2017-2021 Training and Readiness Plan. The Integrated Training Exercise provides 

all Marine Air-Ground Task Force elements an opportunity to undergo a Service-level assessment 

of core competencies that are essential to expeditionary, forward-deployed operations. 

Additionally. individuals serving on the regimental command element staff receive training that 

ensures the ability to augment a Marine Air-Ground Task Force and/or a Joint staff. In summary, 

the Integrated Training Exercise improves combat readiness, e1llciency in Total Force integration. 

12 
401

and enables more rapid activation response times at the battalion and squadron level. 

Marine Forces Reserve continues to maximize continental United Stales-based training 

events. In Fiscal Year 2016, we provided an exercise force of approximately 2.000 Reserve 

Component "-1arines and Sailors for training opportunities in Exercise Northern Strike. Northern 

Strike is a joint, combined-arms, live-fire exercise emphasizing close air support, joint fire support, 

and coordinated maneuver with fires. The exercise also provides highly sought after amphibious 

training. Executed aboard Camp Grayling, Michigan, at the Joint Maneuver Training Center, 

Northern Strike provides an oppot1unity for Reserve Marines to train alongside Army and 

Michigan Air National Guard (ANG) forces as well as Canadian forces, under realistic conditions. 

Such an exercise ensures our Marines maintain the highest levels of proficiency and readiness to 

integrate with the Active Component for worldwide deployment. 

At our Reserve Training Centers, we continue to maximize training efficiencies by utilizing 

simulators wherever possible to preserve fiscal and materiel resources. The Reserve Component 

Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers (!SMTs) and other simulation systems safeguard 

consistent capabilities across the Total Force by ensuring Reserve Marines are trained to the same 

tasks, conditions, and standards as the Active Component. The ISMTs particularly benefit remote 

site locations that arc distant from Department of Defense training ranges by preserving valuable 

training time during drill weekends. 

With our Marines deploying around the globe. we also access and leverage a variety of 

other sources for language and culture training. such as the Marine Corps' Center for Advanced 

Operational Culture and Language. the Defense Language Institute, and Regional Language 

Centers. These enhanced language and culture learning opportunities coupled with realistic 

operational training events strengthen core competencies and postures Marine Forces Reserve as a 

IJ 
402

ready, relevant, and responsive force. 

Facilities 

Marine Forces Reserve occupies facilities in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. These facilities include 27 owned and 133 tenant Reserve 

Training Centers (RTCs), three family housing sites, one permanent barracks, three emergency 

troop housing barracks. and one General Officer Quarters in New Orleans, Louisiana. Although 

some RTCs are located on major Department of Defense bases, most of our centers are located 

in regional population centers, ranging from civilian neighborhoods to industrial and commercial 

districts. We continue efforts to improve maintenance and the security of our facilities to ensure 

the safety of our Marines and Sailors. 

Sixty-six percent of the facilities budget simply sustains the existing physical plant and 

meets base operations costs by focusing on daily support and infrastructure maintenance. Costs of 

maintaining the physical plant steadily increase with the age of buildings. We have improved the 

overall readiness of our facilities inventory and corrected some chronic facility deficiencies 

through Marine Forces Reserve Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) 

support. There has been a focused and on-going effort to improve overall anti-terrorism security at 

all of our centers by working with our Service partners and the National Guard for joint occupied 

facilities. Although we have leveraged additional funding, these emergent anti-terrorism security 

requirements have placed added strain on our already limited budget. 

The Marine Corps' Military Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR) program focuses on 

new enduring requirements and recapitalization of our aging facilities. The construction 

provided by the annual authorization ofMCNR funding has been an important factor in 

advancing the Marine Forces Reserve facilities support mission. Systemic authoritative 

14 
403

engineering analyses have been undertaken in order to fill gaps in facility condition information. 

The combined effects of our targeted consolidation. FSRM, and MCNR programs have steadily 

reduced the number of inadequate or substandard Reserve Training Centers. Continued support 

for our facilities program will enable Marine Forces Reserve to improve the physical 

infrastructure that supports and reinforces the mission readiness of our units. Moreover, Marine 

Forces Reserve continues to pursue opportunities to place training facilities within existing 

Department of Defense compounds. 

In accordance with national mandates, Marine Forces Reserve completed energy 

assessments at our owned sites and continues to implement the recommendations from those 

assessments as funds are available. Priority is given to sites that are the biggest energy users 

nationally and specific projects which offer the best return on invest m c n t. Environmental 

stewardship continues to be a major priority for Marine Forces Reserve sites and units as we 

continue to comply with national, state, and local laws. 

Health Services and Behavioralllealth 

Marine leaders have a moral obligation to ensure the health and welfare of the Nation's 

Marines from the day they make the commitment to serve. We also must care for the Sailors 

under our charge; and the families of our Sailors and Marines. We take this responsibility 

seriously and strive to maintain the trust and confidence of Congress and the American people by 

immediately addressing any challenge to our readiness and finding solutions through our people 

and readiness programs. 

Between deployments, our Health Services priority is to ensure the Department of Defense 

goal of85 percent Total Force Medically Ready. During Fiscal Year 2016, Marine Forces 

Reserve individual medical and dental readiness rates were 84.6 percent and 89 percent, 

15 
404

respectively. We strive to improve medical readiness through a robust Post-Deployment Health 

Reassessment (PDHRA) Program at Marine Forces Reserve and an accurate monitoring, 

identification, and notification of unit-level actions necessary to attain readiness goals. 

Additionally, our Health Services personnel participate in Force Readiness Assistance & 

Assessment Program unit inspections; and our PDHRA Program participates in the Defense Health 

Agency's electronic audits. These inspections and audits provide oversight at unit level and the 

ability to monitor policy adherence which ultimately affects enterprise-level readiness. 

The Reserve Health Readiness Program (RHRP) has greatly increased overall medical and 

dental readiness throughout the Force. This program funds contracted medical and dental 

specialists to provide services to units that do not have direct medical or dental support personnel 

and are not supported by a military treatment facility. During Fiscal Year 2016, the RHRP 

performed 14.918 Periodic Health Assessments; 15,860 Mental Health Assessments; 850 

PDHRAs; 163 immunizations; 3, 713 laboratory services; 21,536 audio services; and 18,323 dental 

procedures. In addition to RHRP, the Marine Corps' comprehensive behavioral health program 

addresses issues such as substance abuse prevention, suicide prevention, combat and operational 

stress control, domestic violence, and child abuse prevention. 

Marine Forces Reserve continues to conduct Operational Stress Control and Readiness 

(OSCAR) training at all levels. The training is provided during pre-deployment training to service 

members of units deploying for more than 90 days. as well as all commands in garrison. The 

purpose of this training is to provide the requisite knowledge, skills, and tools to assist 

commanders in preventing, identifying, and managing combat and operational stress concerns as 

early as possible. 

Navy Bureau of Medicine continues to support behavioral health through various 

16 
405

independent contracted programs, such as the PDHRA and the Psychological Health Outreach 

Program (Pf!OP). The PDHRA places an emphasis on identifying physical, behavioral, and 

mental health concerns that may have emerged since returning from deployment. During Calendar 

Y car 2016, Marine Forces Reserve successfully raised current completion totals to nearly 36,000 

PDf·!RA screenings and I 6,000 Mental Health Assessments. The PI·!OP addresses postdeployment behavioral health concerns and crisis-related interventions through contractors with 

various social work-related backgrounds via a wide array of referral services in the community to 

include follow-up with service members. These programs provide a pathway to identify Marines 

and Sailors in need of behavioral health assistance. and an avenue to seek behavioral health 

assistance. 

Signs of operational and combat stress can manifest long after a service member returns 

home from deployment. Delayed onset of symptoms presents particular challenges to Reservists 

who can be isolated from vital medical care and the daily support network inherent in Marine 

Reserve units. Encouraging Marines to acknowledge and vocalize mental health issues is a 

ubiquitous challenge facing our commanders. We address the stigma associated with mental 

health care through key programs, such as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. Further, we 

market all of our behavioral health initiatives and programs through our Marine Forces Reserve 

portal website and during key Marine Corps forums throughout the year. Your continued support 

of our behavioral health initiative programs is greatly appreciated. 

Marine Forces Reserve Drug Demand Reduction Program (DDRP) continues to focus on 

reducing illegal drug use and prescription drug misuse within the Reserve community. Marine 

Forces Reserve relics profoundly on its drug-testing program, which acts as a powerful deterrent 

against drug use. Each Reserve unit annually conducts random, compulsory drug testing that 

17 
406

ensures systematic screening of all Reservists for the presence of drugs. The DDRP staff provides 

education and awareness training on the dangers of misusing and abusing prescription drugs. The 

staff also provides information to Reservists on the proper disposal of old, unused. and outdated 

medications. Additionally, the DDRP increases leaders' awareness on the dangers of abusing 

prescription drugs through annual substance abuse supervisory level training. 

Suicide prevention remains a high priority for the Marine Corps. Marine Forces Reserve 

focuses its suicide prevention efforts on six initiatives: in-theater assessments, PDHRA, PHOP, 

Care Management Teams, Marine Intercept Program (MIP), and Unit Marine Awareness and 

Prevention Integration Training (lJMAPIT). The in-theater assessments target Reservists who arc 

exhibiting or struggling with clinically-significant issues during a deployment. These Marines arc 

evaluated by appropriate medical authorities for possible treatment with follow-up decisions made 

prior to the return home. The PDHRA Program specifically seeks to identify issues that emerge 

after Reservists have returned home from deployment. The PHOP secures treatment referrals and 

provides essential follow-up treatment and case management for our service members to receive 

appropriate behavioral health services. MIP is an evidence-informed targeted intervention for 

active duty service members, including Reservists, who have had an identified suicide ideation 

and/or suicide attempt. MIP includes a series of telephonic voluntary caring contacts in which a 

PHOP counselor reaches out to the Reservist and assesses for risk, encourages use of a safety plan, 

identifies and addresses any barriers to services. The PHOP counselors then incorporate these 

caring contacts into the counseling process. Lastly, UMAPIT provides annual training based on 

evidence-informed practices to raise awareness of common risk factors and warning signs 

associated with behavioral health issues. This training also focuses on building techniques to 

protect against behavioral health issues, ensuring that Marines understand their responsibility to 

18 
407

fellow Marines, and limiting the stigma associated with seeking assistance for suicidal ideations. 

Additionally, Reservists and their family members can access Marine Corps installations' 

behavioral health programs through Marine Corps Community Services while they are on activeduty orders. When not on active-duty orders, Military OneSource provides counseling, resources, 

and support to Reserve service members and their families anywhere in the world. The Marine 

Corps DSTRESS Line is another resource available to all Reserve Marines, attached Sailors, and 

family members regardless of their activation status. DSTRESS is a 24/7/365, Marine-specific 

crisis call and support center, providing phone, chat, and video-telephone capability for nonmedical, short-term, solution-focused counseling and briefings. 

Sexual Assault Prevention & Response 

Sexual assault is a complex problem that is often interrelated with other destructive 

behaviors. Marine Forces Reserve remains focused on executing solutions to address the 

continuum of destructive behaviors, with the goal of preventing sexual assault within our ranks. 

To accomplish this goal, Marine Forces Reserve has six full-time employees who provide 

supportive services across the geographically-dispersed force. In addition to the Force-level 

Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), each Major Subordinate Command within Marine 

Forces Reserve has a SARC who manages their commanding general's Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response (SAPR) Program from the headquarters office in New Orleans. Together with the 

SARCs, the professional civilian victim advocate is available to support service members, as well 

as civilians who are eligible for SAPR services. Marine Forces Reserve continues to increase 

victim services, improve victim response capabilities, and emphasize prevention. 

Additionally, the SAPR staff trains up to 160 new Uniformed Victim Advocates (UVAs) 

each year during week-long courses held at the Marine Corps Support Facility, New Orleans. 

!9 
408

After being trained and credentialed through the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault 

Advocate Certification Program, UV As arc appointed by their commanders as Advocates for their 

respective Reserve Training Centers. Each SARC provides continuous support and guidance to 

the geographically-dispersed Victim Advocates within their MSC. In total, Marine Forces 

Reserve's SAPR Program maintains a roster of more than 300 UVAs within the Reserve 

Component. 

Marine Forces Reserve members can report at any time, and do not have to wait to be 

performing active service or be in inactive training to file their report. If reporting a sexual assault 

that occurred prior to or while performing active service or inactive training, the Service members 

will be eligible to receive timely access to SAPR advocacy services from a SARC and a UV A. 

They also have access to a Victims Legal Counsel regardless of the duty status of the individual if 

the circumstances of the alleged sex-related offense have a nexus to the military service of the 

victim. 

UVAs respond to service members regardless of their activation status, as well as adult 

dependents who make a report of sexual assault. With the support of their SARC. UVAs screen 

for potential safety issues and provide required safety updates, offer ongoing supportive services 

and referrals, and maintain a data base of nationwide resources for victims of sexual assault who 

may not reside on or near an installation. The SARCs and UVAs collaborate with providers who 

arc local to the sites to create a network of support and response capabilities for the Reserve 

Component across the nation. 

Another essential aspect of the response protocol is the 24 hours a day, seven days a week 

Support Line that is advertised to service members and their families via written and digital media 

and during all SAPR classes and briefs. The Support Line is manned by the professional SAPR 

20 
409

sta!Trnernbers who serve as a readily accessible resource for those who need anything from 

immediate assistance to those with questions about how to make a report. The Marine Forces 

Reserve actively publicizes the DoD Safe Helpline that is a crisis support service for members of 

the DoD community affected by sexual assauiL The DoD Sale Helpline is available 2417 

worldwide with "click.call.tcxr· user options for anonymous and confidential support. 

Our prevention strategy is holistic and integrated with other programs that support the 

prevention effort, such as the Equal Opportunity Program. Family Readiness. and Behavioral 

Health. :Vlarine Forces Reserve emphasizes setting the example of discipline and respect at all 

levels of command by encouraging a positive, retaliation-free, command climate. Leadership is 

encouraged to actively engage with our Marines and Sailors to learn what we can do to fu11her 

support a positive environment that is free from attitudes and behaviors that are incompatible with 

our core values. Preventative education continues to play a role as all non-commissioned officers 

receive "Take a Stand" bystander intervention training and all junior l'vlarincs participate in the 

"Step Up" bystander intervention training each year. Additionally, our Marines participate in the 

various events during Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. 

In summary, Marine Forces Reserve is committed to preventing sexual assault while 

responding with the highest quality of supportive services and advocacy to those who need it. 

QuaWv '~f L(fe 

We are dedicated to ensuring quality of life support programs arc designed to help all 

Marines and their families, whether they arc deployed or on the home front. Reserve Marines and 

their families make great sacrifices in service to our country and they deserve the very best suppolt 

in return. They are dispersed throughout the country and away ll·om the traditional support 

systems of our major bases and stations. Therefore, we strive to ensure awareness of, and access 

21 
410

to, the numerous support programs available for their benefit. Family Readiness Officers provide 

the vital link to ensuring support reaches those vvho need it. 

Marine Forces Reserve tracks the submission of medical service treatment records to ensure 

Reserve Component Marines receive timely access to Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) health 

care services. Working across 178 reserve sites. we aggressively target our perrormance for 

submission timeliness to ensure our Marines will not be delayed in their submission of VA benefit 

claims once they have separated from the service. 

Marine and Family Readiness Programs remain flexible, constantly adjusting to meet the 

needs of our Marines and their families. The result is a ready and resilient force, well equipped to 

achieve success. This heightened state of resiliency is primarily achieved by providing robust, 

relevant and standardized training to our unit commanders, Family Readiness Command Teams, 

Marines and their families. Our Marine Corps Family Team Building (MCFTB) program offers 

non-clinical primary and secondary preventative education and professional training to suppon 

service members and their families throughout mission, life, and career events. MCFTB training 

events are delivered in person at Marine Corps units across the United States and through 

interactive computer based trainings on the MarincNet platform. During Fiscal Year 2016, \·Iarine 

Forces Reserve ''onducted 256 training events at which I 0,530 Marines and family members 

received 'aluable information to help prepare for upcoming deployments, thrive during a 

deployment, and achieve a positive post-deployment reintegration experience. 

A key component to our quality of life and resiliency is the religious ministry support 

provided hy the 202 Chaplains and Religious Program Specialist~ who serve in our ranks: 127 of 

whom are in Reserve units, while 75 support the Active Component. Of those, II are mobilized in 

support of combatant commanders across the globe. This support includes providing divine 

22 
411

services across the spectrum of faith communities, advising on spiritual and ethical matters, and 

pastoral care in a safe, confidential environment. One signature program is the Chaplain Religious 

Enrichment Development Operations (CREDO) program. The Marine Forces Reserve CREDO 

program provides two transformational workshops: the Marriage Enrichment Retreat (MER) and 

the Personal Resiliency Retreat (PRR). These events equip Marines, Sailors, and their families 

with practical relationship and communication tools that strengthen marriages and individual 

resilience while on the home front and during deployments. The PRR curriculum also helps 

Marines and Sailors set personal goals, make good decisions, deal with stress, and live lives with 

greater purpose and satisfaction. During Fiscal Year 2016, 12 Marriage Enrichment Retreats were 

conducted with 288 participants and two Personal Resiliency Retreats were conducted with 27 

participants. 

The Marine Corps Personal and Professional Development programs continue to provide 

training and educational resources to service members and their families. The Transition 

Readiness Program implements a comprehensive transition and employment assistance program 

for Marines and their families; the program emphasizes a proactive approach that will enable 

Marines to formulate effective post-transition entrepreneurship, employment, and educational 

goals. Transition Readiness is a process that occurs across the Marine for Life Cycle, not an event 

that occurs at a single point in time. Additionally, the Marine For Life Network provides 

education and awareness briefs to Reserve Marines and their family members during lRR 

Mobilization Exercises. with the intent to link them to employment, education. and community 

resources in support of their overall life goals. 

Our Semper Fit program continues to be fully engaged in partnering with our bases and 

stations to provide quality, results-based education and conditioning protocols for our Marines and 

23 
412

Sailors. The High Intensity Tactical Training program includes hands-on, science-based strength 

and conditioning courses, online physical fitness tools, mobile applications for service members to 

access anywhere, recorded webinars, as well as instruction on injury prevention, nutrition, and 

weight management. Our Marines' and Sailors' quality of life is also enhanced through stress 

management and e.1prit de corps activities, such as unit outings and participation in competitive 

events. These programs are crucial to unit cohesion and camaraderie. 

TheY ell ow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP) is an invaluable partner with the 

Marine Corps Unit, Personal, and Family Readiness Program at every command level. Since its 

inception during 20 I 0, the YRRP has held more than 792 training events for more than 37.000 

Marines. Sailors, and family members. In Fiscal Year 2016, 132 YRRP training events were 

conducted with I ,509 participants. The YRRP is a tool for commanders to remain engaged with 

the challenges and issues facing Marines, Sailors, and their families. The YRRP continues to 

thrive. Marine Forces Reserve. with the assistance of our Marine Corps Family Team Building 

staff, has developed innovative methods for program delivery that are sustainable in any fiscal or 

deployment climate. This includes developing webinars that can be delivered nationally, mailouts, social media, personalized briefs designed to meet the individual needs of the service 

member and family, and working with the Family Readiness Officers to leverage national and 

local resources at no cost to the government. 

We remain supportive of Military OneSource. which provides our Marines, Sailors. and 

their families with an around-the-clock information and referral service via toll-free telephone and 

internet resources. Military OneSource provides counseling on subjects such as parenting, child 

care, education, finances, legal issues, deployment, crisis support, and relocation. 

Our Marines, Sailors, and their families, who sacrifice so much for our Nation's defense, 

24 
413

should not be asked to sacrifice quality of life. We will continue to be a faithful advocate for a 

robust Family Readiness Program that evolves and adapts to the changing needs of our Marines, 

Sailors and their families. The combined effect of these programs is critical to the readiness and 

retention of our Marines, Sailors, and their families, and your continued support is greatly 

appreciated. 

Supporting our Wounded, Ill, or Injured Marines and their Families 

The Marine Corps ensures the availability of full spectrum care to all wounded, ill, or 

injured (WII) service members, whether they are Active or Reserve, through the Wounded Warrior 

Regiment (WWR). Marines Forces Reserve ensures Reserve Marines' unique challenges are 

addressed through a liaison who provides subject matter expertise and special coordination with 

the WWR staff. 

The WWR staff includes the Reserve Medical Entitlements Determinations Section, which 

maintains specific oversight of all Reservists' cases requiring medical care for service-incurred 

and duty-limiting medical conditions. Reservists facing complex care and recovery needs have 

access to WWR's network of 45 Recovery Care Coordinators who provide one-on-one transition 

suppmt and resource identification for WII Reservists and families, who often live long distances 

from military installations. The WWR also has medical advocates at the regimental staff who are 

available to assist Reservists in need of medical care coordination and advocacy and has district 

injured support coordinators and field support representatives dispersed throughout the country 

who coordinate with Reserve units to ensure we keep faith with all Marines. 

Marine Forces Reserve will not forget the sacriticcs our Marines have made for this 

great Nation; and we will continue to work with the WWR to establish resources and programs 

that address the unique and ongoing needs of our Reserve population. 

25 
414

Conclusion 

The Marine Corps is our Nation's force-in-readiness and will continue to be most 

ready when our Nation is least ready. As part of the Total Force Marine Corps, Marine Forces 

Reserve must remain manned, trained. and equipped to provide forces to the Active Component to 

respond across the operational spectrum and in all five wartighting domains. Although this 

unstable and increasingly dangerous operating environment is further complicated by a 

constrained resource environment, we must continue current operations, reset our equipment, and 

maintain our warfighting readiness while modernizing the force. Accordingly, we will make 

pragmatic institutional choices as we balance our available resources between current 

commitments and future readiness requirements. Semper Fidclis! 

26 
415

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL MILLER

General MILLER. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to have 

with me this morning Command Chief Master Sergeant Ericka 

Kelly. Together, we represent America’s 69,000 Reserve citizen airmen, providing operational capability and surge capacity, ensuring 

airspace and cyber dominance around the globe. 

Twenty-six years of continuous global operations and decreased 

budgets have stressed our force, which is always in demand. Last 

year, we were the fourth largest major command contributor to 

combat operations, filling over 10,000 air expeditionary and volunteer taskings across the U.S. and in 30 foreign countries. Our airmen deliver critical capabilities to the fight every day, through 

global vigilance, global reach, and global power. 

Your Air Force Reserve operates with 16,000 fewer airmen and 

220 fewer aircraft than we did in Desert Storm. The stress of our 

size, the steady state operations tempo, and our funding shortfalls 

keep us challenged, yet we remain a lethal combat-ready force, 

composed of amazing and resilient airmen and families. 

The concerns which weigh most in our day-to-day operations are 

insufficient manpower for both full-time support and critical skills, 

training availability and funding, weapon system sustainment, and 

concurrent fielding of aircraft and equipment. We continue to make 

incremental steps in the readiness needed for today’s fight, while 

posturing for the complex future threats and the many challenges. 

Although the fiscal year 2018 President’s budget request is a 

good beginning, to ensure that we deliver the most ready, capable, 

and lethal force, a long-term effort is needed. This balance of readiness today and the needs of tomorrow is difficult without predictable, sustainable funding through the outyears. 

The fiscal year 2018 President’s budget request continues our efforts to build readiness and capability by adding 800 positions 

across our rated space, cyber, and our ISR missions. The budget request, with the additional overseas contingency operation support, 

begins to fund weapon system sustainment closer to the required 

levels, ensuring that we can produce the exercise, training, and 

combat sorties needed to sustain the best Air Force in the world. 

Modernization and recapitalization are essential to maintaining 

our combat edge. With continued congressional support for the National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation, we can smartly 

invest in weapon systems, which will increase our capability and 

recapitalize systems that will minimize risk against our emerging 

threats.

And I thank you for the fiscal year 2017 NGREA funding of $105 

million, which provided all-weather targeting pods for the F–16, enabled KC–135 defensive systems, updated digital displays for platforms, such as the A–10, and afforded personal recovery equipment 

for our Pave Hawk helicopters. This funding helps ensure that we 

maintain that lethal edge to dominate and to survive in all spectrums of the conflict. 

Delivering combat air power to the joint force is our mission. To 

best execute this requirement, we must develop a concurrent field-
416

ing and investment strategy to ensure operational parity with the 

Active Component. This ensures synchronized use of manpower, 

equipment, and training resources in a fiscally constrained environment.

Over the past few decades, we have successfully adjusted to an 

operational Reserve. Portions of our force are stressed, but our Reserve citizen airmen are resilient, engaged, and honored to serve. 

We require your support for sufficient resources to meet full-spectrum readiness, increase end strength to support integrated operations, and an increased budget to buy back the readiness deficit 

and modernize weapon systems. A stable, predictable budget will 

ensure Air Force Reserve is combat-ready at all times. 

Thank you again for your support and this amazing opportunity 

to represent our airmen, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The written statement of General Maryanne Miller follows:] 
417

United States Air Force 

Testimony 

Before the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Guard and Reserves 

Statement of 

Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller 

Chief of Air Force Reserve 

May 24,2017 

Not for publication until released by the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 
418

INTRODUCTION 

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

Chairman Granger, Representative Visclosky, and distinguished members of this 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. I am honored to represent 

America's Reserve Citizen Airmen: men and women who live and work locally in your 

represented states, yet serve globally, providing operational capability and surge capacity 

ensuring unrivaled air, space, and cyber dominance. 

For 69 years, this nation has called on the Air Force Reserve (AFR) to suppmt national 

security objectives in all types of military and humanitarian operations around the globe. Today 

nearly 70 thousand Reserve Airmen are postured to respond to any crisis or contingency when 

needed. In fact. there arc currently 6,000 Air Force Reservists on active duty orders operating in 

air. space. and cyber domains, supporting overseas contingencies and other stateside operations. 

In order to remain viable for today's fight and postured for tomorrows, it is critical, we not only 

improve but sustain our readiness and ensure we integrate into key mission sets to support the 

joint fight. However, shrinking defense budgets and a lack of fiscal stability stress our readiness 

levels and threaten our ability to reach and sustain full-spectrum readiness. As a critical 

component of the One Air Force Team we will not be fully successful without proper and 

sustainable funding into the out years. 

Today, I am going to af!inn our CU!Tcnl state of readiness, explain how we integrate into 

the joint environment, and describe what makes the AFR uniquely structured to support 

operational demands in air, space, and cyberspace. 

STATE OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE READINESS 

Over two decades of continuous operations coupled with decreased budgets have left us 

with a smaller force of seasoned airmen and strained the readiness of our force as we continue to 

Page2 
419

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

support the unceasing demand for the operational effects of our airpower and other critical battle 

space operations. To help recover fi·om the stress on our force we must grow our manpower 

concurrently with the active component based on current and emerging mission requirements to 

best support our nations call. Reserve Citizen Airmen are crucial to meeting national objectives 

and combatant commanders' demands. We must continue to leverage our strengths and always 

partner with the Active Component to successfully field new weapon systems, as we have with 

the F-35 and KC-46, and expand in areas like space, cyber, and Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR). 

We define full-spectrum readiness as the right number of Airmen, trained and equipped 

to accomplish operational missions in support of joint forces in both contested and uncontested 

environments. Critical skills availability, training resource availability, flying hour programs, 

weapons system sustainment, and operational tempo measure our readiness. Congressional 

support within these critical areas is needed to strengthen our readiness. Specifically, my top four 

concerns are lack of sufficient manpower in both full time support and critical skills, 

maintenance concerns due to operations tempo and aging 11eets, ensuring concurrent fielding of 

aircraft and equipment and limited budgets with continuing resolutions. 

l\1anpower 

With a force of nearly 70 thousand, we feel the pressures of the budget shortfalls as well 

as the pull from industry of our most skilled airmen. Our rated force is currently short 445 pilots 

and on average, our flying squadrons arc 72 percent manned. Research from RAND suggests the 

major airlines will hire over 9,000 pilots within the next six years. As a comparison, the Air 

Force, with all three components combined, has approximately 17,000 pilots. A downward trend 

in our pilot manning will continue if we don't take measures to recruit and retain pilots through 

Page 3 
420

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

bonuses and other quality of life programs. We cannot compete on the same pay scale with 

commercial industry but we must continue to leverage other means to retain the quality airmen 

we need to get the mission accomplished. 

We are beginning to see similar industry dynamics with our maintenance force. Our fulltime maintenance manning is 80 percent. with a shortfall of 1,500 full-time maintainers. We 

have been successful in retaining our traditional reserve maintenance force and arc manned at 

l 00 percent but our shortfall in full time maintaincrs. coupled with the unrelenting demand for 

air power, are contributing to our decrease in aircraft availability rates and training and support 

to all t1ying operations. 

As demands for rapidly evolving space, cyber. and ISR missions increase, so does the 

need for increased manpower for these critical skill sets. Our 11 Reserve space units arc aligned 

with either Air Combat Command or Space Command supporting space operations globally. We 

have over 700 space professional Individual Reserve Augmcntees (IMA) supporting Major 

Commands, Numbered Air Forces, and Interagency staffs in 25 different locations around the 

world. The AFR represents 11 percent of the total force manpower in the cyberspace superiority 

portfolio with 14 Cyber Organizations supporting Major Commands and Combatant 

Commanders. In FY17, we increased our ISR manning authorizations by 222 to support 

coverage of full-spectrum ISR operations. We added one target system analysis squadron and 

two intelligence support to cyber mission forces squadrons. These growth areas require 

additional manpower. 

For 16 consecutive years, the AFR has met its recruiting goals and our retention rate 

remains at 90 percent, which is a testament to the dedication and professionalism of our force, 

yet we know these success stories mask an underlying stress on the force. High demand Air 

Page4 
421

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

Force Specialties are critically stressed and undermanned. Many of our seasoned personnel, such 

as pilots, maintainers, space, cyberspace, and ISR professionals, have chosen to leave the 

Reserve or transition from full-time to part-time service for various reasons such as pay and 

entitlement disparity, reduced funding, unpredictable budget and high operations tempo. Our 

shortages, especially in the Air Reserve Technician (ART) program, arc compounded by 

Sequestration. Continuing Resolutions. and hiring freezes. We are very thankful for your support 

in programs such as recruiting, retention. and relocation (RRR) bonuses that allows us to target 

continued service for these individuals. 

To effectively grow our force, we must attract, recruit and retain the highest quality 

Citizen Airmen. One of our top recruiting priorities continues to be capturing Airmen 

transitioning !rom the active component. We prefer recruiting prior service members who are 

already trained to make immediate usc of their capabilities and minimize training costs. 

Retaining active duty Airmen results in a significant cost-savings and brings a wealth of 

operational familiarity and mission expertise. However, we arc currently experiencing a 

downward trend in prior service recruiting. Last year, 38 percent of our accessions were nonprior service, a six percent increase from the prior year. Non-prior service recruits significantly 

increase our training costs and delay readiness. 

While retaining pilot experience garners media attention, we must remember the combattested warriors across our other disciplines and career fields. In order to support the growing 

demand for space, cyber, ISR, and other critical Total Force mission areas, we will leverage our 

unique Reserve Citizen A inn en civilian sector experience to retain our competitive edge. 

However, the Reserve needs your help in ensuring a slight growth in manpower over the next 

few years. Since we are postured through Unit Type Codes. we do not have excess manpower to 

stand up emerging missions without pulling manpower from other areas. 

Page 5 
422

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

Training and Flying Hours Program 

A stable, predictable budget is critical to allow AFR Citizen Airman the ability to plan 

their participation for the year, This permits our people to stay proficient in their civilian career 

and qualified in their Air Force Specialty. Funding for Seasoning Training, Continuation and 

Proficiency Training, and Flying hours is vital to maintain our Air Force standards. By 

leveraging our high experience levels in the training environment, we minimize cost and set our 

newest Airmen up for future success, but we must have continuity in the form of a stable 

budgeting process to plan our participation. 

Our Reserve Seasoning Training Program (STP) funding is critical to ensure new 

members are qualified, but many of our units report inadequate funding. STP training normally 

occurs immediately out of Basic Military Training and Technical School. Without the 

availability of these funds at the beginning of every year, we cannot plan for training. 

Unpredictability damages the relationship between our Airmen and their civilian employers and 

communities. With any shortage of STP funds, we miss training opportunities which ends up 

delaying personnel readiness. 

Training and funding of the flying hour program is cruci<Jl to maintain, rebuild and 

improve readiness. Air Porce Mobility Air Force (MAF) flying hours arc currently funded at 85 

percent, with some platforms funded as low as 68 percent. If the Transportation Working Capital 

Fund (TWCF) shrinks, our MAF crews will need more Training, Test, and Ferry (TTF) or 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds to offset training deficiencies. The Combat Air 

Forces (CAF) flying hour training program has also been impacted: specifically, Reserve 

allocations for formal training have been reduced. Resources and funding for the flying hour 

training program are critical to preparing for combat operations. 

Page 6 
423

Weapon System Sustainment 

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

To achieve program balance and build AFR equipment readiness, unfunded requirements 

must be approved; otherwise, risk will increase in our aircraft fleet and supporting systems. 

Additionally, our fleet modernization requires immediate attention. 

Our weapon system sustainment baseline funding has been below 80 percent for the past 

few years. We are more successful with our sustainment efforts due to the additional OCO 

funding which takes our funding to approximately 85 percent but the system is still stressed due 

to aging fleets, depot modifications, conosion and supply issues. 

The average age of Reserve fleet is nine years older than the Active Component's fleet. 

Our oldest aircraft, the KC-135, is almost 60 years old, and our Aircraft Availability lingers 19 

percent below standard. Modernization would help solve our legacy aircraft supply chain and test 

equipment issues, so proactive funding of Reserve modernization projects, even in this fiscally 

constrained environment, must be a top priority until we can replace aging systems. 

Modernization and recapitalization are essential to ensure the AFR remains combat-ready today 

and relevant for tomorrow's fight. 

Our current modernization efforts revolve around upgrading legacy systems to enhance 

situational awareness and improve combat effectiveness. While these upgrades ensure we 

maintain our combat capability and intcroperability with the active component, the Reserve is 

not funded nor structured to maintain completely separate weapon systems or aircraft from our 

Active Component partners. 

We must develop a concurrent mission design series fielding and divestment strategy for 

the Air Force. This is vital to ensure operational parity with Active Duty. We are facing noncurrent fielding issues as the F-16 bridges the gap until the F-35 reaches full operational 

Page 7 
424

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

capability. As the Air Force plans to grow. we must concurrently field the same mission design 

series to allow for synchronized training and resources. Similarly, as the Air Force divests from 

aircraft like the HC-130H and converts to J-models, the Reserve faces a situation where we will 

be unable to draw trained pilots and maintainers from the Active Component. As we plan to 

support new platforms, like the KC-46, we must focus on mission impact and ensure installations 

arc sized appropriately. Concurrent fielding and divestiture increases our operational relevancy, 

improves our ability to provide combat-ready forces without shortages while making the most 

efficient use of our precious resources and dollars. 

Infrastructure 

Reserve readiness also requires a look at our infrastructure. Without proper militmy 

construction funding, our ability to support mission requirements is limited. The AFR maximizes 

cost-effectiveness by sharing facilities and infrastructure with our active and joint partners rather 

than exclusively operating our own facilities. We leverage existing infrastructure at more than 58 

partner installations. while only operating nine host installations. These shared facilities, such as 

aircraft hangars and maintenance shops. include more than 17.1 million square feet of 

inlrastructure. As we expand into emerging missions and reevaluate legacy requirements, we sec 

in many cases our inti·astructurc is not aligned to meet our needs. 

Currently, the AFR has identified a $910.0 million military construction backlog to 

address recapitalization, modernization and consolidation opportunities throughout the 

command. Due to limited military construction funding across the Future Years Defense 

Program. we arc increasingly forced to use O&M funding for Facilities. Sustainment, 

Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) work to accommodate mission changes, increase 

building efficiencies and ensure facilities meet mission requirements. The AFR has a $1.3 billion 

backlog for required FSRM. Our goal is to make every dollar count, and we will continue to use 

Page 8 
425

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

our Facilities Operational Capabilities and Utilization Survey program to determine the best use 

of military construction and FSRM funding. As we work through the planning and programming 

for FY18, we will build and submit our priority MILCON projects. With Congressional support, 

we can smartly invest in MlLCON execution and apply our facility savings to fleet 

modernization and readiness. 

INTEGRATION 

Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power 

Operations tempo is one of our measures of readiness. Despite the high operational tempo 

of the last 25 years, our Airmen guarantee mission success. During 2016, Reserve Citizen 

Airmen integrated seamlessly with our active and joint partners, performing nearly 4.4 million 

man-days. Air Force Reserve Command was the fourth largest contributor to combat operations 

tllling more than 3,200 Air Expeditionary Force tasks. Our professional Airmen provided Global 

Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power for national security to the joint forces. The 

Remotely Piloted Aircraft community collected over 35.000 JSR combat hours. ISR analysts 

contributed over 240,000 combat mission hours. l ,500 space professionals supported space 

operations worldwide, and 4,000 cybcr operators engaged in total force cybcr protection teams 

ensuring Global Vigilance. Air Mobility operations ensured Global Reach in over 80 different 

countries. Reserve crews flew over 4,000 missions, 7,000 sorties, and 32,000 hours delivering 

over 36,000 passengers, and over 34,000 tons of cargo. Our fighters, bombers, and Remotely 

Piloted Aircraft delivered Global Power by conducting precision strikes around the world on a 

daily basis supp01iing joint, special operations and coalition forces. As examples, the Reserve 

RPA community had over 1,000 kinetic strikes resulting in over 1,400 enemies killed in action 

and over 500 enemy high value targets destroyed while the 44th Fighter Group F-22's t1ew 161 

combat missions and destroyed over 1,100 targets. 

Page 9 
426

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

Our daily and continuous operational capability is part of what makes us a valuable 

partner for today and for tomorrow. But, as we tight today, we must shape our force for 

tomorrow by focusing on retaining the competitive edge of our resilient Reserve Citizen Airmen 

and expanding in air, space, cybcr, and ISR missions. 

Associations 

The Reserve has 66 Classic Associations and 10 Active Associations. We have nine new 

associations awaiting approval. We've been engaged in Classic Associations for over 50 years. 

These associations support every Major Command providing sustained operations, strategic 

depth and surge capacity. Two thirds of the Air Force's Total Force Integration associations are 

with the Reserve. Classic Associations maintain about a 20 percent full-time force dedicated to 

serving and training the part time Reservist. They are 100 percent Unit Type Code postured for 

surge capability. The Reserve is dedicated to remaining cost-efficient, maintaining mission 

effectiveness, and fostering better communication with our active and joint partners. Building 

these associations champions Total Force initiatives and leverages the unique strengths of each 

component. 

Space 

There arc over 1,500 integrated Reserve space professionals and supporting staff in 11 

associated units throughout Air Combat Command and Space Command. High Velocity 

Analyses support Air Force Reserve involvement in space operations to meeting the increasing 

needs of this expanding mission. The Reserve will grow in intelligence support to space 

operations, but future mission requirements will necessitate increased support to the Space 

Mission Force and the Ready Space Program, focusing on protecting satellite communications, 

otTensivc and defensive space control and space aggressor support to the Space Mission Force. 

Page 10 
427

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

Cyberspace is arguably the most rapidly-evolving and highly contested domain in the 

current environment. Our network is constantly under siege as we protect our information and 

our people from cyber-attacks. We must continue building a force that understands how to 

protect our networks to ensure mission success. The Reserve has over 3,500 cyber professionals 

throughout the Combatant and Major Commands. Under the Reserve Cyber Operations Group, 

there are seven Classic Associations to include the Cyber Operations Squadron that integrates 

over 100 personnel within Cyber Protection Teams. We plan to grow Mission Defense Teams. 

Cybcr Command and Control, and Cybcr Mission Forces aligned with the Active Component 

pmtfolio. As we develop our cyberspace technology, we must recruit, leverage the expertise and 

training opportunities in the civilian sector that uniquely benefit our part-time Reservists, and 

train a force with superior understanding of this domain. 

The Reserve has aggressively invested in full-spectrum ISR operations covering support 

to air, space and cyber domains. Our ISR capabilities are synchronized with Air Force strategy, 

responsive to the Air Force and Joint priorities. We cuiTently have one ISR group with II classic 

associate units, three added in Fiscal Year 2017. Recruiting for JSR is successful at 112 percent 

which backlogs our training pipeline. 

UNIQUENESS 

People 

By preserving our part-time l(Jrcc structure, Reserve Citizen Airmen remain a superb 

t!nancial value to the Air Force and the American taxpayer. The AFR is currently about 79 

percent part-time, permitting us to remain cost-efficient and mission e!Tective. A part-time 

Reserve Airman costs less than a Regular Air Force (RegAF) Airman. Over a career, our cost 

Page 11 
428

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

savings are significant; the 20 year life cycle cost for a part-time Reserve olTicer is 

approximately half of the active component, with a non-prior service member being even less. 

Another cost advantage of the AFR is the ability to capture prior-service RegAF members 

wishing to afliliate as a part-time Reservist. Thus, growing the AFR end-strength is a fiscally 

responsible approach to addressing current capabilities and capacity gaps. The reserve is 

uniquely positioned to retain the Air Force's vast investment in human capital and maintain cost 

effective capability against unanticipated requirements. 

The Air Force Reserve provides t1exibility through our ability to adjust reservist 

participation rates based on demand. Our Selected Reserve force is made up of roughly 65 

percent Traditional Reservist (TR), Full Time Support (FTS), to include 16 percent Air Reserve 

Technicians (ART) and 4 percent Active Guard Reserve, and I 0 percent IMA. We have over 

3,000 Civilians and 250 Active Component partners, part of our FTS cadre, who arc 5 percent of 

our manpower. Our FTS personnel are responsible for preparation and administration of policies 

and regulations to organize, administer, recruit, instruct, train, or support the Air Force Reserve. 

Additionally, the Air Force Reserve has a strategic depth consisting of those members in the 

Individual Ready Reserve, Active Duty Retired, Retired Reserve (AFR and ANG), and Standby 

Reserve, who the President and Secretary of Defense may recall when needed. It is this 

flexibility and capacity which make the Reserve a unique and critical partner in our Total Force 

team. We deliver our diverse portfolio capability and Title 10 status as your federal reserve in 

order to meet the nation's requirements. It is my job to assure Reserve readiness, and I guarantee 

Reserve Citizen Airmen will remain operationally relevant to the joint fight by ensuring the right 

number of Airrnen are available, trained properly and equipped appropriately. It is critical we are 

Page 12 
429

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

allowed to manage our various statuses to give the Reserve the flexibility to execute the mission 

efticicntly and in the best interest of the nation. 

Air Force Reserve TRs voluntarily serve this country and continue to positively impact 

your communities. Our Rescrw Citizen Aim1en balance their home life, their civilian job and 

their military commitment on a daily basis. Training and readiness require dedicated time, and 

most hold full time civilian jobs requiring them to coordinate with their employer and predict 

time for participation. Reserve Citizen Airmen leven1gc a diverse range of civilian careers, 

including attorneys, information technology professionals. health care providers, small business 

owners and corporate executives. These civilian skills make our Air Force team even stronger. 

The Air Force Reserve IMA program exempli lies the Total Force Enterprise. !MAs 

provide the flexibility needed to support total force requirements at a moment's notice. !MAs 

train with their active duty counterparts and can easily expand and contract the number of duty 

days they work to support the joint force. In today's austere manning environment, !MAs can 

surge to help augment active component units who could otherwise not accomplish their mission. 

During normal manning times, !MAs revert to their minimum work schedule of either 22 or 36 

days a year. providing a ready force at an extremely low cost. The IMA program provides 

exactly the degree of adaptability and reliability the Air Force needs to economically and reliably 

continue the Air Force mission, whether it's at the squadron level or the Combatant Command. 

Reserve Citizen Airmen h:wc been in continuous combat operations for the past 25 years, 

hindering their time to focus on full-spectrum readiness items. Some of our Airmen volunteer to 

deploy on 60-90 day rotations or 365 day deployed-in-place tours which does not allow enough 

dwell time for full spectrum readiness training. Many reservists volunteer to exceed the desired 

1 :5 mobilization-to-dwell in order to meet mission requirements. Deployments and mobilizations 

Page 13 
430

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

are not decreasing; in fact, a four percent increase is projected in Fiscal Year 2018. The Air 

Force Reserve is initiating eight six-month Reserve Component Periods to stabilize mobilizationto-dwell above 1:5 and dedicate more time at home base for required training and readiness 

items. However, if the operational tempo does not decrease or if we are unable to adjust 

deployment cycles, then overall Air Force and Reserve end strength will need to increase or we 

must accept increased risk in our ability to provide surge capacity. 

As we look to the future, we need more portability for Ainnen to transfer seamlessly 

between active and reserve components. We are working with Congress to update laws and 

policy to allow greater flexibility for our Airmen to serve among all three Air Force components 

wherever the need is greatest. This flexibility will allow the Air Force to retain the talent in our 

professional Airmen regardless of status, shaping us to be a more agile, experienced and 

effective One Air Force Team. 

Mission 

The Air Force Reserve owns the sole responsibility to execute the mission of the 

Hurricane Hunters and Aerial Spray while sharing aerial ±!refighting duties with our Air National 

Guard (ANG) partners. Last year showed great success. The Hurricane Hunters ±lew 135 

missions with more than 1,000 hours monitoring weather conditions in support of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Our Aerial Spray crews dropped 79,000 gallons of 

pesticides on over 191,000 acres to control disease and vegetation proliferation. The Reserve 

collaborated with the Guard to extinguish 16 raging wildfires, while amassing a total of 64 flight 

hours and 54 fire retardant drops which dispersed over 1.3 million pounds of retardant. These 

missions would not get done without the Air Force Reserve. 

The Air Force Reserve owns significant equity, over 25 percent, in many other missions 

providing critical support to the joint tight. We provide 60 percent to Aeromedical Evacuation, 

Page 14 
431

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

33 percent to Air Mobility Operations Squadrons, 56 percent of the Airlift Control Flights, and 

100 percent of the C-5 Formal Training Unit. These missions would have critical failures without 

the support of Reserve Citizen Airmen. 

In order to care for our Airmen, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) was 

established. They are responsible for the mobilization of Air Force Reserve personnel and retired 

active duty members when directed. ARPC provides administrative, records maintenance, and 

personnel support for over 1.3 million members of the RegAF, ANG, AFR and retired personnel 

in all categories. ARPC manages the complex processes, status dependent. of the Air Reserve 

Component. ARPC professionals have experience and training to understand these complexities 

and ensure both Guard and Reserve processes are seamlessly integrated into Air Force 

operations. 

Funding 

In addition to administering our own Reserve Personnel Appropriation and O&M dollars, 

a second source of our funding is the National Guard Reserve Equipment Appropriation 

(NGREA). Created in 1981 by Congress, NGREA is Guard and Reserve specific procurement 

dollars for aircraft modification and support equipment that ensures the Reserve and Guard 

operational combat capacity is not diminished. 

Historically, the Reserve Component has received Congressional funding through 

NGREA to modernize and fulfill our obligations to the Total Force. We continue to operate 

legacy systems, including the C-13011 and HH-60W which depend entirely on NGREA for 

sustainment. If other funding sources are unavailable, NGREA permits us to take small steps 

towards modernizing our fleet. 

Page 15 
432

CONCLUSION 

National Guard and Reserves 

May 24, 2017 

The Air Force Reserve will remain an integrated, flexible and combat-ready force 

providing accessible and sustainable capabilities as a viable Air Force Component supporting 

joint partners and national security objectives. Ensuring diverse. operational experience enables 

us to be a combat-ready force with continuity and depth. The key to our success in achieving 

balance between today's fight and tomorrow's threat is the right equipment, the right manning 

and stable. predictable funding. We must continue to build on our readiness and supporting 

systems and structures to handle current and future operational tempos. Armed with the right 

equipment and infrastmcture we can continue to impact the fight every day. Essential to our 

future as a ready force. we must shape our journey to be ready for the next fight while preserving 

our strength as an agile, professional. sustainable, reserve citizen airmen force. Thank you for 

your tremendous support of the Air Force Reserve and for the opportunity to represent your 

Reserve Citizen Airmen in our discussion today. l look forward to your questions. 

Page 16 
433

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for your 

testimony and for describing the service and the sacrifice and the 

needs of those that you represent here today. 

We will be using a timer this morning. We are going to reduce 

the time for you to ask and answer questions to 3 minutes, because 

of the size of the panel and the number of members who are here, 

and we have a hard end time at 12 o’clock. That will include questions and responses. If time permits, we would have a second 

round, but I doubt that will happen. 

I am going to call on Ms. McCollum first. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am going to submit for the record a question on Lodging-inKind, and what we can do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, 

our soldiers not paying out of pocket for some of the training that 

they perform. 

[The information follows:] 

LODGING-IN-KIND

WITNESS: MCCOLLUM, LUKE M.

Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, our soldiers 

not paying out of pocket for some of the training that they perform? 

Answer. Navy provides lodging, at no cost to members, for Navy Reservists who 

travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient Department of Defense (DOD) 

quarters are used whenever available. When DoD accommodations are not available, 

commercial berthing is provided at no personal expense to Navy Reserve personnel 

meeting eligibility requirements. When Navy Reservists are on travel orders (e.g., 

Inactive Duty Training Travel (IDTT), Annual Training (AT), Active Duty Training 

(ADT), and Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW)) to a location outside the vicinity 

of their drill site, they may receive lodging and per-diem pursuant to Joint Travel 

Regulations.

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, our soldiers 

not paying out of pocket for some of the training that they perform? 

Answer. For eligible, unaccompanied personnel, the Army National Guard 

(ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG) provides lodging-in-kind to members traveling over 50 miles for inactive duty training. The ARNG and ANG fund lodging 

in kind out of operations and maintenance accounts. 

WITNESS: MCMILLIAN, REX C.

Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, our soldiers 

not paying out of pocket for some of the training that they perform? 

Answer. The Marine Corps has used Inactive Duty Training (IDT) travel reimbursement to offset certain critically-short military occupational specialties and/or 

military billets. This is a targeted program that addresses the need of the Service 

to offset costs for Marines who have to travel to locations that are more than 150 

miles from the Home Training Center (HTC). We expanded the program to fill critically-short leadership billets over the past year. There aren’t any other programs 

that specifically target travel costs. As highlighted during the Reserve Component 

Duty Status reform process, Reserve Marines receive double the amount of basic 

pay for two drill periods performed in one day than if they were in one day of pay 

status. This differential can be seen as a means to lower out-of-pocket expenses. Due 

to the relatively small number of HTCs geographically, Marine Corps Reservists 

often have to travel long distances to attend training. 

WITNESS: MILLER, MARYANNE

Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, our soldiers 

not paying out of pocket for some of the training that they perform? 

Answer. Air Force provides lodging, at no cost to members, for Reservists who 

travel 50 miles, or more, to their drill site. Transient Department of Defense (DoD) 

quarters are used whenever available. Air Force also provides reimbursement for 
434

travel expenses up to $300 per drill weekend provided the reservist was assigned 

to a unit or position that was affected by a Defense Base Realignment or closure 

or if the individual is in a critical AFSC and there is a documented shortfall in the 

organization for that grade/skill level. 

WITNESS: LUCKEY, CHARLES D.

Question. What can we do to have, especially in the Army Reserve, our soldiers 

not paying out of pocket for some of the training that they perform? 

Answer. Regarding Lodging-in-Kind, we have addressed it internally by funding this program with $26 million per year average through FY22. Regarding the related issue of Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) travel outside the local commuting 

area, currently, the Joint Travel Regulations cap reimbursement for IDT–T expenses (e.g. plane tickets, rental cars, and lodging) at $300 per round trip for select 

Reserve Component members assigned to a unit or position that was affected by a 

Defense Base Realignment or closure or in a skill designated as critically short. 

Over 25% of claims submitted by Service Members to the Army Reserve are above 

the $300 limit. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. But I do have a question. I think 

it affects all of you. I commend people who decide to continue in 

the Reserves after their discharge. Sometimes it is a very heavy 

family discussion about whether or not people are going to stay in 

the Reserves. And so people who do that do it with their eyes wide 

open about what a deployment could really be meaning for them. 

So, when they come home, they come home as a citizen too. And 

this is a question I had had with General Luckey, but I want to 

pose this to all of you. In many, many cases, soldiers and airmen 

are deployed with as little as 30 days’ notice, and that can put a 

lot of strain on the family. So, because they have been planning 

their lives moving forward, they don’t have the same protection in 

their civilian jobs that sometimes—and I commend our businesses 

in Minnesota for what they do for our National Guard—but they 

have personal money invested. They are getting ready to close on 

homes. They might have paid tuition forward. 

What are we doing? What can we do to help you? What is your 

team doing to ensure that families of these soldiers and airmen, 

when they are given this short notice, that they don’t find themselves in financial harm or with unexpected consequences with 

their employment when they come back home? Thank you. 

General LUCKEY. To the extent that the question was initially directed to me, I will respond first. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota. I figured you would take one for 

the team. 

General LUCKEY. So, as you well know, and I think we have discussed this before, part of the focus from a priority-of-work perspective, if you will, of America’s Army Reserve is to make sure that 

we are tracking, if you will, or witting of which families and which 

units are most likely to be forced to do exactly what you just said, 

Congresswoman, which is move very quickly. 

This past weekend, I spent the better part of 2 days in Oklahoma 

City at what we call Family Programs University. It is an Army 

Reserve program to essentially bring in volunteers, family program 

coordinators, and family program facilitators from units, particularly those units that are most likely to be called to go first. 

So I can’t give you a complete comprehensive answer as it pertains necessarily to units located in eastern Minnesota. What I can 

tell you is the focus and the energy, if you will, of our efforts to 

make sure we have good quality engaged outreach, if you will, to 
435

families is particularly seized with the problem you have just articulated. So I want you to know that I am paying very close attention to that. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Thanks for that question. Just an additional thing I would add onto it. The greatest return on investment 

to the American taxpayer in the military for a transitioning military individual is if we can retain them into the Reserve Component. We don’t have to train them; we can take advantage of the 

time they spent on Active Duty. 

So it certainly behooves us to maximize and create an environment that allows that reservist to thrive, thrive with their families, 

thrive with their civilian employers. And the way I would answer 

that question is predictability. Create a predictable environment 

with funding that we don’t have a sustained period of long continuing resolutions, and that that predictability allows the reservist, with confidence, that they know that they can plan; there is 

going to be funding and funding available for the training to get 

ready to meet those commitments. 

Ms. GRANGER. Anyone else? 

You are welcome to respond. 

General MCMILLIAN. Ma’am, as you know, the Marine Corps is 

a force in readiness. We have to be ready to fight tonight. The 

Commandant depends very much on his Reserve Component to be 

ready on a moment’s notice. 

The biggest thing that we do is express that out to our Marines 

and their families at every opportunity, to be prepared mentally, 

to be prepared physically, to know their MOS, to not waste 1 

minute of their training time. We have 38 training days with them 

a year in order to prepare them to go downrange into combat. They 

have to be ready to fight tonight. 

We have a lot of history or examples throughout our history of 

having to get out the door very quickly, inside of 30 days, 45 days, 

and directly into combat. Their families know that; they are prepared for it. They are leaning forward. We ask them to reach out 

to their employers to make sure that they are aware of the commitment that they have to the United States Marine Corps and to the 

United States for the defense of this Nation. 

General MILLER. And for the Air Force Reserve, our response 

time is 72 hours. So, for those longer term deployments, at the Air 

Force, we have done an amazing job over the last 26 years of getting that battle rhythm of reservists deploying downrange. And we 

will give them 180 days’ notice to 270 days’ notice, and that is 

good. But every reservist knows they are on a 72-hour hook, and 

our systems support that. Our wing commanders support that. The 

Yellow Ribbon Program supports that, and we are structured to 

support that. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Womack. 

STATE OF READINESS

Mr. WOMACK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thanks to the distinguished panel that is gathered in front 

of us. Because of the short timeframe, I will go to one question. Before I do, I want to take just a moment of personal privilege in wel-
436

coming the great admiral over here, Mr. McCollum, who before he 

took this particular job was working at a small five-and-dime in 

northwest Arkansas that I represent and the proud parent I might 

also add of a young son who is making his rounds in the Arkansas 

General Assembly and doing remarkable work, and we are really, 

really proud of him. 

I wanted to ask the panel if they would just take a moment and 

tell us what their top one or two issues are right now. And I will 

take out of those answers funding, because we know funding is the 

answer to a whole lot of problems that everybody has. So we will 

just leave that off to the side. I don’t know if it is OPTEMPO. I 

don’t know if it is modernization. I don’t know if it is medical fitness. But in the Reserves, you have got a different set of issues 

that affect you. And so just go from Army down the line and give 

me the top two. What should this committee understand to be your 

top couple of issues? 

General LUCKEY. So thank you for the question. Very simply, two 

things: one, being able to generate the formations that I need to 

generate in the timelines required to support the warfighter, primarily focusing on two different theaters of operation, so the Pacific and Europe, and being able to generate, as I said in my opening remarks, capabilities on the orders of 10,000, 15,000 soldiers in 

less than 45 days up to 33,000 soldiers in about 90 days. So the 

units, if you will, incorporate those capabilities, and the soldiers in 

those units have to be at a very high degree of state of readiness. 

So my challenge, first of all, is to be able to identify those requirements, make sure that each one of those formations has the 

training, the equipment, the modernization, and the, if you will, 

mission command architecture to operate in a completely interoperable efficacious fashion with Active Component formations very 

quickly.

Inside that, I would say the number two thing is deployability of 

the individual soldiers, making sure that I am affording every soldier the opportunity to get everything that they need done so that 

they are completely in a deployable status at the time that somebody needs them to go do a job. So that is a persistent ongoing 

challenge for us, but we are getting after it. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

So you won’t allow us to use the word ‘‘budget,’’ but may I just use 

the word what the budget does for us. It creates wholeness. Creating wholeness creates the ability to generate readiness. And at 

its core, the U.S. Navy is an integrated force and the Navy Reserve, as a component of that, relies on the help of Congress to give 

us the ability to be whole, to fix our, what I would say, divots are 

in our readiness accounts, our maintenance accounts. And by doing 

that, the second thing it does then is it then generates readiness 

to deploy when and where the American public chooses us to go. 

General MCMILLIAN. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

I will tell you what keeps me awake at night is readiness of the 

force, the Reserve Forces, to fight tonight and be able to get out 

the door and seamlessly augment and reinforce the Active Component in a fistfight. 

The things that we need to do is investment in our future, modernization of our equipment, and then the maintenance of our leg-
437

acy equipment, those two things and, specifically, transition of the 

KC–130T and the AH–1Z attack helicopter for the Marine Corps 

Reserves.

General MILLER. The two things I think that are most important 

for the Air Force Reserve are the critical skills manning, particularly our pilot shortage and our cyber professionals. On the cyber 

side, industry is just pulling them. We can attract them, and we 

can train them, but we don’t keep them that long. So your Reserve 

and Guard are the capacity that can keep them in uniform, which 

is great. 

The other piece is weapon system sustainment and making sure 

that is—that is vital to our readiness. 

Mr. WOMACK. Thanks for the extra time. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

CYBER PROTECTION TEAMS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First, General, thank you for meeting with 

me yesterday. 

I want to get into cyber. When we met yesterday, you mentioned 

you were on track to provide 10 cyber protection teams for the 

Army Reserve. Those soldiers who are in cyber-related positions require specific skills, as we know. What challenges could you face 

with attempting to fill these cyber positions? 

MODERNIZATION OF READY FORCE

And let me ask you another readiness question. Then I will stop. 

The National Guard Reserve equipment account we know is critical 

to Army Reserve Force readiness. Can you explain how this account and the funds in it will be used to enhance the modernization of your ready force and what concerns you have with equipment currently on hand and modernization levels in the Army Reserve?

General LUCKEY. So, sir, if I may answer the second question 

first, very briefly. 

So, in the main, the money that has been given to us by the committee—and, again, thank you for that—basically along the lines I 

articulated here earlier this morning. So it is about mobility. So 

some of this is platforms, if you will. A significant portion of the 

investment portfolio is going to go against mission command systems. As I think I have explained to some members before, one of 

my concerns is making sure that every one of my platforms is completely interlocked, if you will, from a network perspective, in 

terms of communications, architecture, and Blue Force Tracker, to 

make sure that all of my formations are completely interoperable 

from a communications command-and-control perspective. So the 

priority is really focusing on lethality, mobility, and that net of C2, 

command and control, structure. 

Circling back to the issue about the cyber specifically, as I think 

I have mentioned before, from a build perspective, we are in a very 

good place. So you are correct, Congressman. So 10 cyber protection 

teams over time building out, we are on a good glide path for that. 

In fact, what I would say is—and I touched on it a little bit in my 

opening remarks—part of what we are doing in America’s Army 

Reserve is looking at those places in America where there is rap-
438

idly evolving, if you will, digital capabilities, technologies—so cyber, 

artificial intelligence, all sorts of, if you will, exploding capabilities 

in the private sector—making sure that the Army Reserve is posturing force structure to be able to retain and in some cases actually assess those capabilities into the Army Reserve, to make that 

a much more integrated part, if you will, of the Army’s linkage, the 

warfighter’s linkage, Department of Defense’s linkage to the emerging private sectors. 

I think I mentioned to you I have gone out to see private industry in many locations. We are investing capabilities and we are 

moving folks, if you will, or billets, opportunities to create structure 

into those rapidly developing parts of commercial America. So I 

think we are in a very good place. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Anybody else? 

General MCMILLIAN. Yes, sir, I will just dive in on that. We are 

building out in the Marine Corps Reserves two cyber protection 

teams from our marines who have gotten out, gotten into the civilian work sector, learned that skill set, and now finding out that we 

are trying to stand up two teams, one on the West Coast, one on 

the East Coast: one at the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in San 

Diego; the other one at the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force at 

Camp Lejeune. 

What drives these Marines to come back into the Reserves to join 

cyber protection teams is that they are closer to the fight. They 

want to be with those tactical deploying units that have the potential to go downrange and do work wherever the country may need 

them. So they are excited about getting their boots dirty and deploying downrange with tactical units. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Carter. 

READINESS AND RETENTION OF SKILLED PERSONNEL

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to address this question to the whole panel. General 

Luckey and I had a conversation yesterday. 

Thank you for coming by. I really appreciate that conversation. 

But as citizen lawyers and members of the Armed Forces Reserve, people are often called upon to face the challenge in the 

workforce, because people miss work due to their deployments. 

Please provide the subcommittee with your assessments of how 

these challenges affect not only readiness but retention of highly 

skilled personnel and what resources or assistance can we provide 

that will help you sustain your level of readiness and retention. 

General LUCKEY. So let me just take that first, if I may, very 

quickly.

I will tell you the biggest thing that this committee could do to 

continue to support America’s Army Reserve in this regard is to, 

if you will, be the influencers that can help me influence other 

influencers in America. As I have discussed with members of this 

committee before in a more informal context, part of our challenge 

is making sure we continue to message, as I said in my opening 

remarks, to the employers of America that they are strategic partners in the national security of the United States of America. And 

by allowing them, if you will, and encouraging them to understand 
439

how fundamentally important their support is to make sure that 

our soldiers—I would say sailors, airmen, and marines—all have 

an opportunity to be shared, if you will, between those employers 

and these teams is absolutely critical to us being able to continue, 

if you will, to take some pressure off our soldiers to be able to do 

both.

So I would just—I really don’t think this is about money so 

much. Fundamentally, it is about messaging and making sure our 

employers really understand how vital their support continues to 

be.

Admiral MCCOLLUM. And, sir, just to complement General 

Luckey’s words is the idea of partnerships and the idea of 

leveraging those relationships that these, in our case, sailors and 

airmen and marines, that they have, not only with their employers, 

but with friends of the military, and understanding those connection points and whatever constituency gathering, whatever activity 

that is in place, where we understand the heart and soul of what 

generates the capability of America’s military power, which is our 

people, and all those programs that support how we take care of 

our people, whether it is when they get back home in the repatriation programs or how we support them when they are forward in 

giving the readiness, finding the readiness to be ready, to distract 

them from any problems they may have otherwise. 

General MCMILLIAN. Much the same answer, sir. Thank you for 

the question. 

Again, we are at 95 percent manning across the board, highest 

I have ever seen it, healthiest I have ever seen it, morale, leadership, esprit de corps off the top of the charts. Reserve marines 

want to be here and serve and go downrange and do good work for 

our country. The key to that is the public support for their employers. I think their employers are proud to have marines in their organizations. But a pat on the back goes a long way, and so the public support, as General Luckey and Admiral McCollum have 

touched upon, is huge for us and helps out with our retention and 

the serving. 

General MILLER. Yes. For the Air Force Reserve, as I stated, the 

72-hour response time is the tether that we are all on. So, with 

that, we have a great relationship at every wing level across all our 

36 wings with the employees who are part of Guard and Reserve. 

So it is that expectation management between the reservist and 

the employer that we bring together around the table so there is 

no misunderstanding. 

A perfect example of that would be the airline pilot. General 

Goldfein last week got us together around the table with 70 airline 

executives from the majors to the regionals. And we sat around the 

table and said—we keep tugging on both—either—you know, we 

have the uniform arm, and they have the airline arm of these pilots, and we are pulling them. We are pulling them apart, basically.

So we had to sit around the table and basically come to an agreement of, how we are going to use this one asset, this national asset 

that has now become a crisis for this country? So that is the perfect 

example of how we work together with industry. And we are beginning steps to do that to work our way through this. 
440

Mr. CARTER. Well, I, for one, if you can get the information by 

congressional district of the employers that employ members of any 

of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the same request 

of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country. So, if you can 

get me that information, I will put my people to work to do that. 

[The information follows:] 
441

EMPLOYERS THAT EMPLOY MEMBERS

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. The National Guard Bureau does not have a method of tracking or collecting comprehensive employer data for all 54 states and territories. However, 

Service members nominated several employers of the National Guard from Texas’ 

31st Congressional District for the 2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support 

Freedom Award through the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESRG) 

program. The nominees include: (a) ARCIL Inc. (Round Rock) (b) Sprint (Killeen) 

(c) Wilsonart International (Temple) (d) Real Green Pest & Lawn (Round Rock) 

WITNESS: MCCOLLUM, LUKE M.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports 250 

Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service members live and/ 

or work in Texas’ 31st congressional district. The following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists. 

Company Mailing Address City, State, Zip 

Ash Chiropractic 3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5 Georgetown, TX 78628 

Georgetown ISD 1313 Williams Dr Georgetown, TX 78628 

Discount Tire 2720 E Whitestone Blvd Cedar Park, TX 78613 

City of Round Rock 301 E Main St Round Rock, TX 78664 

Firestone 100 E. Old Settlers Blvd Round Rock, TX 78664 

Mattress One 1208 N. IH35 Suite 900 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Dell 2401 Greenlawn Blvd Bldg 7 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Baylor Scott and White 2401 S 31st St Temple, TX 76508 

Johnson Controls 1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Pacesetter K9 LLC 555 County Road 200 Liberty Hill, TX 78260 

Dell Inc 7215 Alacia Dr Leander, TX 78641 

DFPS 503 Priest Dr Killeen, TX 76549 

Dell Inc 1 Dell Way Round Rock, TX 78664 

TEK Systems/Emerson 1100 Louis Henna Blvd Round Rock, TX 78681 

Baylor Scott & White 2401 S 31st St Temple, TX 76508 

Amplify 202 Walton Way Ste 200 Cedar Park, TX 78613 

WITNESS: MCMILLIAN, REX C.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico that employ Marine 

Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond to this question. 

WITNESS: MILLER, MARYANNE

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ Service 

members of any Reserve Components by congressional district. However, Employer 

Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support 

Freedom Award via the attached listing. These employers in Texas have earned 

praise from their Service member employees for their support of our reserve component military members. Other interested members can obtain similar data. 
442

WITNESS: LUCKEY, CHARLES D.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we do not track employer information for 

each member of the Army Reserve. With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all employers who provide employment support to America’s Army Reserve Soldiers. 

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards program. 

Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR 

presented 10,627 Patriot Awards to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Component employees and received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for 

their support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in 1996, 

the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250 employers (small, 

large, and public) who represent the best of the best in employer support of Reserve 

Component service. 

This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon ceremony 

for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award: 

1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia, Georgia. Nominator’s branch: Air Force Reserve 

2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough, Massachusetts. Nominator’s 

branch: Air National Guard 

3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator’s branch: Army 

National Guard 

4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nominator’s 

branch: Army National Guard 

6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado. Nominator’s 

branch: Army Reserve 

7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland. Nominator’s branch: 

Coast Guard Reserve 

8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana. Nominator’s 

branch: Air Force Reserve 

9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming. Nominator’s branch: 

Army National Guard 

11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator’s branch: Marine Corps Reserve 

12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator’s branch: Air National Guard 

13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator’s branch: Army National 

Guard

14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas. Nominator’s branch: 

Army Reserve 

15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

WITNESS: MCCOLLUM, LUKE M.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Naval Operational Support Center (NOSC) Austin, TX supports 250 

Navy Reservists and 9 Navy Reserve units. Many of these service members live and/ 
443

or work in Texas’ 31st congressional district. The following is a list of major employers of NOSC Austin Reservists. 

Company Mailing Address City, State, Zip 

Ash Chiropractic 3688 Williams Dr, Ste 5 Georgetown, TX 78628 

Georgetown ISD 1313 Williams Dr Georgetown, TX 78628 

Discount Tire 2720 E Whitestone Blvd Cedar Park, TX 78613 

City of Round Rock 301 E Main St Round Rock, TX 78664 

Firestone 100 E. Old Settlers Blvd Round Rock, TX 78664 

Mattress One 1208 N. IH35 Suite 900 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Dell 2401 Greenlawn Blvd Bldg 7 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Baylor Scott and White 2401 S 31st St Temple, TX 76508 

Johnson Controls 1908 Kramer Ln Ste 100 Round Rock, TX 78664 

Pacesetter K9 LLC 555 County Road 200 Liberty, Hill, TX 78260 

Dell Inc 7215 Alacia Dr Leander, TX 78641 

DFPS 503 Priest Dr Killeen, TX 76549 

Dell Inc 1 Dell Way Round Rock, TX 78664 

TEK Systems/Emerson 1100 Louis Henna Blvd Round Rock, TX 78681 

Baylor Scott & White 2401 S 31st St Temple, TX 76508 

Amplify 202 Walton Way Ste 200 Cedar Park, TX 78613 

WITNESS: MCMILLIAN, REX C.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Information and data collection concerning employers in 47 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico that employ Marine 

Corps reservists is not easily attained or readily available. We are currently reviewing options to satisfactorily respond to this question. 

WITNESS: MILLER, MARYANNE

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. The Air Force Reserve does not track employers that employ Service 

members of any Reserve Components by congressional district. However, Employer 

Support for the Guard and Reserves (ESGR) provided a listing of employers nominated by Service members for the FY 2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support 

Freedom Award via the attached listing. These employers in Texas have earned 

praise from their Service member employees for their support of our reserve component military members. Other interested members can obtain similar data. 

WITNESS: LUCKEY, CHARLES D.

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Congressman Carter, we appreciate your support and willingness to contact employers in your district and while the USAR works closely with many employers in communities across the nation, we do not track employer information for 

each member of the Army Reserve. With that in mind, we believe providing a partial list would potentially be damaging to your overall goal of recognizing all employers who provide employment support to America’s Army Reserve Soldiers. 

Question. Can you get the information by congressional district of the employers 

that employ members of any of the Reserve Components—I am going to make the 

same request of the National Guard—our office will personally send them a letter 

commending them for their service to their country? 

Answer. Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) recognizes outstanding employers on a regular basis through its progressive awards program. 

Starting with the Patriot Award all the way up to the Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, ESGR works to build positive employment environments for Reserve Component members and veterans. In Fiscal Year 2016, ESGR 

presented 10,627 Patriot Awards to supervisors nominated by their Reserve Compo-
444

nent employees and received 3,064 nominations for the Freedom Award. The Freedom Award is the highest honor given by the U.S. government to employers for 

their support of employees who serve in the Reserve Components. Started in 1996, 

the Freedom Award has been presented to a total of only 250 employers (small, 

large, and public) who represent the best of the best in employer support of Reserve 

Component service. 

This year, the following 15 employers were recognized at a Pentagon ceremony 

for the annual Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award: 

1. Accordia Urgent Healthcare & Family Practice of Vidalia, Georgia. Nominator’s branch: Air Force Reserve 

2. Boston Scientific Corporation of Marlborough, Massachusetts. Nominator’s 

branch: Air National Guard 

3. Cargill, Incorporated of Wayzata, Minnesota. Nominator’s branch: Army 

National Guard 

4. Comcast NBCUniversal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

5. CSI Aviation, Incorporated of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nominator’s 

branch: Army National Guard 

6. Hensel Phelps Construction Company of Greely, Colorado. Nominator’s 

branch: Army Reserve 

7. Howard County Fire & Rescue of Columbia, Maryland. Nominator’s branch: 

Coast Guard Reserve 

8. Indianapolis Fire Department of Indianapolis, Indiana. Nominator’s 

branch: Air Force Reserve 

9. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

10. Mesa Natural Gas Solutions of Casper, Wyoming. Nominator’s branch: 

Army National Guard 

11. Office of the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District of Centennial, Colorado. Nominator’s branch: Marine Corps Reserve 

12. Renown Health of Reno, Nevada. Nominator’s branch: Air National Guard 

13. Salt River Project of Tempe, Arizona. Nominator’s branch: Army National 

Guard

14. Andeavor (formerly Tesoro) of San Antonio, Texas. Nominator’s branch: 

Army Reserve 

15. Zapata, Incorporated of Charlotte, North Carolina. Nominator’s branch: 

Air National Guard 

General LUCKEY. I appreciate that, sir. 

Ms. GRANGER. I can say the same thing. Thank you. 

When you are talking about messaging, if there is—I have a Reserve base, as you mentioned, thank you, in my district—but some 

way to make sure that we are telling communities how important 

it is to encourage this with employers. Any ideas, any places where 

they are doing it really well, if you would pass it on to all of us, 

then we will encourage that, because that partnership is just vital. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Cuellar. 

REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN CUELLAR

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I don’t have any questions except to say thank you for what you 

all do. We really, really appreciate it. We want to be supportive in 

any way. 

I do associate myself to the questions, to the comments also. I 

would like to get followup on that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mrs. Roby. 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. 
445

Thank you all for being here, and a very heartfelt thank you to 

all of your families for their service and sacrifice as well. 

With all the professional military education conducted at Maxwell Air Force Base, I am well aware of the emphasis that the services place on PME, and rightly so. The investments in education 

and career development are critical to the development of our next 

generation of military leaders. 

That being said, I am very concerned about possible disparities 

between Reserve and Active Duty servicemembers with regard to 

pay and benefits as it relates to PME. While a soldier on Active 

Duty receives full pay and credit toward retirement while attending PME courses, a reservist is often balancing, obviously, a civilian career and completing these courses by correspondence. Not 

only is the reservist not paid, in many cases, the reservist gets no 

credit toward their retirement. 

And so what needs to happen to fix this disparity, particularly 

as it relates toward retirement credit, and how quickly can we 

make this happen? And I will be quiet and let you answer. Thank 

you very much. 

General LUCKEY. So let me jump on that first, if I may, Congresswoman.

So I will just tell you, as a soldier who went to the Army War 

College and, to your point, spent the better part of 2 years doing 

it by sort of—some of it was virtual; some of it was paper; some 

of it was—but it ruined—I won’t say it ruined. It consumed weekends for the Luckey family for a couple years. And then we had the 

summer sessions where I would go to Carlisle for 2 weeks. 

I will just tell you that I was completely compensated for the 

time that I spent at Carlisle by the Army, and I received a master’s 

degree from the Army War College as part of the program. Candidly, while I got retirement points for, if you will, the coursework 

that I accomplished, I am not going to sit here and tell you that 

necessarily in some cases I felt that it was—I mean, some of the 

work was very difficult, frankly. 

But I will just tell you, on behalf of the Army, on behalf of America’s Army Reserve, I don’t think that there is a compensation issue 

or a credit issue as it pertains to retirement as it pertains to the 

Professional Military Education program of the Army. 

What I will tell you is it is a challenge. My guess is it is true 

for all the services. It is a challenge for Reserve soldiers to balance 

all the requirements of their lives. But the reality is I have fantastic soldiers who have support of their families and, by and large, 

support of their employers. We talked earlier. I didn’t touch on this 

data point, but I think it is relevant. The authorized end strength 

of the United States Army Reserve, you know, is going back to 

199,000, and right now, I am at 198,000 soldiers. 

So I guess what I would say is this is not a pressing concern for 

me. So I respect your question and I appreciate it, but this is not 

a pressing concern for America’s Army Reserve. 

Admiral MCCOLLUM. Thank you, ma’am, for that question. 

I would say, for the Navy Reserve, it is very similar to what General Luckey just said. The Navy Reserve sailors are motivated, 

dedicated, and they are awesomely inspiring, and they do have this 
446

complexity of the family and civilian jobs. So it is a little bit different to master from just having one focus of their employment. 

Where the conversations generally go regarding AC/RC ends up 

in the benefits area. In the case, we do have an authority right 

now, the 12304 bravo, which is basically an authority to let a reservist deploy. So the benefits don’t currently match. And I know 

that work is underway to address that. So that is where I hear 

more of the work and the questions. 

General MCMILLIAN. Great question, ma’am. Thank you for the 

question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is focused on 

building a fifth-generation Marine Corps, highly technical, highly 

advanced. I need to build a fifth-generation Reserve part of that to 

augment and reinforce. Along with that comes education. But I am 

book-ended by readiness. I have 38 training days to train our marines ready to go downrange, as you have heard me talk about, to 

be ready to go to combat. 

So I need to take full advantage—and this is my point—with online training and getting the pay and the benefits between drills, 

between those 28 days that I don’t have them during the month, 

to bring them up to speed educationally. So we are working towards that, and we have great support in the Marine Corps. 

General MILLER. Within the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve, 

we are moving more toward the virtual. And, with that, you know, 

our folks just achieve greatness. Many of them, if not all of them, 

have master’s degrees on the officer side. On the enlisted side, 

those numbers are going up. So this young group coming in just 

achieve and overachieve, and they are not really concerned about 

getting compensated for that. They just do it. And the same for the 

Professional Military Education. It is just a requirement and an expectation that we have had, and we just do it. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you all. 

I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Ryan. 

ANTITERRORISM AND FORCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have a question for General Miller, a couple I will try to 

squeeze in, and, hopefully, you can get to them. And I will make 

the committee aware that you are a graduate of a small unknown 

university in Columbus, Ohio, called the Ohio State University. 

And we are grateful for your service. So thank you very much. 

Two quick questions: One, last year, our committee identified in 

the report that many Reserve facilities do not meet antiterrorism 

and force protection requirements, and that these deficiencies result in traffic, congestion in surrounding roads. And these congested access points, as we saw recently in the U.K. with the terrorist attack, can be a major issue. 

The response from the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Budget last year stated the requirements would be met in 2022, 

which, in my estimation, is way too long to wait for those kinds of 

security measures. 

So can you comment on that? 
447

C–130JS

And the other question is with regard to the C–130Js and, specifically, if we have enough with regard to specialty missions. I am 

concerned that those areas and those planes and the training necessary to deal with the specialty missions, that we are not where 

we need to be with that. 

General MILLER. Regarding the security measures, thank you all 

for the additional appropriation in 2017 for FSRM. We brought in 

$65 million. You appropriated $65 million for additions. I just 

looked at the list. None of those include gates, the security around 

the installation. So I will go back and see. We do a facilities assessment every year at every base. So I will do a quick review and see 

where we are lacking in that and get back with you on that specifically.

Regarding the C–130Js, the last recapitalization for the Air Force 

Reserve for Js was in 2007 at Keesler, and we recapitalized 20, 

partly for the weather mission there and then the operational mission there at Keesler. That is the last C–130J that the Air Force 

Reserve received, and there is none programmed in the POM for 

us. And that is a decision with the Air Force just due to limited 

funding; that is where we are on that program. 

The AMP 1 and AMP 2 on our H model fleet is critical to the 

longevity of that mission set. 

If there were funding that were set aside for the Js for the Air 

Force Reserve, then I would actually put that in the special missions at Youngstown and the firefighting unit at Peterson. That is 

where those J models would go, if recapitalized, and there would 

be 60 needed for that. 

But right now, it is not in the program, and there is just no room 

in the program, given where we need to go for the future fight. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Visclosky. 

REMARKS OF MR. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I don’t have a question, but in response to my colleague’s opening 

remarks, Mr. Ryan, I would point out that, while Ohio State is an 

incredible athletic institution—the decor of my Washington office is 

patterned after your colors—in the National Fencing Championship 

round, it was Notre Dame-1, Ohio State-2. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thanks for your time, your attention to the committee’s concerns. Please feel free at any time to remind us or talk 

to us more so we can serve you the very best because we respect 

what you do. 

This concludes today’s hearing. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto 

follow:]
448

HIGH MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES (HMMWVS)

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. The Alabama National Guard has about 1,330 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). Almost 60% of them are over 13 years old. To 

say the least, the HMMWV Modernization Program has been very successful and 

has brought 124 much needed new vehicles to the Alabama National Guard and 

over 2,200 nationwide. Does your FY 2018 Budget include funding to continue this 

program?

Answer. Yes, the FY18 President’s Budget included a requirement for $53M to 

continue modernizing HMMWVs. With Congress’ support during the last four years, 

the ARNG has modernized over 2,788 Up-Armored HMMWVs and HMMWV Ambulances with the most modern operational capabilities and Soldier safety upgrades. 

The ARNG plans to maintain its readiness through the synchronization of all Light 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle modernization and recapitalization efforts in accordance 

with the Army’s Light Tactical Vehicle Modernization Strategy. The ARNG 

HMMWV modernization improvements is the direct result of year-to-year Congressional Line-Items. To date this funding has been used to accelerate ARNG LTV 

modernization efforts which has greatly enhanced unit readiness for dual use and 

contingency operations. 

DUAL-STATUS MILITARY TECHNICIANS

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. The FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act directed DoD to convert 20% of administrative, clerical, finance, and office service dual-status military 

technicians, and all non-dual status technicians to Title 5 federal civilian employees 

on 1 January 2016, to include Title 32 technicians. To date, our committee has included language in appropriations bills to state that no funds would be used to support this effort. Is this conversion something that you support? What impact would 

a 20% conversion of technicians to Title 5 federal civilians have on the National 

Guard Bureau? Also, is there a conversion percentage that you would consider acceptable for your organization? 

Answer. As the Chief National Guard Bureau I have an inherent Title 10 responsibility to execute the law as it is written. That said, as previously discussed in my 

own testimony I favor a smaller conversion number than what is currently called 

for and would support congressional efforts to reduce the required percentage. A 

20% conversion will have a negative impact. As I stated in previous testimony the 

smaller the conversion number the better when it comes to readiness of the National Guard. I believe, as I have testified that there is some number that can be 

converted with minimal impact to readiness; I don’t believe that number is 20 percent.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt. 

Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and answers thereto follow:] 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION (PME)

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. In light of the publication of Department of Defense Instruction 1215.17 

in 2013 as well as the increasing use of virtual training for Professional Military 

Education (PME), does your service provide retirement credit for Reservists completing PME? If not, what steps would be required to provide credit to all reservists 

who completed PME since the publication of his DODI? 

Answer. Title 10 United States Code, § 12732(a)(2) does not permit the awarding 

of retirement credit for Reserve Component Service members who complete training 

via distributed electronic methods. This is an issue the Department is examining 

as part of its review of Reserve Component duty status reform. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby. Questions submitted by Mr. Graves and answers thereto follow:] 
449

DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS CONVERSION

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this accurate? Were the Adjutants General or 

the Governors consulted when identifying the positions for conversion? 

Answer. (1) It is my understanding that National Guard Bureau has provided information to Congress regarding dual status technician positions identified for conversion per the NDAA requirement. Is this accurate? Answer. Yes, to both the 

HASC and SASC at different times and at their requests. (2) Were the Adjutants 

General or the Governors consulted when identifying the positions for conversion? 

Answer. Yes to both entities. The Adjutants General and National Governor’s Council were and continue to be heavily involved in the process. The Adjutant General’s 

provided their best military advice in the Report to Congress directed by NDAA 

2016.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Graves. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and answers thereto follow:] 

TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE STRATEGY

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. The Army intends to maintain a mixed fleet of 104,099 tactical wheeled 

vehicles, including 50,000 HMMWVs and 49,099 JLTVs. At one point the Army 

planned to continue operating 100,000 HMMWVs, but that strategy has shifted to 

maintain a nearly even mix of HMMWVs and JLTVs.—Over the past several fiscal 

years, this Committee has added significant additional funding to modernize the 

HMMWV fleets of the Guard and reserve components.—Given that the HMMWV 

will remain half of Army’s light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet beyond 2040, can you 

share the plan to maintain and modernize the readiness of the National Guard and 

Reserve HMMWVs? Do you feel that Army leadership is committed to funding this 

plan?—Please explain the Army’s intentions for the nearly 26,000 HMMWVs that 

are supposedly no longer required? Was there any discussion of repurposing these 

vehicles for the National Guard dual-purpose mission? 

Answer. Congressional support has enabled the Army National Guard (ARNG) to 

purchase 1,509 HMMWV Ambulances and modernize 1,279 Up-Armored HMMWVs 

since 2013. As such, the ARNG will replace our entire HMMWV Ambulance fleet 

by 2019. The Army’s Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle modernization and recapitalization efforts include the National Guard and Reserve. The ARNG supports the 

Army’s HMMWV Modernization Strategy of improving all HMMWVs by recapitalizing existing assets. The Army’s HMMWV Modernization Strategy incorporates 

JLTV deliveries, Up-Armor HMMWV modernization and Un-Armored HMMWV 

modernization, roles and missions. The Army has fully supported the ARNG’s Light 

Tactical Vehicle modernization strategy with funding. The ARNG’s Light Tactical 

Vehicle modernization strategy is aligned with the Army’s overall strategy and also 

meets the ARNG objectives and requirements for dual-use Light Tactical Vehicles. 

The ARNG is assisting the Army in developing a plan for HMMWVs which fall outside the JLTV and Up-Armored HMMWV requirements. Although not finalized, 

ARNG Light Tactical Vehicle dual-use requirements are included in the way-ahead 

strategy.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky. 

Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and answers thereto follow:] 

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

WITNESS: LENGYEL, JOSEPH L.

Question. With Russia’s increasing aggression, how do you plan to enhance the 

State Partnership Program? What more can the State Partnership Program in 

Ukraine and Hungary do to enhance the area of civil works/transportation infrastructure in those countries? 

Answer. The State Partnership Program began in Europe at the close of the Cold 

War with the purpose of establishing enduring relationships to reassure our allies, 

deter aggression, and help our partners provide more effectively for their own security. Currently, the program has partnerships with 12 former Soviet Bloc nations. 

The State Partnership Program is and will remain an important tool for Combatant 
450

Commanders advancing America’s national security interests in Europe and around 

the globe. In addition to obtaining necessary funding through the Program Objective 

Memorandum (POM) process to execute a full slate of partnership activities in 

FY18, the National Guard will continue seeking innovative ways to leverage the 

unique skills of the Guard’s Citizen-Soldiers and-Airmen as well as the strong relationships that Guard members have built over the years to meet emerging security 

challenges. The Commander, U.S. European Command, the lead U.S. Department 

of Defense command in both Ukraine and Hungary, will determine the projects undertaken by the State Partnership Program in those countries. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.] 
(451)

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017. 

FY 2018 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET OVERVIEW 

WITNESSES

HON. JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, USMC, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF 

STAFF

DAVID NORQUIST, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today, we will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Department of Defense. 

As the incoming chair of the Defense Subcommittee, I said that 

the defense bill would be based on the needs of our military and 

the best military advice from our leaders in uniform. Unfortunately, after extensive conversations with our military leaders, I 

am concerned that the fiscal year 2018 defense budget request is 

not enough to address the shortfalls and damage caused by years 

of underfunding. The budget caps have enlarged that problem and 

must be repealed. 

For many years, military leaders have said they would get the 

mission done no matter the level of funding they received. That is 

no longer possible, and it is our job to make sure our military has 

what it needs to face the many threats to our Nation. 

All Federal dollars are not the same. During a time when we face 

threats from Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and other terrorist 

groups, we must prioritize our defense funding first. Our adversaries are rapidly advancing their tactics and their capabilities. 

The fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill must ensure our capabilities remain more advanced and more lethal than our adversaries. 

The last thing we want to give our enemies is a fair fight. 

General Dunford, in 2012, your predecessor, General Dempsey, 

testified that we were living in the most dangerous era of his lifetime. That was true when he made the statement, and the world 

is so much more dangerous today. 

Unfortunately, I am concerned that the fiscal year budget request doesn’t go far enough. Our senior military leaders tell us this 

is the minimal level needed to stop the deterioration of our military 

readiness.

As you had said, Secretary Mattis, it will take years of increased 

funding to get us to where we need to be, and the budget request 

should be viewed as the first step for what is truly needed to rebuild our national defense. 

This fiscal year 2018 budget process is especially complicated, 

and we have a big job in front of us and little time to complete it. 

The world isn’t standing still, and the threats of today and tomor-
452

row are not waiting on our budget cycle. It is my hope we can find 

a bipartisan common ground to give our military the robust support that our service chiefs and combatant commanders tell us they 

desperately need. This is where our witnesses come in to help us 

clarify what we need to do. 

Before I introduce them, I would like to recognize our ranking 

member, Mr. Visclosky, for any opening remarks he would like to 

make.

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. The only thing I would say, Madam Chair, is 

thank you for holding the hearing and, gentlemen, for your service, 

for your testimony today, and I would commend the Secretary of 

Defense for his very good judgment in bringing aboard Mr. 

Norquist as Comptroller. Despite the fact that he graduated from 

the University of Michigan, I think he is eminently qualified for 

the position given his 6 years of experience as a member of our 

subcommittee staff, and I am very serious about that. 

Good luck to you, David. 

Mr. NORQUIST. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. GRANGER. I call on Chairman Frelinghuysen. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN FRELINGHUYSEN

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I am going to go through my remarks because I think it is important to say a few things, but, first of all, I want to join on all the 

members and Chairwoman Granger in thanking you all for being 

here, especially those brothers in arms that have sat together at 

this table on a variety of earlier occasions. 

Today’s hearing is an important part of the oversight duties of 

this committee. After all, the power of the purse lies in this building. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to make spending decisions on behalf of the people we represent at home. 

Secretary Mattis, we gather here this morning to review the 

budget of the Department of Defense, the posture of our Armed 

Forces, and to determine how this committee can help our soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, marines meet the many threats and challenges this 

very dangerous world has produced, because when it comes to the 

men and women in uniform, their missions are our missions, and 

we want to hear your clear priorities for making them more successful and safe. 

What is our strategy in Syria? What level of success are we having in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even as we have a policy to accelerate and to annihilate ISIS, we also recognize that threats are 

growing across the globe from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, 

transnational jihadists, hackers, and cyberterrorists. Your needs 

are great, but the current resources available to you are not adequate.

We share your opposition to the BCA, the Budget Control Act. 

We will work to lift its restrictions, but this hearing is all about 

an opportunity for you to tell us exactly what you need in the short 

term and long term. 
453

Mr. Secretary, I have questions also about the devolution of 

warfighting command authority from our Commander in Chief to 

subordinates both civilian and military. While we never want the 

President and the National Security Council to be involved in the 

minute details of operational decisions, we do have questions about 

how to strike a proper balance. 

Secretary Mattis, I hear the constant drumbeat of concern from 

field officers and enlisted personnel about the rules of engagement 

during visits to the Middle East, which all of us feel are important, 

and even from the perspective of visiting Bethesda and Walter 

Reed Hospital. Previously, they were too restrictive; now, I am 

hearing they are confusing. 

In another important area, I think I speak on behalf of all of my 

colleagues when I say we endorse the marriage of hard and soft 

power, military capability and diplomacy to ensure our national security. As we prepare the defense appropriations bill under Congresswoman Granger’s leadership and a State, foreign operations 

bill, we will ask you to weigh in. 

Finally, the general accounting office recently identified five key 

challenges that significantly affect your Department’s ability to accomplish its mission. These include: top of the list, rebuild readiness; secondly, mitigate threats to cyberspace and expand cyber capabilities; thirdly, control the escalating costs of certain weapons 

systems and, yes, of course, strategically managing your human 

capital; and, lastly, achieving greater efficiencies in defense business operations. 

We do not need a special report to tell us that we have a readiness problem—I am sure you will do that in your statements—or 

that the Department of Defense has acquisition challenges, but we 

do look forward to hearing your strategy to address these issues 

and their recommendations. 

And, with that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time, and 

I thank the panel for being here with us again. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Ranking Member Lowey. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MRS. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I would like to thank Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky for holding this hearing. 

And I welcome sincerely Secretary Mattis and General Dunford 

and Under Secretary—your title now is Under Secretary of Defense—David Norquist. I know many of us sleep better at night in 

this very difficult world knowing that you are there making decisions. Thank you for appearing before us today. 

We do live in such a dangerous world in which the threats emanate from every corner of the globe, including North Korea’s belligerence; ISIL’s increasingly common attacks in the Middle East and 

Europe; Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Africa; Iran’s destabilizing 

activities in the Middle East and state sponsor of terrorism; cyber 

attacks on U.S. interests at home and overseas; continued Russian 

aggression in the Ukraine, to name just a few. 

The Department of Defense’s task to track the quickly changing 

global security landscape and ensure the defense of our Nation and 

our allies is both exceedingly challenging and costly. 
454

Secretary Mattis, your fiscal year 2018 budget requests $564.7 billion in the base budget and $63.9 billion in overseas contingency 

operations funding. The base budget request is $52 billion above 

DOD’s share of the fiscal year 2018 budget cap in current law. The 

President’s corresponding proposal to cut nondefense discretionary 

funds to pay for it would outright cripple important investments 

needed here at home. 

While I am very pleased that your budget focuses on readiness 

and strengthening our military, I have serious concerns about how 

this dynamic world would impact nondefense discretionary funding, 

which is equally important and contributes to our national security. 

Quite simply, the President’s budget request forsakes critical 

nondefense programs, many of which support our men and women 

in uniform, contribute to national security, and even enable our 

ability to maintain ready and able Armed Forces. 

For example, Major General Jeffrey Snow, the Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command notes that 

only 3 in 10 recruits can meet the requirements to join the Army. 

That is an extraordinary statistic. The two things Major General 

Snow recommended are, and I quote, ‘‘something as simple as what 

our kids are fed in schools,’’ end quote, and the importance of not 

doing away with physical education programs. And yet this administration would roll back guidelines for healthy school meals and 

proposes to cut $400 million from education and academic support 

initiatives, including physical education. 

Even retired General Stanley McChrystal has raised concerns, 

stating that public broadcasting, which this budget proposes to 

eliminate, makes us, quote, ‘‘smarter, stronger, and, yes, safer.’’ 

General Mattis, you have said, and I quote, ‘‘If you don’t fund the 

State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition,’’ yet 

the increases you request come at the expense of the 32-percent reduction in the international affairs budget, which would put American lives in danger, a fact underscored in a recent letter by 120— 

120—three- and four-star generals, and would abdicate our leadership in the world. 

This administration is heading down a dangerous path by proposing increases in defense spending, which I certainly support, 

while falling short of our obligations for education, healthcare, 

transportation, support for law enforcement, and first responders 

and more. 

Congress must reject President Trump’s misguided budget request and instead pass appropriation bills that support national security and American families alike. 

And I just want to say in closing: I have been on this committee 

a long time, and I am proud to be on this committee because we 

have always worked constructively in a bipartisan way. 

So I am looking forward to this discussion. I look forward to your 

comments. And I do hope we can approach this budget and all the 

other essential parts of the budget sincerely and be successful in 

creating an appropriate balance. 

Thank you so much for appearing before us today. 

Ms. GRANGER. Chairman Emeritus Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Chairman, I will forego. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 
455

And I will do the same. 

Again, allow me to introduce our witnesses. Secretary of Defense 

Jim Mattis comes to the civilian leadership of the Department after 

a long and illustrious career in the Marine Corps in which he 

served in several senior command positions, including combat commands in Afghanistan and Iraq, before retiring with the rank of 

general in 2013. 

General Joseph Dunford is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and is making his second appearance before us. Like Secretary Mattis, General Dunford is a Marine with a long and distinguished career and served as Commandant of the Marine Corps 

prior to becoming Chairman. 

Appearing with Secretary Mattis and General Dunford is David 

Norquist, who recently was sworn in as the new Comptroller of the 

Department of Defense. 

Mr. Norquist, thank you for being here today, also. 

Secretary Mattis we will begin with your opening statement, followed by General Dunford. Please summarize your statements so 

that we are able to get to our questions as quickly as possible. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY MATTIS

Secretary MATTIS. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the committee. I appreciate 

this opportunity to testify in support of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2018. 

And, Madam Chairman, I request that the committee accept my 

written statement for the record. 

I am joined today by Chairman Dunford and the Comptroller so 

that, hopefully, if there are detailed questions, we can actually answer them all right here in front of you today. I would like to give 

an opening statement, chairwoman, because I think I can address 

some of the issues that have been brought up already, and it 

should take only a few minutes. 

But this budget request does hold me accountable to the men and 

women of the Department of Defense. Every day, as you know, 

more than 2 million servicemembers, nearly a million civilians, do 

their duty, and in doing so, they honor previous generations of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed for our country, and 

it is my privilege to be back among them. 

We in the Department are keenly aware of the sacrifices made 

by the American people to fund our military. Many times in the 

past, we have had as a country to look reality in the eye and meet 

challenges with the help of congressional leadership building the 

most capable warfighting force in the world. 

There is no room for complacency in the Department of Defense, 

and we have no God-given right to victory on the battlefield. Each 

generation of Americans, from the Halls of Congress to the battlefield, earns victory through commitment and sacrifice. And, yet, for 

4 years, the Department has been subjected to or threatened by 

automatic across-the-board cuts as a result of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so injurious to the military, it would never go 

into effect. But it did go into effect, and as forecast by then-Secretary of Defense Panetta the damage has been severe. 
456

In addition, during 9 of the last 10 years, Congress has enacted 

separate continuing resolutions to fund the Department of Defense, 

thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new challenges. We 

need bipartisan support for this request, as noted by the chairwoman. In the past, by failing to pass a budget on time or to eliminate the threat of sequestration, Congress sidelined itself from its 

active constitutional oversight role. 

Continuing resolutions coupled with sequestrations blocked new 

programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry’s initiatives, 

and placed troops at greater risk. Despite the tremendous efforts 

of this committee, Congress as a whole has met the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership. 

I retired from military service 3 months after sequestration took 

effect. Four years later, I have returned to the Department. I am 

shocked by what I have seen about our readiness to fight. While 

nothing can compare to the heartache caused by the loss of our 

troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to 

harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration. We 

have only sustained our ability to meet America’s commitments for 

our security because our troops have stoically shouldered a much 

greater burden, but our troops’ stoic commitment cannot reduce the 

growing risk. 

It took us years to get into this situation, as the Chairwoman 

noted. It will require years of stable budgets and increased funding 

to get us out of it. I urge members of this committee and Congress 

to achieve these goals: 

First, fully fund our request, which requires an increase to the 

defense budget caps. 

Second, pass a fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner to 

avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution. 

And, third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts to 

provide a stable budgetary planning horizon. 

Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of 

four external factors that are impacting the Department at this 

time.

The first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16 years 

of war. When Congress approved the all-volunteer force in 1973, 

our country never envisioned sending our military to war for more 

than a decade without pause or conscription. America’s long war 

has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform and 

their families. 

And here I will note a few points on Afghanistan that were 

brought up during the opening remarks by the committee, recognizing there that our military posture is part of a larger regional 

context in South Asia. Our primary national interest and the international interest in Afghanistan is ensuring it does not become an 

ungoverned space from which attacks can again be launched 

against the United States, other nations, or the Afghan people. In 

this regard, our forces are conducting partnered counterterrorism 

operations, and we are supporting the NATO-led mission so, in the 

future, the Afghan people can defend themselves. 

This week, President Trump delegated to me the authority to 

manage troop numbers in Afghanistan. The delegation of this authority, consistent with the authority President Trump granted me 
457

2 months ago for Iraq and Syria, does not at this time change the 

troop numbers for Afghanistan. Together in the interagency process 

with Secretary Tillerson’s foreign policy guiding us as he implements the President’s direction, we will define the way ahead, and 

I will set the U.S. military commitment consistent with the Commander in Chief’s strategic direction and his foreign policy, as dictated by Secretary of State Tillerson. This ensures our Department 

can facilitate our missions and nimbly align the commitment of 

troops to the situation on the ground. 

Our overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same: to train, 

advise, and assist the Afghan forces so they can safeguard the Afghan people and terrorists find no haven in Afghanistan for attacking us or others. The revised Afghanistan strategy with a new approach will be presented to the President for his approval in the 

coming weeks. 

The second concurrent force acting on our Department is the 

worsening global security situation that was mentioned by all 

members of the committee in their opening remarks. And here we 

must look reality in the eye. Russia and China are seeking a veto 

authority over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of 

nations on their periphery. North Korea’s reckless rhetoric and provocative actions continue, despite United Nations’ censure and 

sanctions, while Iran remains the largest long-term challenge to 

Mideast stability. All the while, terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many regions while targeting us. 

The third force that we have to deal with is adversaries actively 

contesting America’s capabilities. For decades, we enjoyed 

uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain or 

realm. We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and employ them, operate them as 

we wanted. Every operating domain today, on the other hand, from 

outer space to air, sea, undersea, land, and cyberspace is contested. 

The fourth concurrent force that we must deal with is rapid technological change. Among the other forces noted thus far, technological change is one that necessitates new investment, innovative 

approaches, and new program starts that have been denied us by 

law when we have been forced to operate under continuing resolutions.

Each of these four forces—16 years of war, the worsening security environment, contested operations in multiple domains, and 

the rapid pace of technological change—requires stable budgets and 

increased funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and 

for the survival of our freedoms. 

I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as Secretary of Defense. The fundamental responsibility of our government is to defend the American people, providing for our security, 

and we cannot defend America and help others if our Nation is not 

both strong and solvent. 

So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the American public and the Congress to ensure we spend each dollar wisely. President Trump has nominated for Senate approval specific individuals 

who will bring proven skills to discipline our Department’s fiscal 

processes and ensure that we do so. 
458

The first step in restoring readiness is underway thanks to Congress’ willingness to support the administration’s request for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017 to address vital 

warfighting shortfalls. Your support put more aircraft in the air, 

more ships at sea, and more troops to training in the field. 

However, we all recognize it will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness, to strengthen the 

military, and President Trump has requested $639 billion top line 

for the fiscal year 2018 budget. 

There are five priorities here. The first is to improve warfighter 

readiness, and that was begun in 2017, filling in the tradeoffs 

made during 16 years of war, 9 years of continuing resolutions, and 

Budget Control Act caps. 

The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality, as noted 

by the chairwoman, while preparing for future investment, driven 

then by the results of the defense strategy that we are working on 

now. Our fiscal year 2018 budget request ensures the Nation’s current nuclear deterrent will be sustained and supports continuation 

of its much-needed modernization process. 

The third priority is reforming how the Department does business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every dollar, and we 

have begun implementation of a range of reform initiatives directed 

by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, and we are on 

track to enter into a full agencywide financial statement audit, as 

required by statute. 

I urge Congress to support the Department’s request for authority to conduct a 2021 Base Realignment and Closure process. I recognize the careful deliberation that members must exercise in considering it, but BRAC has been one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs we have. We have forecast that a properly focused base closure effort could generate $2 billion or more 

annually, and over a 5-year period, that savings would be enough 

to buy 300 Apache attack helicopters or 120 Super Hornets. 

The fourth priority in the fiscal year 2018 budget is keeping faith 

with servicemembers and their families, since talented people remain our most valuable asset. But we must balance these requirements with those of investing for other readiness equipment modernization efforts to ensure that our military is the most capable 

warfighting force in the world and that we bring our folks home 

alive. Investment in military compensation is essential. 

Our fifth priority is support for overseas contingency operations. 

The 2018 budget requests $64.6 billion focusing on operations in locations you are well aware of. ISIS and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger, and I am encouraged, 

members of this committee, by the willingness of our allies and 

partners to help share the burden that we carry. 

Moving forward, the 2019 budget will be informed by the National Defense Strategy. I will then have the analytical rigor that 

I can recommend hard choices as we shape the program for the 

next 5 years. The Department will work with President Trump, the 

Congress, and this committee in particular, to ensure future budget 

requests are sustainable and provide the Commander in Chief with 

viable military options that support our security. 
459

In summation, I need the BCA caps lifted and a budget, not a 

continuing resolution, passed on time and elimination of future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable and adequate way 

ahead. For those who are concerned that we are not asking for sufficient dollars, please consider the following: For 2017, we asked for 

$30 billion. The Congress provided $21 billion as a supplemental. 

Second, this fiscal year, we have requested the amounts I have 

noted already. This is a 5-percent growth over what national defense was funded for in 2017. This request is admittedly $52 billion 

above the Budget Control Act defense caps. We have underway at 

this time a National Security Strategy that will give me the analytical rigor to come back to you for the fiscal year 2019 to 2023 budget request when we want to build up our military to confront the 

situation that the chairman and I have laid out in our written 

statements.

I am keenly aware that we have the support of this committee, 

and we have over many years, but I ask for your help to inform 

your fellow Members of Congress about the reality facing our military and the need for Congress as a whole to pass a defense budget 

on time. 

Thank you for your strong support over many years. I pledge to 

collaborate with you. 

And, ladies and gentlemen, Chairman Dunford can give some 

military aspects of this that might give more depth to some of the 

things I have just stated. 

[The written statement of Secretary Mattis follows:] 
460

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JIM MATTIS 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017 

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the 

committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the President's budget 

request for Fiscal Year 2018. 

I am pleased to be joined by Chairman Dunford. 

This budget request holds me accountable to the men and women of the Department of 

Defense. Every day, more than two million Service members and nearly one million 

civilians do their duty, honoring previous generations of veterans and civil servants who 

have sacrificed for our country. I am mindful of the privilege it is to serve alongside 

them. 

We in the Department of Defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the 

American people to fund our military. Many times in the past we have looked reality in 

the eye, met challenges with Congressional leadership, and built the most capable 

warfighting force in the world. There is no room for complacency and we have no Godgiven right to victory on the battlefield. Each generation of Americans, from the halls of 

Congress to the battlefields, earn victory through commitment and sacrifice. 

And yet, for four years our military has been subject to or threatened by automatic, 

across-the-board cuts as a result of sequester- a mechanism meant to be so injurious 

to the military it would never go into effect. In addition, during nine of the past ten years, 

Congress has enacted 30 separate Continuing Resolutions to fund the Department of 

Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new challenges. 

I need bipartisan support for this budget request. In the past, by failing to pass a budget 

on time or eliminate the threat of sequestration, Congress sidelined itself from its active 

Constitutional oversight role. It has blocked new programs, prevented service growth, 

stalled industry initiative, and placed troops at greater risk. Despite the tremendous 

1 
461

efforts of this committee, Congress as a whole has met the present challenge with 

lassitude, not leadership. 

For much of the past decade, my predecessors and prior members of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff testified that sequestration and the continued use of Continuing Resolutions would 

result in a steady erosion of military readiness. In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon 

Panetta, former Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the former Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget, testified sequester was "guaranteed to hollow 

out the force." 

I retired from military service three months after sequestration took effect. Four years 

later, I returned to the Department and I have been shocked by what I've seen with our 

readiness to fight For all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these 

wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than 

sequestration. We have only sustained our ability to meet America's commitments 

abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden. 

It took us years to get into this situation. It will require years of stable budgets and 

increased funding to get out of it. I urge members of this committee and Congress to 

achieve three goals: 

First, fully fund our request, which requires an increase to the Defense budget 

caps; 

Second, pass a FY 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful 

Continuing Resolution; and 

• Third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts to provide a stable 

budgetary planning horizon. 

Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of four external forces 

acting on the Department at the same time. 

The first force we must recognize is 16 years of war. This period represents the longest 

continuous stretch of armed conflict in our Nation's history. In more than a quarter 

2 
462

century since the end of the Cold War, our country has deployed large-scale forces in 

active operations for more months than we have been at peace. 

When Congress approved the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, our country never 

envisioned sending our military to war for more than a decade without pause or 

conscription. America's long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in 

uniform and their families. 

In recognition of these demands, Congress devoted more resources to recruiting and 

retaining members of the military. As a result, personnel costs as a fraction of the 

defense budget have risen over time. 

Meanwhile, the war has exhausted our equipment faster than planned. Congress and 

the Department could not anticipate the accumulated wear and tear of years of 

continuous combat use. We have had to procure replacement gear and spend more 

money to keep gear serviceable and extend its service life. Due to this extensive use of 

our equipment across the force, operations and maintenance costs have also 

increased, rising faster than the rate of inflation during the past 16 years. 

Worn equipment and constrained supplies have forced our personnel to work overtime 

while deployed or preparing to deploy. That too has placed an added burden on the 

men and women who serve and on their families. This further degrades readiness in a 

negative spiral, for those not in the fight are at a standstill, unable to train as their 

equipment is sent forward to cover shortfalls or returned for extensive rework. 

My predecessor, Secretary Gates, stated annualized real defense budget increases and 

efficiencies of two to three percent above inflation are needed to sustain the AllVolunteer Force in a way that keeps personnel, modernization, and readiness accounts 

in balance. In the six years since the passage of the Budget Control Act, a period of 

declining, flat, or modestly increasing budgets, we have not kept this balance. 

Not long ago we convinced ourselves that when we pulled out of Iraq and ceased 

combat operations in Afghanistan, we would take two or three years to "reset and 

3 
463

reconstitute" the force. Today's operations dictate the best we can do is "reset and 

reconstitute in stride," a reality that imposes its own stress on the Force. 

A second concurrent force acting on the Department is the worsening global security 

situation. Our challenge is characterized by a decline in the long-standing rules-based 

international order, bringing with it a more volatile security environment than any I have 

experienced during my four decades of military service. 

The most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security is North Korea. North 

Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them has 

increased in pace and scope. The regime's nuclear weapons program is a clear and 

present danger to all, and the regime's provocative actions, manifestly illegal under 

international law, have not abated despite United Nations' censure and sanctions. 

We also look on the prospect of a new era, one governed by today's economic realities 

and returning once again to a balance of powers. A return to Great Power competition, 

marked by a resurgent and more aggressive Russian Federation and a rising, more 

confident, and assertive China, places the international order under assault. Both 

Russia and China object to key aspects of the international order so painstakingly built 

since the end of World War II. Both countries are making their objections known by 

challenging established international norms, such as freedom of the seas and the 

sovereignty of nations on their periphery. 

Moreover, the breakdown of the broader Mideast order has given rise to terrorist 

groups, including AI-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Security 

vacuums have allowed a revolutionary Iranian regime to sow violence, provoke wider 

Sunni-Shia confrontation, and pursue regional hegemony. More broadly, this need to 

preserve our security also requires us to sustain the international presence in 

Afghanistan to help stabilize the South Asia region and deny terrorists a safe haven. 

Instability in the Middle East spills over into other regions. Extremists and extremist 

ideologies have spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia. Numerous countries are dealing 

with forced migration of people seeking to escape violence and despair, reminding us 

4 
464

that problems originating in ungoverned or combat torn areas don't remain there. The 

United States is engaged in the Middle East to help restore order and give the people 

who live there a more hopeful future, building a better security situation for Americans 

who want a safer and more prosperous world for our future. 

As one observer of the world has noted, we are "faced with two problems: first, how to 

reduce regional chaos; second, how to create a coherent world order based on agreedupon principles that are necessary for the operation of the entire system." That 

observer, Dr. Henry Kissinger, and his fellow members of the Greatest Generation 

witnessed first-hand the costs of military unpreparedness. They learned the paramount 

need to prevent hostile states from gaining dominance. And they understood that while 

there is no way to guarantee peace, the surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to 

win one. 

Under any circumstances, however, reducing regional chaos in tandem with our 

interagency partners and international allies to help foster a coherent order requires 

adequate diplomatic and military resources. 

Adversaries contesting the United States constitute a third force impacting the 

Department. For decades the United States enjoyed uncontested or dominant 

superiority in every operating domain or realm. We could generally deploy our forces 

when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. 

Today, every operating domain is contested. 

Outer space, long considered a sanctuary, is now contested. This creates the need to 

develop capabilities and capacities for more resilient satellites designed to withstand 

persistent kinetic and non-kinetic attack. 

Our dominance of the air is challenged by the proliferation of advanced integrated air 

defense networks and 51

h-generation aircraft. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, 

longer range weapons, and unmanned systems will help us impose our will on potential 

adversaries while preserving our aircraft and crews in combat. 

5 
465

Our command of the seas is threatened by long-range, land-based guided munitions 

battle networks designed to attack our ships at increasingly longer ranges. Our 

undersea superiority, unquestioned since the end of the Cold War, and a key 

competitive advantage, is challenged by both Russia and China. 

Our dominance on land in conventional, high-end combined arms maneuver is 

threatened by the introduction of long-range air-to-surface and surface-to-surface 

guided weapons, advanced armored vehicles and anti-tank weapons, and tactical 

electronic warfare systems. 

Cyberspace is now a contested operating realm at the strategic, operational, and 

tactical levels of war. 

Finally, our air, naval, ground and logistics bases are all under threat of accurate, allweather, day-night guided munitions bombardment. This will complicate our operations 

and make passive and active base defenses more necessary and urgent. 

A fourth concurrent force acting on the Department is rapid technological change. 

Among the other forces noted thus far, technological change is one that necessitates 

new investment, innovative approaches, and when necessary, new program starts that 

have been denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under Continuing 

Resolutions. 

Rapid technological change includes developments in advanced computing, big data 

analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, miniaturization, additive 

manufacturing, meta-materials, directed energy, and hypersonics- the very 

technologies that ensure we will be able to fight and win the wars of the future. 

Many of these advances are driven by commercial sector demands and research and 

development. New commercial technologies will change society, and ultimately, they 

will change the character of war. The fact that many of these technological 

developments will come from the commercial sector means that state competitors and 

6 
466

non-state actors will also have access to them, a fact that will continue to erode the 

conventional overmatch our Nation has grown so accustomed to. 

In this competitive environment, the Department must pay much more attention to future 

readiness, and regaining our Joint Force conventional overmatch over time. We must 

be willing and able to tap into commercial research, recognize its military potential, and 

develop new capabilities and the operational and organizational constructs to employ 

them faster than our competitors. 

We must also be prepared to deal with technological, operational, and tactical surprise, 

which requires changes to the way we train and educate our leaders and our forces, 

and how we organize for improved Departmental agility. 

Improving our future readiness, rapid adoption of off the shelf technologies, and 

preparing to deal with surprise are critical to modernization efforts, but constrained 

budgets and acquisition regulations have limited our ability to keep pace with rapid 

changes and sustain our competitive advantage. 

In response to these realities, the Department must develop new weapons and 

capabilities, adjust concepts of operations, adapt our training, and spend more time 

war-gaming and exercising to improve our ability to fight and win. 

Each of these four forces- 16 years of war, the worsening security environment, 

contested operations in multiple domains, and the rapid pace of technological changerequire stable budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of our citizens 

and for the survival of our freedoms. Because as expensive as it is for the American 

people to fund the military, it is far less costly in lives and treasure than a conventional 

war that we are unable to deter because we are seen as weak. 

I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as Secretary of Defense. The 

fundamental responsibility of our government is to defend the American people, 

providing for our security-and we cannot defend America and help others if our Nation 

is not both strong and solvent. So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the 

7 
467

American public to ensure we spend each dollar wisely. President Trump has 

nominated for Senate approval specific individuals who will bring proven skills to 

discipline our Department's fiscal processes to ensure we do so. 

This first step to restoring readiness is underway thanks to Congress' willingness to 

support the Administration's request for additional resources in FY 2017 to rebuild our 

most urgent needs. Your support of $21 billion in additional resources allowed the 

Department to address immediate warfighting readiness shortfalls and to help fund the 

acceleration of the fight against ISIS. 

This additional FY 2017 funding addresses vital warfighting readiness shortfalls, a 

necessary investment to ensure our military is ready to fight today, by putting more 

aircraft in the air, ships to sea, and troops in the field. Additionally, the funding provided 

for more maintenance, spare parts, training time, flying hours, munition stocks, and 

manpower. 

We all recognize that it will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time 

to restore readiness. To strengthen the military, President Trump requested a $639.1 

billion topline for the FY 2018 defense budget. Of this top line, $574.5 billion supports 

Department of Defense base budget requirements- warfighting readiness and critical 

program requirements, including intelligence community requirements. The balance, 

$64.6 billion, supports Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) requirements. 

The Department's FY 2018 base budget with its $52 billion increase above the National 

Defense Budget Control Act cap is the next step to building a larger, more capable, and 

more lethal joint force. The FY 2018 budget reflects five priorities: restoring and 

improving warfighter readiness, increasing capacity and lethality, reforming how the 

Department does business, keeping the faith with Service members and their families, 

and supporting Overseas Contingency Operations. 

The first priority is continuing to improve warfighter readiness begun in FY 2017, filling 

in the holes from trade-offs made during 16 years of war, and six years of continuing 

resolutions and Budget Control Act caps. This budget request, as directed by the 

8 
468

National Security Presidential Memorandum "Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces" issued 

on January 27, 2017, identifies and improves shortfalls in readiness, specifically in 

training, equipment, maintenance, munitions, modernization, and infrastructure. 

The 30-Day Readiness Review, completed as part of the development of the FY 2017 

Request for Additional Appropriations, identified significant challenges to recovering 

readiness, including budget uncertainty, high operational tempo, and the time required 

to rebuild readiness properly. As a result of this review, the Department submitted the 

FY 2018 budget request to enable the Joint Force to counter national security threats, 

fulfill steady-state demand, and implement readiness recovery plans. 

The Army remains globally engaged with more than 180,000 Soldiers committed to 

combatant command deterrence and counterterrorism operations. The FY 2018 budget 

will restore a larger, more capable and lethal modernized force to defeat emerging 

regional and global near-peer adversaries. Combat Training Center rotations and home 

station training will help the Army develop capabilities for full-spectrum warfare. 

Additional Soldiers, training, and equipment will enable the Army to make significant 

progress towards restoring and sustaining readiness longer. 

The Navy will continue implementation of its Optimized Fleet Response Plan, reduce 

the long-term maintenance backlog, and train to ensure the Fleet is ready to fight. 

Requested funding provides stable and predictable maintenance and modernization 

plans, and forces trained to a single full-mission readiness standard. Predictably 

building readiness with continued implementation of the Optimized Fleet Response Plan 

will increase aircraft carrier availability, fund ship operations to the anticipated level of 

required operational days, and improve quality of work and quality of life for Sailors. 

The Air Force will restore funding to its Flying Hour Program, increase aircraft 

sustainment, and grow training resource availability. These steps will enable personnel 

to regain proficiency in critical skill areas. Investments into training ranges will increase 

capacity and modernize the simulated threats our young men and women need to 

overcome to counter adversaries. The Air Force will also invest in home station highend training, reducing the requirement to deploy for training. 

9 
469

The Marine Corps is committed to remaining capable of responding to crises anywhere 

around the globe. FY 2018 investments emphasize readiness for deployed and next-todeploy forces, maintenance for aging platforms, and funding to maintain critical 

modernization programs. Fully integrated Combined Arms Exercises for all elements of 

the Marine Air Ground Task Forces will help recover full-spectrum readiness. 

The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality while preparing for future 

investment in the FY2019 budget, driven by results from the National Defense Strategy. 

The FY 2018 budget request addresses resource gaps in the capabilities, readiness, 

and capacity needed to project power globally in contested environments, while 

emphasizing preparedness for future high-end security challenges. The budget request 

supports this priority through investment in advanced capabilities to reassert our 

technological edge over potential future adversaries, while having more units ready to 

fight. 

The FY 2018 budget request seeks to fill the holes and achieve program balance before 

beginning to significantly grow capacity in future years. Part of achieving a more 

capable force involves pursuing innovative ways to develop the force and concepts of 

operation to reverse unfavorable cost ratios adversaries would seek to impose on the 

United States in future warfighting environments. The FY 2018 investments include 

power projection capabilities, nuclear modernization, a stronger missile defense, spacebased systems, and cyberspace operations. Several of these options will expand the 

competitive space to our advantage vice allowing an adversary to define a conflict. Our 

budget request also ensures that the nation's current nuclear deterrent will be 

sustained, and supports continuation of its much needed modernization process. 

The third priority is reforming how the department does business. I am devoted to 

gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust 

of Congress and the American people. 

The Department is committed to reforming the acquisition enterprise to improve its 

ability to be innovative, responsive, and cost effective. The Department has begun 

implementation of a range of reform initiatives directed by the 2017 NOAA, to include 

10 
470

disestablishment of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics, and the establishment of the Under Secretaries for Research and 

Engineering, and for Acquisition and Sustainment. Consistent with section 901 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, this change will be in effect by 

February 1, 2018, or sooner if I'm able to set the necessary conditions. 

The FY 2018 budget request includes notable reform efforts. I urge Congress to support 

the Department's request for authority to conduct a 2021 Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) round, a cornerstone of our efficiencies program. The Department 

currently has more infrastructure capacity than required for operations- and foreseeable 

growth scenarios won't appreciably change this. I recognize the severity of BRAG's 

impact on communities and the careful consideration that members must exercise in 

considering it. In order to ensure we do not waste taxpayer dollars I would therefore 

greatly appreciate Congress' willingness to discuss BRAC authorization as an efficiency 

measure. That authorization is essential to improving our readiness by minimizing 

wasted resources and accommodating force adjustments. Waste reduction is 

fundamental to keeping the trust of the American people and is a key element of the 

efficiency/reform efforts that Congress and the Administration expect of us. Of all the 

efficiency measures the Department has undertaken over the years, BRAC is one of the 

most successful and significant- we forecast that a properly focused base closure effort 

will generate $2 billion or more annually- enough to buy 300 Apache attack helicopters, 

120 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, or four Virginia-class submarines. 

During Fiscal Year 2018 the Department is on track to enter into a full, agency-wide 

financial statement audit as required by statute. As part of this effort, the Department 

has established a Cost Decision Framework that leverages commercial best practices. 

This initiative will give decision makers the information they need to make a fully 

informed, cost-based decision. 

The fourth priority is keeping faith with Service members and families. Military and 

civilian personnel are the foundation of the Department of Defense. The Nation's 

commitment to these patriots willing to serve our country is built into the FY 2018 

11 
471

budget request and is demonstrated by the number of initiatives and programs to 

support their professional development and their personal and family lives. 

Comprising roughly one-third of the Department of Defense budget, military pay and 

benefits are the single largest expense category for the Department. I believe providing 

competitive pay and benefits is a necessity to attract and retain the highly qualified 

people needed in today's military. The right people are the Department's most valuable 

asset, but we must continually balance these requirements against other investments 

critical to readiness, equipment, and modernization to ensure the military is the most 

capable warfighting force in the world. Balancing resources is particularly important as 

the Department reshapes the force needed to remain effective in an uncertain future. 

Investment in military compensation, Blended Retirement, the Military Health System. 

and family programs are essential to fielding the talent we need to sustain our 

competitive advantage on the battlefield. 

The fifth priority is support for Overseas Contingency Operations. The FY 2018 

President's Budget requests $64.6 billion, focusing on Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

and Syria, increasing efforts to sustain NATO's defenses to deter aggression, and 

global counterterrorism operations. Specifically, ISIS and other terrorist organizations 

represent a clear and present danger. The U.S. remains united and committed with the 

66 nations of the Defeat-ISIS Coalition- plus the European Union, NATO, Arab 

League, and Interpol- to destroy ISIS. We will continue to support partner nations' 

diplomatic and military efforts through a security cooperation approach. I arn 

encouraged by the willingness of our allies and partners to share the burden of this 

campaign. 

The FY 2019 budget, informed by the National Defense Strategy, will grow the AllVolunteer Force. The Department will work with President Trump, Congress, and this 

committee to ensure the budget request we present for FY 2019-2023 is sustainable 

and that it provides the Commander-in-Chief with viable military options in support of 

America's security. 

12 
472

Judicious spending of America's public money is critical to ensuring security while 

maintaining solvency. We already know we face a dilemma between increasing 

personnel end strength and force structure on the one hand, and investing in equipment 

as well as research and development on the other hand. These challenges are 

compounded by the pressing need to recapitalize the nuclear triad and the sealift fleet in 

the 2020s. The President's Nuclear Posture Review will look at all elements of U.S. 

nuclear forces to ensure that our nuclear deterrent, including our command, control, and 

communication systems, are appropriately tailored to deter emerging 21st century 

threats. 

I know we will have to make hard choices as we develop our new defense strategy and 

shape the FY 2019-2023 defense program. With the help of Congress, I am confident 

we can build a force that is necessarily more lethal without placing an undue burden on 

the American economy. 

I am keenly aware members of this committee understand the responsibility each of us 

has to ensuring our military is ready to fight today and in the future. I need your help to 

inform your fellow members of Congress about the reality facing our military- and the 

need for Congress as a whole to pass a budget on time. 

Thank you for your strong support and for ensuring our troops have the resources and 

equipment they need to fight and win on the battlefield. I pledge to collaborate closely 

with you for the defense of our Nation in our joint effort to keep our Armed Forces 

second-to-none. 

Chairman Dunford is prepared to discuss the military dimensions of the budget request. 

### 

13 
473

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

General Dunford. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL DUNFORD

General DUNFORD. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to 

join Secretary Mattis and Under Secretary Norquist in appearing 

before you today. 

I am honored to represent you men and women in uniform, and 

it is because of them I can state up front with confidence that we 

have the most capable U.S. military in the world. However, the 

competitive advantage that our military has long enjoyed is eroding, and a number of factors have contributed to that erosion, and 

we have discussed those in previous hearings. 

One is an extraordinarily high level of operational tempo since 

9/11, which has accelerated the wear and tear of our weapons and 

equipment. Meanwhile, budget instability and Budget Control Act 

have forced the Department to operate with far fewer resources 

than necessary to meet the current strategy of record. As a consequence, we have prioritized near-term readiness at the expense 

of replacing aged equipment and capability development. 

We also maintain a force that consumes readiness as fast as we 

build it, and we lack sufficient capacity to meet current operational 

requirements while rebuilding and maintaining what when we describe as full-spectrum readiness. Of course, we are talking there 

of being able to respond to both Russia on one end and violent extremism on the other end and all the challenges that may fall between. The Secretary and the service chiefs have addressed that 

dynamic in their testimonies, and I fully concur with their assessments, but beyond current readiness, we are confronted with another significant challenge that I assess today to be near term. 

While we have been primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our adversaries and our potential adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and operational approaches. And these 

are specifically designed to limit our ability to project power, which 

we view as our source of strength of the U.S. military. They recognize that our ability to project power is, in fact, necessary to defend 

the homeland, advance our interests and meet our alliance commitments.

And as Secretary Mattis mentioned, Russia, China and Iran field 

a wide range of cyberspace, aviation, maritime, and land capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability to deploy the force, employ the force, and sustain the force in combat. Russia and China 

have also modernized a nuclear arsenal while North Korea has 

been on a relentless path to field a nuclear-armed ICBM that can 

reach the United States. 

In just a few years, if we don’t change the trajectory we are going 

to lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive advantage, and 

the consequences will be profound. It is going to affect our ability 

to deter a nuclear war, a conventional war, and our ability to respond if deterrence fails. 

Alternatively, we can maintain our competitive advantage with 

sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding. To that end, the fiscal year 2018 budget request is an essential step, and it builds on 
474

the fiscal year 2017 supplemental request, as the Secretary mentioned. However, this request alone is not going to fully restore our 

readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. Doing 

that is going to require sustained investment beyond fiscal year 

2018.

As the Secretary mentioned, this took us several years to get into 

this situation we are in right now, and we assess it will take many 

years to get out of this situation. Specific recommendation for 2019 

and beyond will be informed by the Secretary’s forthcoming defense 

strategy, but we know right now that continued growth in the base 

budget of at least 3 percent above inflation is necessary just to 

maintain the relative competitive advantage that we have today. 

That is not to build a force that we need tomorrow, but simply to 

maintain the force that we have today. 

As we ask for your support, we recognize the responsibility to 

maintain the trust of the American taxpayer, and we take this responsibility seriously and will continue to eliminate redundancies 

and achieve efficiencies where possible. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this 

morning, and, Chairwoman, more importantly, thank you for all 

you and the committee do to make sure that, as you said, our 

young men and women never find themselves in a fair fight. 

And, with that, I am prepared to take your questions. 

[The written statement of General Dunford follows:] 
475

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE - DEFENSE 

POSTURE STATEMENT OF 

19TH CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

BEFORE THE llSTH CONGRESS 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 

DEFENSE 

BUDGET HEARING 

JUNE 15, 2017 
476

Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished members of 

this committee, thank you for the opportunity to join Secretary Mattis in 

appearing before you today. 

The U.S. military's competitive advantage against potential adversaries is 

eroding. Over the last decade, sustained operational commitments, budgetary 

instability, and advances by our adversaries have threatened our ability to 

project power and we have lost our advantage in key warfighting areas. The 

FY18 Budget Request will allow the Armed Forces to meet operational 

requirements, continue rebuilding warfighting readiness, and place the military 

on a path to balancing the Defense program. However, without sustained, 

sufficient, and predictable funding, I assess that within 5 years we will lose our 

ability to project power; the basis of how we defend the homeland, advance 

U.S. interests, and meet our alliance commitments. 

Strategic Environment 

In today's strategic environment, five key challenges- Russia, China, Iran, 

North Korea, and Violent Extremist Organizations - most clearly represent the 

challenges facing the U.S. military. They serve as a benchmark for our global 

posture, the size of the force, capability development, and risk management. 

Over the past several decades, each of these state actors have developed 

capabilities and operational approaches to counter our strategic and 

operational centers of gravity. The United States' decisive victory in DESERT 

STORM in 1991 was a wake-up call for our adversaries. For Russia and China, 

specifically, the lessons-learned spurred dramatic tactical, operational, and 

strategic adaptations. Observing the power and efficacy of precision guided 

munitions and combined arms maneuver, both countries accelerated 

modernization programs to asymmetrically counter U.S. advantages. They 

adapted operational constructs to incorporate anti-access technology and 

2 
477

employed new doctrines to leverage high-tech weaponry across all domains. 

These efforts sought to limit U.S. freedom of navigation, deny our ability to gain 

and maintain air-superiority, negate the capability of our precision munitions, 

and limit our ability to employ sophisticated command and control systems. 

Today, Russia continues to invest in a full-range of capabilities designed to 

limit our ability to project power into Europe and meet our alliance 

commitments to NATO. These capabilities include long-range conventional 

strike, cyber, space, electronic warfare, ground force and naval capabilities. 

Russia is also modernizing all elements of its nuclear triad and its nonstrategic nuclear weapons. These capabilities are intended to enable Russia to 

counter U.S. and NATO power projection and undermine the integrity of the 

NATO alliance. 

Similarly, China has embarked on a significant program to modernize and 

expand strategic and conventional military capabilities. They have expanded 

their nuclear enterprise and made investments in power projection, space, 

cyber, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles- even as 

they continue to build out their physical presence in the South China Sea. 

China is also investing heavily in 5th generation fighters, air-to-air missiles, air 

defense systems, and sea and undersea anti-access technologies to limit our 

ability to project power, operate freely, and meet our alliance commitments in 

the Pacific. 

Russia and China are not alone in these pursuits. North Korea's nuclear 

weapons development, combined with efforts to develop a nuclear-capable 

ballistic missile capability, is specifically intended to threaten the security of 

the homeland and our Allies in the Pacific. Over the past year, North Korea 

conducted an unprecedented number of missile tests. Moreover, North Korea 

has demonstrated a willingness to use malicious cyber tools against 

3 
478

governments and industry. These actions destabilize the region and pose an 

increasing threat to U.S. and our allies. 

Iran seeks to assert itself as the dominant regional power in the Middle East. 

They continue to support international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, 

and support proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to assert influence and counter 

the influence of the U.S. and our Allies. They actively seek to destabilize their 

neighbors, and employ naval capabilities that threaten freedom of navigation. 

At the same time, they are modernizing an array of ballistic missiles, missile 

defense, space, cyber, maritime, and cruise missile capabilities. 

Finally, Violent Extremist Organizations such as ISIS and al Qaida remain a 

threat to the homeland, our Allies, and our way of life. Violent extremism is 

fundamentally a transregional threat and a generational struggle that requires 

our military to work with interagency and coalition partners to disrupt external 

attacks, and dismantle their capabilities wherever they emerge. Even with the 

success of our continued efforts to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, 

the threat of Islamic terrorism will remain. 

A review of these five challenges demonstrates that the U.S. military requires a 

balanced inventory of advanced capabilities and sufficient capacity to act 

decisively across the range of military operations. As a nation that both thinks 

and acts globally, we cannot choose between a force that can address ISIS and 

other Violent Extremist Organizations, and one that can deter and defeat state 

actors with a full range of capabilities. Nor do we have the luxury of choosing 

between meeting our current operational requirements and developing 

capabilities that we will need to meet tomorrow's challenges. 

However, as a result of sustained operational tempo and budget instability, 

today the military is challenged to meet operational requirements and sustain 

4 
479

investment in capabilities required to preserve- or in some cases restore our 

competitive advantage. 

Sustained operational tempo and demand have forced the Department to 

prioritize near-term readiness at the expense of modernization. Additionally, a 

conscious choice was made to limit the size of the force in order to preserve 

scarce resources necessary for essential investments in immediate upgrades to 

critical capabilities. As a result, today, demand for high-demand/low-density 

specialties often outpaces supply. Particular stress is felt in specialties such as 

ISR, missile defense systems, naval expeditionary forces, special operations 

forces, global precision strike units, and cyber forces. Additionally, over the 

past two years, munitions expenditures in ongoing operations against Violent 

Extremist Organizations exacerbated existing shortfalls. 

Making matters worse, for the past five years, the Budget Control Act (BCA) 

has forced the Department of Defense (DoD) to operate with about $450 billion 

less than planned and required. These reductions have been aggravated by 

repeated Continuing Resolutions (CR) which hamper long-term investment and 

often result in increased costs. For nine of the last ten years, the Department of 

Defense has operated under some type of CR, delaying critical new starts, 

deferring installation and infrastructure modernization, and canceling major 

training events. A year-long FY18 CR would cut $33 billion from the 

Department's request, further exacerbating these problems. 

Based on these factors, the Army has been forced to prioritize near-term 

readiness and now faces a shortage of critical capabilities and capacities in 

armor, air defense, artillery, and aviation. These deficiencies are made worse by 

manpower shortfalls in critical military specialties and training resource 

constraints. Consequently, the Army is limited in its ability to man, train, and 

equip fully-ready Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and other critical enablers 

5 
480

required to deploy, sustain, and protect service members operating around the 

world. 

For similar reasons, the Navy faces readiness challenges in both ships and 

aircraft. Operational requirements and capacity constraints in shipyards and 

aircraft depots have increased the time and cost required to conduct major 

repairs. Maintenance delays, low stocks of spare parts, lack of training 

ordnance, and aging infrastructure impair the Navy's ability to conduct 

integrated training. As a result, the Navy is limited in its ability to meet 

operational demand for maritime capability and power projection, especially in 

contested environments. 

The Air Force is also challenged to balance operational demands and invest for 

the future. Today, the Air Force is short almost 1,500 pilots, including 800 

fighter pilots, and more than 3,400 maintainers across all components. They 

lack sufficient resources to adequately support both 4th and 5th generation 

training. And they have delayed investment in 4th generation aircraft 

modifications while limiting the fielding of 5th generation strike-fighters. The 

result is fewer trained pilots available to deploy, over-tasked and aging aircraft, 

and delays in modernization programs required to defeat near-peer adversaries. 

Over the last several years, the Marine Corps has been forced to delay planned 

investments in infrastructure, Command and Control, and ground systems 

required to build, train, and launch combat ready forces. Today, the Marine 

Corps lacks sufficient Ready Basic Aircraft for training and deployments and 

has delayed procurement of the F-35, CH-53K, MV-22, and KC-130J aircraft. 

These delayed investments limit the Marine Corps' strategic flexibility and 

inhibit its ability to meet operational demands. 

If these trends continue, and the constraints of sequestration are not lifted, the 

Department will have to cut force structure, as the tradeoffs required to 

6 
481

maintain the capability and capacity of the current force are no longer 

sustainable. Going forward, the Department of Defense requires sustained, 

sufficient, and predictable funding to meet current operational requirements, 

restore readiness shortfalls, and place us on a path toward restoring our 

eroded competitive advantage. 

Impact of FY17 Request for Additional Appropriations (RAA). 

Congress' willingness to support the Administration's request for additional 

resources in FY 2017 was a necessary first step to reverse the impacts of 

under-investment over the last five years. The FY17 appropriation yielded 

improvements in immediate warfighting readiness by providing funding for 

modest increases to end strength that primarily filled holes in existing units, 

funding full spectrum training, beginning to replenish depleted ammunition 

stocks, and continuing the restoration and modernization of critical systems. 

However, the FY17 Appropriations Bill did not fully address the Department's 

modernization and procurement requirements and significant, long-term 

readiness challenges remain. The Services' inability to fully fund procurement 

of key platforms continues to hamper readiness by limiting the number and 

types of platforms available for initial entry training, individual proficiency, and 

collective training. Because of this, the military begins the FYlS budget cycle in 

a less healthy position than if the FY17 RAA was fully funded, making full and 

on-time funding of this budget even more critical. 

Intent of the FY18 Budget: What does it do? 

The FY18 Budget Request builds on the readiness recovery started in FY17, 

starts to fill the holes created by the BCA, and begins to balance the program. 

It enables the Department to meet operational requirements, begin rebuilding 

mid- and long-term readiness, and begin restoring capability and capacity 

7 
482

necessary to improve lethality. These are essential first steps in arresting the 

erosion of the military's competitive advantage. 

ln Afghanistan, FY18 investments will reinforce improvements in the Afghan 

National Defense and Security Forces. In Iraq and Syria, the Budget Request 

funds emerging requirements and provides sufficient funding and authority for 

the defeat-ISIS train and equip fund. In Europe, the Budget Request provides a 

40 percent increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) 

that sustains ongoing assurance efforts, and improve the capability of the U.S. 

forces and our Allies to deter potential Russian aggression. 

To rebuild warfighting readiness, the Army will fully man its combat formation, 

fund 19 Combat Training Center rotations in FY 18, and increase resources for 

home-station training to ensure units maximize full spectrum readiness. The 

Navy will provide flying hours and increase depot maintenance to enable 

integrated air j sea training. The Air Force will invest in training required to 

improve 4th and 5th generation warfighting capability. The Marines will 

increase funding for flying hours, logistics, and engineering units, and focus 

training resources on amphibious and combined arms operations. 

Maintenance resources included in the FY18 Budget Request also improve 

readiness. The Army will prioritize maintenance for equipment coming out of 

theater in order to prepare it for unit training and refill prepositioned stocks in 

Europe and the Pacific. The Navy will add critical workforce capacity that 

reduces ship and aviation depot maintenance backlogs. The Air Force will 

conduct overdue weapons system sustainment, increase maintenance for intertheater airlift, and execute recapitalization of critical systems. The Marines will 

prioritize maintenance for MV-22, rotary wing, and fighter aviation to improve 

its survivability, mobility, and lethality. 

8 
483

To begin restoring capacity and lethality across the force, the FYl8 Budget 

makes critical investments in Tactical Air (TACAIR), ships, space, and 

cyberspace, and begins essential nuclear recapitalization efforts. 

Investments in TACAIR enable the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to 

continue procurement of 5th generation fighters and fund upgrades to 4th 

generation fighters that Ell shortfalls and begin to grow capacity. The Air Force 

will procure 46 F-35As and begin upgrades to F-l6s. The Navy will procure 4 

F-35Cs and 14 F / A-18E/Fs to mitigate its strike fighter shortfall. The Marines 

will procure 20 F-35Bs. These investments, coupled with investments in 

modernization of depot maintenance facilities, allow us to begin reversing the 

impact of delays in TACAIR modernization over the past five years. 

The FY18 Budget Request supports the Navy's growth by supporting the 

procurement of 9 ships and continuing necessary investments to upgrade and 

modernize nuclear aircraft carriers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, 

TICONDEROGA-class cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and submarines. 

These investments are essential to enabling the Navy to project power, ensure 

forward presence and deterrence, ensure access to the global commons, and 

provide ballistic missile defense. 

Continued improvement in space-based systems enables us to better protect 

satellites, improve tracking/discrimination capabilities, and continue domestic 

launch development. Cyberspace investments prioritize hardening information 

networks, defending against cyber-attacks, and continuing to build, train, and 

equip cyber mission forces and maturing cyberspace command and control. 

These advances improve both offensive and defense space and cyberspace 

capabilities and enhance the resiliency of our systems and networks. 

The FY 18 Budget Request also invests in upgrades to the nuclear enterprise, 

including inter-continental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, strategic 

9 
484

bombers, and command and control systems. Continuing to maintain a secure 

and effective nuclear deterrent is essential to defending the homeland. 

However, the FY18 Budget Request alone will not fully restore readiness or 

arrest the military's eroding competitive advantage. Reversing the impact of the 

past five years of sustained operational tempo and budget instability requires 

sustained investment beyond FY18. 

What FY18 Budget Request doesn't do: Areas for continued investment. 

Specific recommendations for FY19, and beyond, will be informed by the 

results of the National Defense Strategy. Today, however, we know that 

continued investment is needed to execute responsible growth in capacity, 

build advanced capabilities, and restore the long-term readiness. These 

investments are essential to ensuring our ability to project power and maintain 

a credible strategic deterrent. 

We continue to consume readiness as fast as we build it and lack sufficient 

capacity to both meet today's operational requirements and rebuild the 

competencies necessary to defeat near peer adversaries. As a result, our units 

are training to meet their assigned missions at the expense of training for their 

designed mission. To break this cycle, we must increase capacity in critical 

areas such as C4ISR, fighter aircraft, armored BCTs, amphibious ships, and 

special operations forces. This additional capacity will allow us to meet today's 

requirements and prepare for tomorrow's. 

We must also invest in advanced capabilities required to defeat near-peer 

adversaries. As we have prioritized readiness for ongoing operations, our 

adversaries have prioritized investment in technologies that exploit our 

vulnerabilities and limit our ability to project power. To ensure our competitive 

advantage, we must accelerate investments in systems that defeat adversary 

anti-access capabilities at sea and under the sea, improve our !SR resiliency, 

10 
485

guarantee access to space and cyber, and enable us to defeat integrated air 

defenses. These advanced capabilities are vital to maintaining the U.S. 

military's competitive advantage in all environments and across all domains. 

It is also essential that we restore Comprehensive Joint Readiness, the ability 

of the U.S. military to deploy, employ, and sustain itself anywhere in the world, 

while maintaining the flexibility to transition from one crisis to another, across 

the range of military options. This requires sufficient capacity, the necessary 

capabilities, and iterative training. Our Air Force must possess the right mix of 

4th and 5th generation aircraft and have sufficient capacity to conduct 

integrated training. Our Navy must grow and modernize while preserving a 

globally-present fleet, capable of sailing and operating anywhere in the world. 

The Army and Marine Corps must fill unit short-falls and upgrade ground 

tactical vehicles while expanding full spectrum training. These investments are 

essential to projecting power in contested environments against any adversary 

and operating across the spectrum of conflict. 

Additionally, we must invest in maintaining a credible strategic deterrent. Due 

to fiscal constraints, we have delayed modernization of all three legs of the 

nuclear triad and are now approaching decision points with no remaining 

schedule margins. Over the coming decades we must recapitalize our intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, strategic bombers, 

and many of our command, control, and communication systems. 

Recapitalization costs will be significant and can no longer be delayed if the 

United States wants to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. 

Conclusion 

Today, despite the challenges facing us, our military is the most capable 

military in the world. We need sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding to 

grow sufficient capacity, develop the correct mix of advanced capabilities, and 

ensure a ready force. These investments are necessary to ensure our ability to 

11 
486

defend the homeland and project power when and where required. With your 

help and commitment, we can preserve our competitive advantage and ensure 

that we never send America's sons and daughters in to a fair fight. 

12 
487

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you very much. 

We will now proceed to questions observing our usual 5-minute 

rule, and watch your red light. I am going to forego my questions 

until the end, but just in response to your opening statements, we 

request that you reach out to Members that are not on this committee or the authorizing committee and make sure that they understand how very important this is and what your plan is that 

says we will rebuild to this at this time and then continue for 

years.

And the question and answers, we have several members who 

are in either committee, subcommittee hearings that are hearing 

right now. So I am going to go to Ms. McCollum first because I 

know you have to leave. Mr. Calvert will be second. 

REMARKS OF MS. MCCOLLUM

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Calvert and 

I will someday repay the kindness that this committee as shared 

with us. 

First, I want to thank you all for being here today and your service to our Nation. I have two questions I am going to submit for 

the record, but one I am going to just mention what it is because 

I am very concerned about what appears to be—well, not appears 

to be—it is a growing problem with pilots across our services reporting symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. And I have 

had some briefings on it, but I want to learn how more this committee can be helpful on that, and then another question for the 

record on the transgender policy and the way that is unfolding. 

But I want to state however, Mr. Secretary, I find this budget to 

be completely out of balance with the needs of the American people. We do—we do need a strong national defense, but we also 

must ensure that the needs of the American people here at home 

are taken care of. The proposed increase for defense will come at 

the expense of domestic investments for all Americans, including 

our men and women in uniform, their families, our veterans, and 

these are services that they all depend on: lifesaving medical research, support for our first responders, educational opportunities 

for future generations, safe roads and bridges. So this is about 

making smart choices. 

The Pentagon is going to have to be tougher on cutting waste 

and controlling spending, and I was pleased to hear in your remarks that you are on top of doing just that. And I couldn’t agree 

with you more that we need to participate with the armed services 

in doing a BRAC. We need to be doing that. So you have my full 

support and count on me to work with you with that. 

STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

But there is an example of how continued investment after 15 

years in Afghanistan has left us in a stalemate. Just let me lay out 

some statistics here: 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 

20,000 have been wounded. Last year alone—last year alone— 

5,000 Afghanistan troops were killed in action, and the President 

of Afghanistan said that there is over 11,000 foreign fighters right 

now operating in country. Corruption continues to run rampant in 
488

Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains foremost a NARCO state, and 

the cost of our involvement, the U.S. involvement, is $700 billion. 

That is a staggering amount to spend on a war you said yourself 

at the time we are not winning, and that is from The Washington 

Post article on June 13th. 

So, Mr. Secretary, now that President Trump has fully delegated 

all the authority for troop levels on to you, will you be sending 

more troops to Afghanistan in the calendar year? What do you consider success? And will U.S. troops be fighting in Afghanistan 15 

years from now? 

Thank you. 

Secretary MATTIS. Congresswoman, he has not delegated all authority to me. He maintains strategic oversight. He is an actively 

engaged and a very hard questioner about what the strategy is. He 

has delegated the details of forces that will be allocated to support 

what he approves finally as the strategy, but I assure you this is 

not a carte blanche for me to come up with numbers that are going 

into this in interagency, foreign policy-led effort. 

As far as what it is that we would be doing in order to bring this 

to a better conclusion, we have got to recognize that we tried to 

leave the Afghan forces before they were fully mature without the 

sufficient air support that would allow them to hold the high 

ground, to put it in military terms. So we are going to have to look 

at a more regional strategy, one that takes into account Afghanistan as part of South Asia, not look at it in isolation. It is going 

to have to be one that marries itself to reality and the current level 

of support that we could expect out of the leadership in the Afghan 

forces so that we don’t add to their responsibility without preparing 

them for success, and if that means we have to keep advisors with 

them a little longer, then 9/11 taught us the cost of not paying attention to this problem. And we will do so. 

For right now, we also have to work hard on the countercorruption effort there in order to make this government responsive to the 

needs of its people, and in that regard, that is why the State Department is an equal partner with me as we put this strategy together. We are not looking at a purely military strategy, and it has 

got to be one that leads to a reconciliation. All wars come to an 

end. Our job is to end it as quickly as possible without losing the 

very mission that we recognized through several administrations 

was worth putting those young Americans on the line for. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

BUDGET CONTROL ACT

Good morning, Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, Mr. 

Norquist. Thank you for appearing before our committee. Thank 

you for your service to our Nation. Most of us, if not all of us, agree 

and understand that the base on defense must go up and maybe 

more than the $50 billion that you are asking for. 

However, I am going to have a bipartisan moment here—maybe 

the sobering couple of days that we have had here—but the funding on military cannot be obtained on the back of nondefense discretionary spending. I think all of us here in this room understand 
489

that. It is not going to work. We need a budget agreement. We 

need the administration, we need the Senate, the House to come 

to a workable number that we can agree to get rid of the sequestration and the Budget Control Act and come up with realistic numbers both on the discretionary side and the nondiscretionary side. 

And we need to talk about the entire budget, not just discretionary 

spending.

So I hope in the coming days that we take this seriously, and 

that is not just the House and the Senate. That does include the 

administration. So I think we all need to be working together on 

that.

CIVILIAN WORKFORCE

One issue, though, that we can do within the Department of Defense—and you, Mr. Secretary, mentioned reforms—is something I 

know I have been harping on, and some of my friends up here have 

heard this a number of times, but from 2001 to 2014, the ActiveDuty military has shrunk by 4 percent while the number of civilian 

defense employees has grown by 15 percent. A recent study uncovered by The Washington Post found that there is approximately 

$125 billion in bureaucratic waste at the DOD. 

Now I know many of my colleagues and the service chiefs pointed 

out the importance of our civilian workforce, especially our maintenance people and civilians who work at the depots. I have got to 

point that out here. But this report found excess capacity in the bureaucratic overhead, desk jobs, held by civilians and certainly contractors.

Secretary Mattis, I would like to give you both the mandate and 

the authority to conduct a reduction in force that would place more 

emphasis on performance and, as you mentioned, the word 

‘‘lethality.’’ We want to keep the best and the brightest of our civilian workforce while realizing billions in savings that could be redirected back into the Department for readiness, procurement, and 

end strength. Can you share your thoughts on the size of the civilian workforce within the DOD, and what is the overarching plan 

to match capability with requirements? Thank you. 

Secretary MATTIS. Congressman Calvert, we are on track right 

now to reduce our headquarters by 30 percent. That is where you 

find much of the specific jobs that you have highlighted here. I 

would add that I have met twice now with the authors of the report 

that found the $125 billion in waste, as they pointed out. I do not 

agree with everything in the report. I have got real concerns about 

logistics. I know it doesn’t look sexy, but I would tell you that the 

strength of our forces in deploying around the world is heavily dependent on those logistics elements and just-in-time civilian practices may not work well on a battlefield where the enemy is trying 

to disrupt your timelines in terms of undercutting our warfighting 

capability.

But that does not take away in my mind that I need to look carefully at each one of the wastes that they identified and address it. 

The best way to do this, I believe, is to get the right people into 

the Pentagon, and I am drawing people from industry, including 

those who saved programs, big programs that were in big problems, 

for industry, aircraft programs. This way, they come in with a 
490

background of how to very analytically weigh the quantitative and 

nonquantitative factors so that we can have a grounding, I would 

say, a grounding in what the fundamentals are that permit us to 

revolutionize our business practices. 

I have three priorities in the Department: Strengthen our military; strengthen our alliances so we are not carrying the full burden for our security; and to reform the business practices. And I 

will get these people in. They are being confirmed as we speak. It 

is ongoing. And once I have them there, I am going to fully empower them along the lines you are talking about. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mrs. Lowey. 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Mattis, during testimony before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee in 2013, Senator Wicker asked you if you had 

observed that the international development budget is helpful to us 

in providing national defense for our country. You responded, and 

I quote, ‘‘If you don’t fund the State Department full then I need 

to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it is a cost-benefit 

ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, 

hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal 

with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the 

international scene,’’ end quote. 

As the ranking member of both the full House Appropriations 

Committee and the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I 

frankly am extremely concerned that the fiscal year 2018 budget 

requests drastic increases in defense spending at the expense of 

nondefense discretionary priorities, including foreign aid and international development programs. 

Mr. Secretary, do you stand by your statements about the importance of the foreign aid budget, and how will these drastic cuts to 

diplomacy programs impact future DOD expenditures? 

Secretary MATTIS. Congresswoman, I believe America has two 

fundamental powers: the power of intimidation, and that is represented here before the committee today, America’s awesome determination to defend ourselves; and the power of inspiration, 

which is heavily conveyed overseas by our Department of State. 

Well, they are the lead on it. 

I have not reviewed—just getting ready for these hearings consumed my time to understand budgets that are rather extensive. 

I have not reviewed where the cuts come to Secretary of State 

Tillerson’s budget. So I do not want to speak offhand without having done my homework. 

But I would tell you that, as I read about those cuts, I called Secretary of State Tillerson. I meet with him weekly. We talk several 

times a day, and we agreed to put two of our top-level subordinates 

together. We are going to look at the priorities for where we need 

to engage in the world. This committee also gives me development 

funds, and we have married the two. We will set the priorities together so that we get the best possible use of the dollars allocated 

to each of the Departments working in concert. So that is my effort 

to reinforce on that and keep us together, and I am confident this 
491

is also what President Trump expects us to do. So that is my best 

response to you. 

I have not reviewed their budget in any detail, ma’am. So I just 

can’t speak to where the cuts are coming. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, my timer is not on. 

Ms. GRANGER. Out of respect, Mrs. Lowey, we don’t put a timer 

on you. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Oh, you are so kind. You know, Chairwoman 

Granger and I have worked together a long time, and there really 

is outstanding mutual respect. 

Well, then I will just take another minute. 

Ms. GRANGER. Okay. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mrs. LOWEY. Because there is another issue that I am passionately concerned about, and that is cyber security. I am so concerned about the growing cyber threats against the United States’ 

interests and assets both at home and overseas. If you could share 

with us the primary risk faced by the Department of Defense in the 

cybersecurity realm. How does the budget request support offense 

of cyber operations? And along with its elevation to a full unified 

command, as specified in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, would Cyber 

Command benefit from ending the dual-hat relationship with NSA? 

And what steps is the Department taking to attract and retain 

these skilled personnel? And I have been so concerned about, once 

an individual comes to your Department and has gone through extensive training, we hope that we will be able to keep them because 

this is such a challenge I am aware of from the private sector. So 

thank you. 

Secretary MATTIS. Just quickly, ma’am, I could not agree more 

about the growing threat. If we had been here 10 years ago, I 

would have yawned and said: I don’t see the big problem. Right now, it is at $8 billion this year specifically targeted, and 

actually, there is a lot more going into this, because we are not 

counting in all the recruiting dollars on—this is just targeted on 

the cyber capability. I would tell you that growing from basically 

$3 billion to $8 billion in 5 years shows the priority we are placing 

on it. 

As far as the Cyber Command-NSA split, we intend to make this 

a split that actually gains more unity of effort from a broader constituency, too, from other elements that are also engaged in the 

countercyber threat. 

And, lastly, I just say that the attracting and keeping key people, 

the educated, trained people will be very challenging. We recognize 

it because they can be offered so much more money on the open 

market than they can be offered in government service. We will 

have to fight it probably with bonuses but also with a call to their 

patriotism, which at times is the most compelling, and we keep a 

lot of young people around based on the fact that we need them to 

defend the country. But it is going to be a challenge, and I did not 

hear one word you said on this issue that I take issue with. I agree 

with you 100 percent. It is a priority effort. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. 
492

And, unfortunately, I have to go to another hearing, too. So 

thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I know we rest better at night knowing that you are in 

charge of the policy. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Chairman Rogers. 

STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

Mr. ROGERS. Amen to that last remark. We are assured with you 

in charge. 

Let me quickly and briefly take up the matter that Mr. Calvert 

mentioned and also Mrs. Lowey on the funding for the Department 

of State. We had Secretary Tillerson here yesterday, and he agreed 

with the same description of your relationship that you have mentioned here today, and that is great. 

But the proposed budget for State and foreign operations has 

rather draconian cuts. For example, economic assistance to Egypt 

is cut by a third; Ukraine by half; Pakistan by a third; Iraq by 14 

percent; Afghanistan by 9 percent; and the like. That is economic 

assistance, not to mention the military each side. Those are rather 

severe, would you not agree? 

Secretary MATTIS. I agree, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. What impact would those kinds of cuts have 

on your capability to do what you need to do in these various countries?

Secretary MATTIS. Well, in terms of a direct military impact, if 

I am kept funded, then, obviously, I can keep the military—the 

purely military—effort ongoing, and that includes the support for 

protection of our embassies, which is a constant priority for us. 

But I think that I would have to look—again, I am not trying to 

get out of answering the question, Congressman, but I would have 

to look in detail about what is the capability that they are losing, 

what is it, and then we would have to do an analysis of what that 

does.

The concern I would have is sometimes these issues do not relate 

easily to a quantitative analysis, that there is nonquantitative aspects to our relationship with the world that are more difficult to 

come up with. They are easier to see, frankly, in the rearview mirror. That is when you see what has happened. But I just don’t 

want to say something right now, sir, that I can’t back up with 

some kind of homework that I have done already so I can give you 

some authoritative answers. 

Mr. ROGERS. When you have time to reflect on that, we would 

like to hear from you. 

Secretary MATTIS. Okay, sir. 

BUDGETARY NUMBER

Mr. ROGERS. I have been dealing with these CRs and omnibuses 

now for many years. And we are headed straight into that rabbit 

patch again very quickly. I don’t recollect a time later in the season 

that we have gone as far as we have this time. Here it is almost 

July 4th, and we are nowhere near coming up with a budgetary 

number that we can sit down and appropriate to on Appropriations 

Committee.
493

So I want to encourage you to talk with the White House people, 

especially OMB, and see if we can negotiate a number that we can 

appropriate to here on this subcommittee and the other 11. Otherwise, we are headed straight into a CR, with all that contains, or 

an omnibus, where we don’t get what we need to get in defense. 

So that is the dilemma that we are in, but it also is the dilemma 

that you are in. We need desperately a number that both sides 

have agreed to, and I am here to tell you that I think that is possible, but it does take some elbow work, and it takes some grease 

work, and it takes some effort. 

But on this subcommittee, we understand completely your need 

for help, and we are there to give it to you. But our hands are tied 

until we get that number that we can all work under. So let me 

encourage you to work your magic with the budgeteers at the OMB 

and other places. 

We appreciate your service, all of you. Thank you so much for 

dedicating your lives to our country. And we feel safe with you in 

the positions you are in. 

I yield. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Visclosky. 

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. 

I would just point out to the panel that my understanding is the 

deadline for the Department to have auditable results is the end 

of fiscal year 2017, which is fast approaching. I understand from 

the Under Secretary that that goal will absolutely be met, and I 

am counting on him. 

What I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, is, if we can follow up with 

your office, as you know, I have an intense interest on the Nuclear 

Posture Review, the modernization program, and I appreciate your 

very thoughtful conversation in February. Too often I think people 

have an instinctive response that we need a triad forever. You suggested that you want to take a very serious look as to what it 

should be going forward. 

I think when people think about the nuclear posture, they also 

think about nonproliferation, many of the programs being at the 

Department of Energy, but the third element, from my perspective, 

are those nonnuclear events or weapons that potentially trigger a 

nuclear event. Our country, others are working on hypersonic 

weapons. So we have unstable regimes that what will trigger their 

nuclear response, absent a nuclear attack of our own? 

And I would appreciate sitting down with whoever you think is 

appropriate from the Department so that I have a clearer understanding and perhaps the chair and others on the subcommittee, 

how the Department works through preventing that from happening to the best of our Nation’s ability, where it is not toe to toe, 

somebody launches first, but there is some event, there is that new 

weapons system that is just kinetic, nonnuclear, that triggers that 

nuclear event. I think it is a very serious issue, and I would like 

to have that conversation. 

Secretary MATTIS. I will find the right people to bring up, sir. I 

understand the nature of your question, though, and I would just 

say that I had not put those in my thinking into the Nuclear Pos-
494

ture Review. So let me reconsider the guidance I have given them. 

We are working, obviously, the triad: should it be there, which 

weapon system should constitute each leg, and the nonproliferation. I need to look at this myself. After I get my head wrapped 

around it right, I will assign some people to come up and brief you 

and get your thoughts on this. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate it, because I do think you have been 

very thoughtful on this. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cole. 

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, and Mr. Norquist, it is good 

to have all three of you here. I really thank you for your service. 

And, quite frankly, it speaks well of the President that you all were 

nominated in your respective positions and got such strong bipartisan support when the Senate considered you. So I appreciate 

that.

Second, I couldn’t help but laugh, Mr. Secretary, when I read 

your now famous remark about your sleep habits. And I thought, 

well, all of us sleep a lot better right now if you happen to be an 

American thanks to you. So we are very grateful for that. 

I want to echo a little bit of what has been said up here several 

times, because I don’t think it can be said often enough. When we 

look at the approps process, and I focus a lot on that, at the end 

of the day, there are only one or two outcomes this year. We are 

either going to have a continuing resolution or we are going to have 

a negotiated bipartisan agreement. And as you have made crystal 

clear, the latter is much preferable to the former. And so I really 

want to emphasize that where my colleagues are concerned and, 

quite frankly, associate myself with some of my Democratic colleagues’ remarks: If we don’t get to a good number in the nondefense area, we will inevitably end up doing something that nobody on either side of the aisle wants to do, and that is present you 

with the kind of dilemma that you have outlined in front of you. 

I think, at the end of this day, this committee will give you at 

least what you ask and probably more. But, again, if we don’t get 

the process right, none of that will matter. You know, they can authorize everything all day long. Until we actually get the numbers 

where we can appropriate, things don’t happen. 

I do have a question. I know you are in the last part of really 

working on the National Security Strategy, and we look forward 

with a great deal of anticipation to looking at that. But I am curious if you believe—and this may be a little out of your lane. If you 

don’t want to comment on it, that is perfectly fine with me. But 

some of us up here have been concerned for a long time about the 

lack of a new Authorization for Use of Force. We are really operating off things that go back to 2001, 2002, 2003. We are fighting 

a different enemy in a different place than we envisioned at that 

time.

Would it be helpful for Congress to explicitly have this sort of debate and come to these sorts of conclusions, obviously, with the 
495

guidance from the administration, input from the administration 

and experts, or is that just a waste of time? 

Secretary MATTIS. Sir, I don’t believe it is a waste of time at all. 

The Chairman and I have talked at length about this in our private conversations, and the Congress making a statement like that 

would hearten our own troops. It would reassure our allies around 

the world. It would put America out front in terms of a united— 

or the consensus of the Congress that this is where you think we 

have to be committed. 

I believe it is much preferable to leaving it to be argued about 

in bits and pieces over specific issues or troop strength or something like this. And the Chairman, I could have him comment, too, 

but he believes it sends a real statement, sir. 

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman. 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, that is exactly the conversation 

we had. I think it would send a loud and unmistakable message 

to our young men and women that are deployed that the people at 

home in the form of the Congress support what they are doing. And 

it is a consensus about what they are doing, and what they are 

doing is important. 

Mr. COLE. Well, thank you very much for that because I feel exactly the same way. I think it is a constitutional issue as well. And 

I think it means a lot when people of your stature tell us that it 

matters to the men and women that we have put in harm’s way 

to do difficult things for us. 

So, Madam Chairman, I would hope, while we all work hard, and 

I know we will, on getting the appropriate resources so that we 

have at least the administration’s request and perhaps some more, 

that we also push our respective leadership on both sides of the 

aisle to stop avoiding a debate that needs to happen. 

You know, I have actually worked with my friend, Mr. McGovern 

from Massachusetts, we probably don’t see eye to eye on the issue, 

but we certainly see eye to eye on the importance of a resolution 

and a congressional statement. So I think that is part of our job 

ahead of us, too. It is not just to give you the resources, which we 

certainly need to do, but to make sure that you have got the clear 

lines of authority and the unequivocal support of the American people as you go about carrying out the mission we have asked you 

to do. 

I am not going to take the rest of my time. I yield back. Thank 

you.

Ms. GRANGER. I certainly agree with you Mr. Cole. 

Mr. Ryan. 

U.S. ROLE IN THE WORLD

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. 

I want to make a couple of points, and then have a question with 

regard to North Korea. One is we just got back from a trip: We 

were in Bahrain. We were in Norway. We were in Germany. We 

were in Spain. And as a guy from Youngstown, Ohio, it always inspires me to see the footprint of the young men and women who 

are under your command, that they take their responsibilities so 

very seriously. They are so well trained. 
496

The point I want to make is that I don’t think we do a good 

enough job of letting the American people know how important our 

role in the world is. When you are in the Persian Gulf, when you 

are in the Middle East, when you are in Europe, you are thinking 

about what we are doing in Eastern Europe with NATO, the American people just don’t quite understand, I think, the prominence 

and the responsibilities that we carry. And part of that is losing 

the World War II generation, the people that were engaged in war 

and all the rest. So all of us—just to make a point because I think 

all of us need to think about, as we are having these discussions, 

how we communicate that to the average citizen that is in Gary, 

Indiana, or Youngstown, Ohio, how important it is for us to be engaged in the world, and you are on the front lines of that. So I 

wanted to make that point. 

NORTH KOREA

Secondly, I would love for either Secretary Mattis or General 

Dunford to talk to us about North Korea generally. But, in particular, what does it look like should we have to make a decision 

in the next 12 to 18 months, if you look at the trajectory of where 

North Korea is going? We have got to come to some determination 

here about what we are going to do, and whether or not we are 

okay with them potentially getting the capabilities to be able to 

launch some attack, not just in U.S. interests, but potentially strike 

the United States. 

I think it would be instructive for the American people to know, 

kind of not giving away state secrets or getting classified, but just 

what that would look like if there is a back and forth between, 

whether it is the United States or an ally that we have in the region, and North Korea, what happens in South Korea, what happens in Seoul, what happens to Japan? Because we hear a lot: 

Well, just bomb them; just take it out, take out their capabilities. 

Can you just illustrate for us what that engagement looks like? 

Secretary MATTIS. I can, Congressman Ryan. I would suggest 

that we will win. It will be a war more serious in terms of human 

suffering than anything we have seen since 1953. It will involve 

the massive shelling of an ally’s capital, which is one of the most 

densely packed cities on Earth. It would be a war that fundamentally we don’t want. And we would have our allies and us; we 

would win at great cost. 

This is why in one of the most—the highest priority efforts that 

President Trump has directed, he has brought—invited the President of China to Mar-a-Lago. There were only two issues brought 

up in Mar-a-Lago, and this was one of them. It was that high a 

priority.

Secretary Tillerson has this as a priority. We are working 

through China to ensure that China understands that North Korea 

is today a strategic burden for them; it is not a strategic asset. And 

China has actually responded in some ways positively. You saw 

them vote last week for additional sanctions on North Korea, for 

example. And I think that we are exhausting all possible diplomatic efforts in this regard. 

Next week, Secretary Tillerson and I will meet with our opposite 

members from Beijing who are flying here to Washington over sev-
497

eral issues, but this one will loom large. So it would be a serious— 

it would be a catastrophic war, especially for innocent people in 

some of our allied countries, to include Japan most likely, but it is 

also one that we are doing everything possible not to have happen 

and resolve this through diplomatic means. 

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Mr. RYAN. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Just, lastly, one point. When we were in Kuwait a few weeks 

back, we went to this small little tent where they had 3D printers, 

and the Marine Corps was printing parts for different things that 

they needed. I want to engage the Department in the future to 

make sure that you have the resources that you need. This could 

be a tremendous capability. But one of the aspects is they almost 

need like a depot for how to get these parts, get the kind of design, 

a design depot, to be able to download these parts in places like 

Kuwait to really, I think, save us a lot of money, Madam Chair. 

And I know we are putting money into one of President Obama’s 

initiatives for manufacturing innovation institutes, one of which is 

additive manufacturing, a great capability where you don’t have to 

order a thousand parts of this, that or the other; you can actually 

print one in the field. And this is a way for us to merge modern 

technology, to give the warfighter the capabilities that they need. 

So I just wanted to give you the heads-up. We are going to continue 

to work on that and I think save the taxpayer a heck of a lot of 

money in the process. Thank you so much. 

Ms. GRANGER. Mrs. Roby. 

STRATEGIC DECISIONS AND DEFENSE BUDGET

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you all for being here today. We have learned 

a lot, and we appreciate your service to our country and that of 

your families. So, please, pass that along as well. 

Secretary Mattis, throughout much of your military career, it 

was the National Security Strategy of our country to have the ability to fight and win two major conflicts simultaneously. And over 

time, that strategy has changed to a strategy of being able to win 

one significant conflict in one theater while having the ability to 

hold in another until additional resources could be brought to the 

fight.

Accordingly, Congress has appropriated the necessary resources 

for force structure, procurement, and research and development to 

reach those strategic objectives. Today, with the rising threats all 

over the world, many of which we have already discussed here 

today, I am concerned that, should a conflict break out in one region, that our adversaries in other regions may use that as an opportunity to take aggressive military action. 

At the end of the day, with the President’s budget we are discussing today, how capable will we be to simultaneously fight two 

major conflicts should that become necessary? 

Secretary MATTIS. Implementing this budget, Congresswoman, 

will enable us to be better prepared for this. That is not to say 

strategic decisions wouldn’t have to be made once engaged. And we 

do assume, however, that—we agree with your thesis that, in the 

event we are doing something in one place, the potential for some-
498

body to take advantage of it is a given. So we are completely 

aligned with you on that. 

You can see us right now engaged in Afghanistan, not in a heavy 

way. The Afghan Army is carrying the bulk of the fighting, but it 

is still a significant draw on us. You see us engaged in the Middle 

East in the same way. And we are doing an awful lot of this by, 

with, and through allies, but your question go to the heart of, what 

if we have to do most of it? And this budget is designed to better 

prepare us, but it is going to take years to recover from all the 

damage, ma’am. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, I would just add, as directed 

last year, we did a simultaneity drill in the Department so we 

could understand what really it would take to do two MCOs. We 

certainly wouldn’t want to have that conversation in this venue. 

But we would be happy to share the details of that with you. We 

have done the analytic work necessary to really be able to talk 

about the capabilities and capacity implications of being able to 

fight in two places at once. And that will very much inform the 

Secretary’s strategy review that is ongoing right now. We will bring 

that work into the Secretary’s strategy review. 

ARMY AVIATION AND READINESS

Mrs. ROBY. Well, I would like that. I think we could probably all 

benefit from having that information in front of us. 

Turning to readiness, specifically Army aviation. Of course, our 

military doesn’t go many places without Army aviators. And my 

concern is that those aviation assets are being stretched pretty 

thin. Given the global high demand for Army aviation capabilities, 

I am interested in your thoughts as it relates to increasing readiness.

It is my understanding that we have a shortage of pilots. I know 

we are short on Apache helicopters, and programs like the Light 

Utility Helicopter look to be underfunded. So what are your 

thoughts on increasing Army aviation readiness? 

Secretary MATTIS. Since near the end of World War II, we have 

dominated the skies overhead, almost to the point that we could 

start taking it for granted, which would be a disaster if we did 

that. It takes a lot of commitment, sacrifice over many years. There 

is, for Army aviation alone, over $3 billion in investment. This is 

building more Black Hawks, Apaches, Chinooks, that sort of thing. 

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps are all working with private industry now because we are not creating enough pilots in this 

environment right now to serve either the commercial or security 

interests, service interests. So we are going to have to deal with 

this as a national level problem. And, you know, we have responded to this sort of thing in the past. We have to dust off the 

old thinking and find some new ideas in there. But we are working 

it right now. We just had the meeting with industry here last 

month with, again, General Goldfein, our Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force, leading it, but all the service chiefs are engaged. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 
499

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Ms. Kaptur. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think I was next. 

Ms. GRANGER. Oh. Mr. Ruppersberger. Pardon me. 

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you very much. First, Secretary 

Mattis, or General Mattis, I respect you and worked with you as 

a General, General Dunford and also Mr. Norquist. You know, you 

have gotten a lot of accolades, and you deserve it because of who 

you are and you earned the position. We all talk about sleeping at 

night, but these are serious times for our country. 

I want to quote you, because I am going to make more of a statement, I think, to this committee and to our leadership on the committee. You have said that Congress has failed to show leadership 

when it comes to funding the Pentagon, and I agree with you on 

that comment. For years now, since sequestration has passed, we 

have had four-stars coming in and telling us how it makes it weaker and weaker. And, yet, we really have not done what we need to 

do to repeal it, both Democrats and Republicans. 

Times have changed since sequestration was passed; the world 

has gotten a lot more dangerous, as you have testified. By the way, 

when you are one of the last ones to ask questions, you know, a 

lot of these issues, North Korea and all, have come up. So I am 

going to maybe make a statement within my time. 

And I want to say this to our committee: A lot of us have worked 

together for years, and I respect each and every one of you on the 

Republican and Democratic side. But there comes a time when we 

have to do something, and that is this issue of sequestration. As 

dangerous as we are and when every single Army, Navy, Air Force, 

Marine talks about sequestration, and, yet, we have not repealed 

this at these very, very dangerous times. And I think we have to 

show some action. I think we can’t be concerned about Republican 

or Democrat or whether we are going to break the Hastert rule. I 

mean, all of these things are just political, and yet we have an obligation on this committee, Defense Appropriations, to give you the 

resources. And if sequestration is still there because of idealistic 

political reasons, whatever that is, or we are not going to give this 

up if we don’t get something else, that is wrong. 

So I am asking our leadership and each and every one of us on 

this committee to really sit down and work a strategy, Republican 

and Democratic strategy. Now, we are very upset about what happened yesterday. Maybe that is going to be an impetus for us to 

do something, because we haven’t done it, and it is about time we 

do it. 

And my question was going to be, and you have already repeated 

it: Do you agree with what I said that we need to repeal sequestration?

Secretary MATTIS. I do. And I agree it is nonpartisan. Secretary 

Panetta was my boss a few years ago, and he was in a Democrat 

administration. He was a Democrat. And I don’t see this as a partisan issue. This is an American issue. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Whether it is the Speaker or the leader, 

whatever that is, let’s pull together this committee. We know each 
500

other, and we trust each other. I have respect for every single 

member on this committee, and I know we all feel this way. Let’s 

just get it done. I am an Under Armour guy because of Baltimore, 

but there is the Nike phrase, ‘‘Just Do It.’’ And I think it is about 

time we really just sit down and take care of that strategy. 

NORTH KOREA

The other issue I have—and we have talked North Korea, and 

I don’t want you to repeat yourself—one thing that hasn’t come up. 

I found the subject matter that hasn’t come up, and that is the 

issue of hypersonic missiles. We know that Russia and China have 

developed hypersonic missiles, which are so fast that they could 

put, in my opinion, our ships, our aircraft carriers, all at risk. And 

I am not sure where the Navy is at that point, and if it is classified, I don’t want to get into it. But I think this is something that 

has to be focused on and very quickly. 

CYBER SECURITY

You know, we talked about cyber. We are dealing with those 

issues and all the things that need to be done. But when our aircraft carriers, which are so awesome—look at how many people we 

have, look at how we use them, and yet they could be at risk. And 

I want to make sure that we look at the funding and the focus, and 

that you can report back to this committee where we are on our 

defense and hypersonic missiles. 

Secretary MATTIS. Will do, Congressman. And coming into the 

job, I have been briefed by holdovers from the last administration 

and new people coming in now, and your view of the hypersonic 

threat, the need for defenses, but also to ensure we have 

hypersonic technology at cutting edge is agreed upon. There is no 

pushback on it that I found. We have got to move out—we will 

come back to you showing—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Most people don’t know about the issue, 

but I would like this, at least personally for me, but I think the 

committee, too, wants to hear about hypersonic. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

COMBAT VEHICLES

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And thank all three of you for being here. You are very important to the future of our Nation and we appreciate the good work 

that you do. And I would like to associate myself with everyone 

who has discussed the challenges we have trying to put together 

what we need to do without a number that we need to work with. 

And anyway you could help us get that fixed is a great idea. 

My world is all about the guys on the ground. I represent Fort 

Hood. I have got kind of a combination question I would like to 

ask. First and foremost, Secretary Mattis, they are obviously investing very heavily in upgrading many of the combat vehicles. 

While these upgrades certainly represent increased speed, lethality, 

and protection, they cannot be characterized as significant leaps 

forward in capability. As you are aware, our competitors’ combat 
501

vehicles are approaching parity with the Army. It seems readily apparent that we should prioritize investing heavily to speed up the 

development of the next generation of combat vehicles, yet funding 

levels for this effort has not increased over the last several years. 

NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER

Can you share with the committee your sense of our ground combat vehicles and what additional resources you need from this committee to adequately close the capability gap? And I will include 

with that that I would like to hear an assessment of where we 

are—of what are the training changes we have to make at the National Training Center to go to high-end warfighting versus the 

warfighting we have been engaged in for 16 years almost. 

So where are we on readiness of our troops, training, and the vehicles that we are sending them to war in? And I would love to 

hear from both of you. 

Secretary MATTIS. Yes, sir. And we probably owe you a more detailed explanation of the program to get us where we need to go, 

because we are not there today is the bottom line. This is somewhat a result of the funding issues and the distraction of war and 

the combination of those factors. But we have programs we have 

put together. The Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle is being fielded now to the first Army and Marine units. It is a joint program 

to get full economies of scale to spend the money wisely. But it is 

a much broader issue, as you know, with different types of vehicles, 

from armored vehicles to transport vehicles, and the various levels—types of vehicles that we need to get. 

In terms of the training challenges, I will hit that and then turn 

the two questions to The Chairman. There, what we have to do is 

adapt to the changing character of war, and Army battalions in the 

field are now going to have assets that an Army battalion didn’t 

have 10 years ago, for example, surveillance assets, drones. We 

also have an enemy drone problem, where we don’t have the right 

defenses. Every Army battalion headquartered out there is probably going to come under cyber attack. That didn’t happen 10, 20 

years ago. 

So these new domains, these new technologies highlight the need 

to avoid a continuing resolution. As you know, under a continuing 

resolution, I can do zero about new starts to address the changing 

character of war. Let me turn over to the Chairman. 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, you bring up a really important point, and I alluded to it in my opening statement, and that 

is, I think it is fair to say that the majority of our investment— 

and if you look at the Army’s investment in 2017, even in the supplemental—it was all to maintain the current capability we have. 

So we made marginal improvements in the capability protection 

system of the current tanks, for example, but we don’t necessarily 

have as much money in modernizing our armored capability as we 

would want to have. 

And that really is, as the Secretary lays it out, I mean 2018 hits 

readiness, to include for vehicles. And what we really need to start 

thinking about, 2019 and beyond, is tomorrow. And we have, for 

the last 7 or 8 years, one of the most significant challenges of the 

budget situation, we have discussed here today is we are always 
502

dealing with the current challenges, always dealing with today’s 

readiness, always trying to get today’s equipment up to speed. 

And now we are at the point where there is actually a distinction 

without a difference between procurement and current readiness 

because, in many cases, either units don’t have the full complement 

of the vehicles they have or we are starting to field vehicles that 

don’t have a competitive advantage or the competitive advantage, 

as you suggest, is reducing. So I think as we look to 2019 and beyond, you know modernizing our ground combat vehicles is something that probably hasn’t moved at a pace satisfactory to us. 

With regard to training, though, what General Milley has identified as now a requirement, I think your word, Congressman, is all 

of his brigades will go through the National Training Center. That 

is exactly to address the dynamic that you spoke about to make 

sure that we are not only prepared for the current deployments in 

dealing with violent extremism, but we are full-spectrum ready and 

that the Army units at Fort Hood, the mechanized units at Fort 

Hood actually can conduct the full range of mission-essential tasks 

that those units have been assigned. And he won’t certify those brigades as being ready unless they actually have done an NTC rotation. And in this budget in 2018, in the readiness piece, we are addressing increased numbers of NTC rotations to enhance the readiness problem you talked about. 

So I think we have a good-news story on maintenance and readiness. I think we have a good-news story on training. And I think 

the challenge that remains before us to address next year and 

years after is going to be the modernization challenge because I’m 

not satisfied that we are actually doing all we can to build the 

Army of tomorrow. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. From what little I have been able to figure out, I agree with that assessment and I am worried about it 

and concerned about it. And I want to make sure we all know that, 

when the smoke clears, it takes a man with a gun to stop a man 

with a gun. In fact, we learned that yesterday. 

So I wish you well. And I will be raising this issue constantly. 

Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Ms. Kaptur. 

INDUSTRIAL BASE

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, you give great example to the young generation of 

this country. I thank you for your patriotic service. I am going to 

read some questions that I will be submitting to the record, and 

then I will ask each of you two questions that I would like you to 

verbally respond to. I don’t expect you to answer the first issues 

I am going to talk about. 

First of all, I have deep concerns about our industrial base 

issues, and your testimony does reference that to some extent. I 

would just like to state the importance of dual sourcing of certain 

technologies, such as small gas turbine engines. I have concern 

about that. 

Number two, stresses on our U.S. steel industry due to the severe dumping by China, South Korea and Russia. 
503

And, thirdly, real threats to our single-source domestic beryllium 

capability. I have a letter, actually, on that, Mr. Secretary, that I 

will give you. 

But thank you for mentioning the defense industrial base. 

Thanks for being aware of it and, in view of a lot of things that 

have happened with the global economy, why we need to pay attention to it. 

Number two, I place a very high priority on U.S. energy independence. We are about 90 percent of the way there. I appreciate 

what DOD has been doing, particularly Navy and Marine Corps, 

with significant leadership, both in installation and operational energy efficiency, to move us toward independence. And I will ask 

you, for the record, to summarize the Department’s role in achieving DOD energy independence but also in terms of some of your 

technological investments, how you are helping America reach that 

broader goal of energy independence. 

My two questions are: General Dunford, three-quarters of a century after World War II, could you summarize for the American 

people, particularly the younger generation, the nature of the Russian threat and why the European Reassurance Initiative is so 

vital to liberty and affirmation of our Article 5 commitment. 

Secretary Mattis, the question I wish to ask you is: I really particularly gravitated to a sentence in your testimony having to do 

with the stresses on our troops and the prolonged wars in which 

we are involved. And I can’t seem to put my finger on the sentence 

on that, but it was right at the beginning. Oh, here: ‘‘Our country 

never envisioned sending our military to war for more than a decade without pause or conscription.’’ The American people ought to 

reread that sentence. 

HEALTH BENEFITS

But my question really is, Mr. Secretary, the GAO released a 

study on May 16, reporting that of the 91,764 servicemembers who 

were separated for misconduct between 2011 and 2015, had later 

been diagnosed with PTSD or TBI, associated with that misconduct, GAO found many, many of them, at least 23 percent, were 

made ineligible for health benefits from the VA. I would like to just 

express to you that I have spent a long time trying to get DOD to 

discharge to care. I have failed in that, though it is getting a little 

bit better. And I would ask you if you could help us to review the 

separation policies of the U.S. military in all the branches to assure 

that servicemembers who need care will receive it. I will also place 

on the record from a 10-year study we have been conducting with 

the Ohio Guard and Case Western Reserve University and University of Michigan and University of Toledo, over 3,000 DNA samples 

from separated servicemembers who voluntarily offered their DNA. 

One of the most shocking findings of what we have been investigating has been that the most significant predictor of a servicemember contracting PTSD is not military service but violence experienced by that individual prior to military service which the military service complicates. That is a really important finding and one 

that should be paid attention to on enlistment. And I just thought 

I would place it on the record. 
504

So, General Dunford, if you could kindly respond on the Russia 

question and, Secretary Mattis, on the ability of your Department 

to discharge to care. 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, first, thanks. 

And on the Russia question, interesting, we rewrote our National 

Military Strategy last year, and we took some time to say, what is 

the source of strength of the United States? And not a surprise to 

the committee, we went back and we said: Since World War II, the 

strategic source of strength to the United States is the network of 

allies and partners that we have built up since World War II. In 

other words, the friends that we have that we can call upon for a 

wide range of common challenges is what is critical. 

What Russia really is going about doing each and every day is 

undermining the credibility of our alliance commitment to NATO 

and our ability to respond to NATO. That is what they are doing. 

That is the most insidious thing that Russia is doing. So why is it 

important that we have the European Reassurance Initiative? 

First of all, we had an expression in the past that virtual presence is actual absence. It has to be a physical manifestation of our 

commitment, and the European Reassurance Initiative, which this 

year is $4.8 billion, gives us three brigade combat teams on a continuous basis in Europe. It gives us additional preposition equipment.

Most importantly, what it does is it assures our allies that we 

actually are committed, and it deters Russia because they know we 

have the ability to respond, and they also know that we are committed, which is the linkage between the European Reassurance 

Initiative and the challenge that we face from Russia. 

But in addition to what they do to undermine the credibility of 

our alliances, of course, Russia possesses the nuclear weapons in 

the thousands that can destroy our Nation. They also have significant cyber capabilities, and they have been using those on a routine basis against our networks, and we have seen that. So there 

is a full range of challenges. And I would just say that, in terms 

of capability as well as behavior, if you look at what Russia has 

done since the Crimea in the Ukraine and testing Georgia a few 

years ago, both their behavior and their capabilities would tell me 

that, of all the nations in the world that could pose an existential 

threat to our Nation and that could undermine the credibility of 

our alliances and the international order that we have had and enjoyed since World War II, it would be Russia. 

Ms. GRANGER. Before we go further in this—Ms. Kaptur, you 

used the entire 5 minutes for your question, and we have a hard 

stop at 11:50. So I am going to ask those on our panel today to answer that in writing or some meeting of Ms. Kaptur, because we 

have others that are waiting. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

NORTH KOREA

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Secretary Mattis, Chairman Dunford, Under Secretary Norquist, 

welcome, glad to have you here today. And we appreciate your 

service to our Nation and know that you will pass along that grati-
505

tude to the men and women who will work throughout the Department of Defense. 

I want to follow up on a question that my colleague, Mr. Ryan, 

had asked. If you go back to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the first 3 

days from March 19, 20, and 21 of 2003, 1,700 sorties were 

launched, including 504 cruise missile strikes. 

We all appreciate the candor that a war with North Korea would 

pose a severe threat to Seoul and, of course, to a lot of most South 

Korea. However, the concern is that this may be interpreted by 

North Korea to mean that we are going to allow them to continue 

to build weapons that are capable of dropping nuclear bombs here 

on the U.S. territory. If North Korea fails to curb the program and 

the President were to decide to strike, my question is, are we assembling the resources that we need to cripple the North Korean 

military in the first 72 hours? 

Secretary MATTIS. Our intent, if we had an indicator and warning of war, would be to assemble those resources, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What do you need in order to do that to prevent 

just mass civilian casualties? 

Secretary MATTIS. The best thing, sir, would be to have such a 

strong military and diplomatic front, including international, that 

we force Korea to divest of its nuclear program, a policy that both 

the United States and China share, by the way, of a denuclearized 

peninsula. So that is the most important thing, is to make certain 

we don’t get to that point. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But you have—currently, do you have the capabilities to assemble the resources that you would need to cripple 

North Korea within that first 72 hours? 

Secretary MATTIS. Sir, due to the nature of the threat, the dugin nature of the artillery and missile—or our rocket positions within range of Seoul, there is probably an awful lot of damage that is 

going to be done no matter how much capability we bring to the 

theater.

CYBER ATTACKS ON POWER GRIDS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. A report was released recently that highlighted the potential for adversaries to conduct cyber attacks on 

power grids. The article referenced the attack on Ukraine’s power 

grid back in December of 2016. I know this may be classified, but 

is this area of cybersecurity an area that you are looking at? 

Secretary MATTIS. It is an active, very active, area of security we 

are looking at, sir, in conjunction with Homeland Security—Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy and 

the FBI. And it is active. It is ongoing. We keep a very close eye 

on it, including this week. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Chairman Dunford, do you have any comments 

on either one of those issues? 

General DUNFORD. The only thing I would say, Congressman, is 

just go through the priorities and talk about what we do with regard to those challenges to our power grid and so forth. The number one priority we have in the Department is to defend our own 

DOD information technology network, and then we work in collaboration with the private and public sector to make sure that we 
506

share when there is a vulnerability and the solutions to those 

vulnerabilities.

Then we play the away game, if you will, and prepare to deal 

with those threats that are outside the continental United States. 

So, when the Secretary spoke about the collaboration with the FBI 

and Homeland Security and so forth, the actual protection of the 

power grid in the United States is not something that we are responsible for but something we support. 

Again, when the United States CYBERCOM identifies 

vulnerabilities or solutions to address those vulnerabilities, there is 

a collaboration that takes place. But what we really focus on is our 

own network and then making sure we have cyber capabilities to 

take the fight to the enemy. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cuellar. 

REGIONAL STRATEGY AND AERIAL RESOURCES

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I also want to say thank you to all three of you for your service. 

I also join my colleagues that we need to get to a number in a bipartisan way, because we have to find that balance between the defense and the nondefense spending, and I hope we can do this. Otherwise, if we going to CR, I think it is not good for anybody. 

I have two questions. Earlier you all had discussed the importance of a regional strategy and aerial resources to the maintaining 

of the high ground on the operations of Afghanistan. 

General Dunford, I know that, in February, you were in Azerbaijan meeting with your counterpart of this year, and I think we 

know it is a—Azerbaijan is an ally. I think we know the role that 

they played during the Afghanistan conflict there. Would you all 

give us—would you give me your thoughts on elevating maybe the 

facility that you have there in Azerbaijan or maybe some other stable regional ally there, because we know that the Middle East is 

complicated, and sometimes our ally provides complicated situations to us. That is question number one. 

READINESS OF FLIGHT TRAINING UNITS

Number two, in light of the discussion of readiness, can you also 

discuss the importance of maintenance in supporting force readiness? Specifically, the readiness of flight training units have suffered in Texas because of an incomplete approach to the engine 

maintenance, and how does your proposed budget attempt to fix 

this deficiency? 

General DUNFORD. Sure, Congressman, let me start with Azerbaijan. As you mentioned, I was there back in February and had 

the privilege of meeting with their leadership, to include the President, and to thank him for the support they provided in what we 

call a northern distribution network. We were able to reinforce and 

resupply our forces in Afghanistan as a result of the access that 

Azerbaijan provided to us. 

And I don’t assess today that we need to increase that access. 

But we appreciate maintaining that access because it has been critical in allowing us to have global reach. And certainly our United 
507

States Transportation Command has a very close partnership with 

Azerbaijan, and they are very appreciative of the access and the 

support that we have. And we would like to maintain that relationship.

With regard to readiness, you will see in the Secretary’s budget 

a significant emphasis overall on readiness, a subset of which is 

the maintenance issue. But, Congressman, I would like to highlight 

for you an important point. Back in 2013, when we went through 

sequestration, we laid off a lot of engineers and a lot of artisans 

and a lot of people that are very critical to maintaining our aircraft. They are critical to the triage of aircraft and identifying what 

repairs need to be done and making sure in a very systematic way 

we get the right aircraft in the depot at the right time to turn it 

around with an acceptable timeline. 

We have not recovered from 2013, and many of the people that 

were laid off as a result of sequestration in 2013 never came back. 

So the challenge that we have with aviation maintenance—and it 

is across all the services—the challenge that we have in aviation 

maintenance can only be fixed—this is another argument for all of 

us collectively for having sustainable budgets, because we need to 

have sustainable budgets to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce. And when we talked about civilian workforce earlier, we are 

very reliant, as you know, in our depots, for a quality civilian force 

and the right people to work on our aircraft. And predictable budgets and a stable workforce are going to be critical for us to get out 

of this maintenance trough. 

In many cases, what you see is units that actually aren’t able to 

man or unable to field the requisite number of aircraft for that particular unit, for—we call it Primary Aircraft Authorized. In some 

cases, they rate 12; they only have 6. They rate 20, and they only 

have 10. So the budget does address the maintenance issue. We are 

trying to recover from, really, what has happened over the last 3 

to 4 years and appreciate your support and focus on that issue. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Womack. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. WOMACK. Thank you. I just got a couple of questions or give 

you an opportunity to expound just a little bit. As my friend Tom 

Cole said earlier in his testimony, we are rapidly moving to one of 

two outcomes in the fiscal year 2018 budget process and appropriations process. We are either going to have a bipartisan omnibus 

package of some type or we are going to end up with a CR. CR is 

disastrous.

I want to give both of you an opportunity to—at the risk of 

sounding like I am piling on the sequester—give us a real idea of 

what this means if we are headed toward a potential continuing 

resolution with significant limitations on how we can fund the 

emerging needs that have been emerging now for a while at the 

Pentagon.

Secretary MATTIS. Thank you, Congressman. 
508

Just for an example, we cannot do the new starts. So why is that 

so critical today? Because the changing character of war, which 

this committee has articulated repeatedly this morning—cyber warfare, space issues, I can go on, counterdrone capability—we cannot 

start that. We cannot start new starts under the continuing resolution.

We also block service growth. For example, we cannot enlist people in the United States Army, and they need more soldiers; we all 

recognize that. The world has changed. But if we don’t know how 

we are going to pay them a year from now, the only way we could 

respond if we didn’t have the money next year, if we brought more 

troops in, for example, if a CR comes into effect, is we have to take 

the money from operations and maintenance. Now the troops, you 

are paying them using the money that should have been fixing 

their gear. 

I think, too, just look at—what business would say, ‘‘We are 

going to do short-term contracts, repeated contracts now that we 

are going to have to put a lot of time into’’—you know how extensive government contracts are to prevent any fraud, waste or 

abuse—‘‘and we are now going to do the same contract for a 3- 

month period or for a 6-month period’’? We get nothing more out 

of it. We simply pay. We double, triple, quadruple the administrative costs that deliver no combat capability whatsoever. In other 

words, it did not only cost us adaptation; it actually reduces the result, the effect we can get from the dollars you give us. It goes into 

administrative air; it doesn’t go into combat capability on the 

ground.

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. WOMACK. And it goes on and on and on, this impact of the 

sequester, and so what—and I am on the Budget Committee with 

other members of the Appropriations Committee. So what is the 

right number for 2018? That seems to be where we are hung out 

to dry right now in terms of getting a budget agreement out of the 

Budget Committee and onto the floor of the House. 

We certainly know it is not the sequester number, which I believe is 549 on the base. Is it 603? Is it 640 that HASC wants? Is 

it somewhere in between? Where is that number, so that people 

like me can have an informed idea of what is possible out of committee?

Secretary MATTIS. Sir, I am going to give you a number: $52 bil- lion over the BCA defense cap. It is $574 billion in our base budget. 

It is $65 billion in our OCO. But there is also, if you were to go 

above that, I think our priorities are right in everything that we 

have given you, but I have reviewed the service secretaries unfunded priorities list, and I agree with the priorities they give if we 

go beyond the base budget numbers I have given you. In other 

words, that too is an area where the Congress can exercise its oversight and its purse strings, frankly. 

But, right now, the President’s budget, which I am defending and 

I believe is the right step to fix, to reverse—start reversing the 

damage and get us on the right track as we get a strategy right, 

is 574 in the base, 65 in the OCO, and there is about $33 billion 

in the service unfunded priorities lists, sir. 
509

Mr. WOMACK. How impactful is sequester on your planners at 

the Pentagon, particularly for the FYDP, because when you do your 

FYDP, you have to look at what current law is, correct? 

Secretary MATTIS. We do, sir. We have placeholders as we look 

further out because we all know that we cannot defend this country 

unless we withdraw from many of our commitments that we have 

learned over the years we need to protect our people and our interests. So, right now, it is paralyzing. 

Mr. WOMACK. One final thought before my time is up. Impact on 

the defense industrial base is also something we don’t spend a lot 

of time talking about. 

Secretary MATTIS. Sir, the industrial base cannot be expanded to 

bring us when we know we need more munitions, for example, if 

they don’t know 3 months from now or 9 months from now that 

they are going to still get a contract for it. In other words, they 

can’t do something that would put the company out of business just 

on a bet. And so you are highlighting all of our concerns, I will just 

tell you, sir. 

Mr. WOMACK. Yeah, before I yield back, I just want to say we 

have to fix the issue or else we are going to be right back where 

we were, and that is with a yearlong CR, and that would just be 

a disaster. 

I yield back. 

Ms. GRANGER. Let me clarify one thing. 

Mr. Womack, on the numbers that you gave, you also included 

military construction in that, right? So it is not just our bill; it is 

the MILCON? 

Secretary MATTIS. Yes, ma’am. It is. It is in there, the MILCON. 

CLOSING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That finishes the 

question.

I want you to just go away with understanding how much confidence we have in you. You have experience. You are in a position, 

and so we are—we have great confidence in what you say and what 

you stand for, but we also have great concerns about readiness. Are 

we ready—how much damage those cuts have done to us. 

We have a concern that we share with you, and that is a continuing resolution, and it is just deadly. It is a horrible situation. 

And we can’t get to what you need with a continuing resolution. 

So any way you can reach out. You have such presence. People respect you. They look to you for the answers. They have to understand that. If you will reach out to those that are on the committees in both the House and the Senate that are on the committees, 

the four committees that make these decisions, it would make the 

possibilities much better. 

That concludes today’s meeting. Thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the 

answers thereto follow:] 

HYPERSONIC WEAPONS SYSTEMS

WITNESS: DUNFORD, JOSEPH

Question. I have long been a supporter of offensive, hypersonic weapons systems. 

However, our efforts have remained at the research level rather than a true pro-
510

gram. Our Combatant Commanders have expressed a need for this capability 

against enemy air defenses, and General Milley before this subcommittee also confirmed the need for this weapon. I don’t believe the current budget justification documents create the program we need; I believe the range in the 2013 JROC document is too limited. A land-based system which launches from U.S. territory is needed. Could you please provide a budget outline which would support a limited, early 

operational capability as soon as possible, and would you consult with General 

Milley and the Army SMDC to see what that timeline could be? 

Answer. The Joint Staff supports hypersonic weapon system development and the 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) recently revalidated the requirements for a Prompt Global Strike capability. The Joint Staff will continue to work 

with and support the Services to provide a limited or early operational capability 

within the FYDP, to include exploring basing options for new and existing systems. 

TRANSGENDER TROOPS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. I understand that the Army and Marine Corps have asked for up to a 

2-year delay on implementation of the policies regarding transgender troops and the 

Transgender Training sessions required for all officers, non-commissioned officers, 

and civilians. While I understand concerns for fairness and related matter, I believe 

these policies may have been unnecessarily rushed by the previous Administration. 

Readiness must be your top priority. On a related matter, I also urge you to block 

any consideration of gender transition therapy requests by detainees at Guantanamo. I don’t believe that this is a justifiable use of our taxpayer funds. Are you 

willing to strongly consider such a delay? 

Answer. The Marine Corps supports the Department of Defense Policy regarding 

Transgender Marines and associated training. 

SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. Let’s assume that the NASA fully covers the development costs of 

the Space Launch System, or SLS. In the event that other launch vehicles are behind schedule or have gone up dramatically in cost, does the SLS present an opportunity for the Department of Defense to launch some of our large national security 

payloads? B. If NASA creates a production model which allows SLS to be sold on 

a lower cost basis, are you willing to look at SLS as an occasional launch vehicle 

for national security payloads? 

Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) does not have any current requirement 

for this large payload space lift capability. For the most common payload separation 

orbits, all variants of the SLS provide significantly (at least three times, and upwards of nine times) more capability than operationally required to meet current 

DoD requirements. Additionally, public law and National Space Policy dictate that 

the DoD must procure launch services from the commercial marketplace when practicable. The DoD does not have any current requirements that cannot be met with 

current launch services provided by commercial sources. 

SPACE X

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. What are the terms of the lawsuit settlement between the Department of Defense and SpaceX? (SpaceX sued the Air Force over an alleged lack of 

opportunity to compete). B. Were a specific number of sole-source launches provided 

to SpaceX as part of the settlement? 

Answer. The terms of the lawsuit settlement between the Department of Defense 

and SpaceX cannot be released due to the confidentiality order of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, No. 14–354 C, filed January 23, 2015. 

FRIGATE PRODUCTION

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. I believe the distributed lethality concept is more important than ever 

in locations which involve littoral waters, and that a hybrid ship order would provide stability to the shipyards and an opportunity to test new systems and compo-
511

nents prior to full-blown Frigate production. Please provide your view on that possibility, and the likely budget needed. 

Answer. To allow adequate time to define Frigate (FFG(X)) requirements, thoroughly evaluate design alternatives and mature the design, the Presidents Budget 

(PB) 2018 submission defers the first year of FFG(X) procurement to Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2020 with additional Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) being procured in FY 2018 

and FY 2019. This approach keeps both LCS shipyards viable ahead of the pending 

FFG(X) competition, allowing the Navy to leverage past and current investments in 

our shipyard workforce and infrastructure. The Navy is already pursuing opportunities to forward fit and back fit some FFG(X) capabilities onto LCS to further increase the lethality and survivability of those platforms. Increased magazine protection and shock hardening of auxiliaries along with the addition of a lightweight tow, 

and space and weight for the Over-The-Horizon Weapon System (OTH–WS) are separately priced options in the Request for Proposal for the three FY 2017 LCS. As 

the Navy is currently in negotiations for the three FY 2017 LCS, details regarding 

the cost of those options cannot be provided in accordance with federal regulations. 

The Navy is also in source selection for OTH–WS which will provide added offensive 

capabilities to the LCS. The PB 2018 submission includes $8.4M to initiate ship engineering work to include design configuration and installation planning for the LCS 

platforms. The submission also identifies OTH–WS procurement ($42.3M) and inservice fleet support funding ($15.9M) through the Future Years Defense Plan 

(FYDP) for the weapon system. 

FY 2019 TO FY 2023 FUNDING LEVELS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Secretary Mattis, you mentioned a Defense Strategy to determine Defense funding levels for FY 2019 to FY 2023. Do you have a timeframe on when 

those numbers will be available? Your report on those estimates will be important 

to this body if we consider repealing or lifting BCA Caps. 

Answer. The National Defense Strategy is ongoing and will direct resourcing requirements for the FY 2019–2023 Future Years Defense Program. Funding levels 

and resourcing decisions will be worked closely with the Office of Management and 

Budget in preparation for the FY 2019 President’s Budget Submission to Congress 

in February 2018. 

EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Your FY 2018 budget request contains a 40 percent increase in funding 

for the European Reassurance Initiative. Does this funding pay for equipment, 

weapons, and systems software for our allied partners? If so, is there funding allocated for maintaining and servicing those items? 

Answer. The vast majority of the Department’s FY 2018 European Reassurance 

Initiative request focused on increasing U.S. readiness and responsiveness through 

increased presence, expanded exercises, and prepositioning of wartime equipment 

and stocks. The United States prefers to use other programs and authorities, such 

as Foreign Military Sales and Foreign Military Financing, to provide Allies and 

partners with equipment, weapons, and systems software. This year, Congress 

added ERI funding to increase Ukraine’s ability to defend its sovereign territory. 

ERI support to Ukraine will include assistance with command and control capabilities; counter-battery radars; training, equipping, and employment of forces; comprehensive logistics; and advisory efforts. 

EUROPEAN ALLIES

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. I think that the European Reassurance Initiative is critically important 

to deter potential Russian aggression. There was a unit from the California National 

Guard here recently and they discussed some of the challenges in training their 

Ukrainian counterparts. These challenges ranged from the Ukrainian forces not 

having a formalized enlistment and training program, to not having the proper systems to account for personnel and to pay their Soldiers. So, I am interested in how 

the Department of Defense is assessing the capabilities of our European allies as 

we continue to rotate units into the European theater. Is there a one to two-page 

product on each of the allied partner forces that you can provide that gives us a 
512

snapshot of their capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, their overall level of readiness?

Answer. The Department, both unilaterally and in conjunction with Allies, continuously assesses the capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and overall readiness of 

our Allies. These assessments are often voluminous and contain classified information. The Department does not produce one- or two page unclassified summaries of 

these assessments, however my staff would be happy to provide a classified briefing 

on these matters at your convenience. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto follow:]

OVERPRESSURE INJURIES

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure injuries 

and what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your personnel in the field 

and training environments? B. Who in your organization is responsible for this occupational hazard? C. It took roughly 40 years of personalized radiation measurement 

to fully understand the effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary first 

step to understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not deploy 

blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the data? D. DARPA has 

recommended expanding the fielding of the gauge because it ‘‘ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.’’ How many of our men and women are using the gauges 

in the field or in training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? How many 

devices have been purchased and where are they today? 

Answer. A. How concerned are your service chiefs about overpressure injuries and 

what actions are you taking to mitigate exposure to your personnel in the field and 

training environments? Air Force leadership is concerned about the health and safety of all our Airmen and strives to institute appropriate engineering, administrative, 

or personal protective equipment controls where the evidence supports their effectiveness in preventing workplace injury and illness, regardless of the type of exposure encountered. B. Who in your organization is responsible for this occupational 

hazard? The Air Force Medical Service’s Aerospace Medicine community is responsible for the medical aspects of the occupational health and safety program. They 

identify and measure workplace hazards and conduct associated medical surveillance of at-risk service members. Numerous medical and line responsibilities are 

enumerated within DoD Instruction 6490.11, DoD Policy Guidance for Management 

of mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion in the Deployed Setting. Given the current science regarding overpressure, the only workplace exposures of this type which 

can be reliably monitored are noise exposures as part of our long-established hearing conservation program. C. It took roughly 40 years of personalized radiation 

measurement to fully understand the effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why 

not deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the data? The 

current surveillance science regarding overpressure continues to evolve. However, 

other than that which is hearing related, surveillance mechanisms are insufficiently 

reliable to protect against the effects of blast exposures. The key performance element of any such monitoring device or test is its positive predictive value, the ability 

to associate exposures with outcomes in a reliable, predictable manner. Blast gauges 

are environmental sensors and have proven particularly deficient in this regard 

when tested in the field, particularly in their ability to correlate blast exposure with 

Traumatic Brain Injury. D. DARPA has recommended expanding the fielding of the 

gauge because it ‘‘ensures timely evaluation and treatment of TBI.’’ How many of 

our men and women are using the gauges in the field or in training? Do high-risk 

units have access to the devices? How many devices have been purchased and where 

are they today? Following unsuccessful field testing in the US Central Command 

theater of operations with various army units, there are no deployed units currently 

using these devices. The Air Force was not part of that study and currently fields 

no such devices on our deployed Airmen based upon the lack of evidence regarding 

their surveillance value based upon those earlier field studies. As the science and 

technology matures we will re-assess the fielding of these devices for our at-risk Airmen.

Answer. Navy Medicine is dedicated to our mission of optimizing Sailors’ and Marines’ readiness, health, and keeping them on the job. Navy Medicine is actively engaged in research performed in partnership with other Department of Defense 
513

(DoD) entities. In addition, we are partnering with nongovernmental academic institutions and assessing clinical application of evolving scientific information to develop best practices and policy as part of Navy Medical Department TBI programing. Inquiries regarding acquisition and fielding of specific blast exposure sensors and other related technology is out of Navy Medicine’s scope. A. How concerned 

are your service chiefs about overpressure injuries and what actions are you taking 

to mitigate exposure to your personnel in the field and training environments? Navy 

and Marine Corps are aware of and acutely concerned with the risk of overpressure 

injuries in both training and field environments. Many of the acute risks of exposure 

to blast overpressure are known. While acute exposure standards do exist for overpressure injury protection for single events, a standard for repetitive exposure has 

not been established. As an emerging science, dose effect exposure impact and injury pattern research is active but insufficient at present for driving policy to mitigate exposure effects. Monitoring systems and threshold determination for multiple 

blast overpressure events to accumulate data in a manner similar to cumulative radiation dosimetry is under development as part of an effort funded by Military 

Operational Medicine Research Program. B. Who in your organization is responsible 

for this occupational hazard? Leaders at all levels are responsible for the health and 

safety of Sailors and Marines. Navy Medicine is invested in research to understand 

risks associated with overpressure exposure, as well as methods to identify and 

treat possible consequences of overexposure. It should be noted that overpressure 

exposure is currently considered an emerging occupational hazard, without current 

nationally recognized established exposure limits or standards, and is still in the research realm. The Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) is part of a multi-institutional effort to develop exposure standards to repetitive low intensity blast overpressure events. This effort involves research on the assessment of blast effects in 

DoD operational units (e.g., Breachers, Artillery) and the use of animal models to 

develop an exposure standard algorithm. The effort is funded under the Defense 

Health Program. NMRC’s collaborative effort is focused on the development of an 

exposure algorithm. The data from this effort will be shared with DoD operational 

planners to develop occupational standards and surveillance procedures. Navy Medicine is responsible for the medical readiness of Sailors and Marines, and as such, 

is actively engaged with the TBI community of interest, including ongoing collaborations with DoD, the other Services, Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center 

(DVBIC), National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE), and numerous private research institutions. The collaborations keep Navy Medicine at the cutting edge of 

science to ensure policies and practices are current with regard to informing policy 

to reduce exposure to injury, establish appropriate screening and surveillance practices, and to guide interventions to mitigate effects of injuries. As has been stated, 

this is an area of emerging science, and thus, policies and practices are dynamic, 

with efforts to continually capture data to advance efficacy of mitigation strategies. 

C. It took roughly 40 years of personalized radiation measurement to fully understand the effects of exposure. Measurement was the necessary first step to understanding dose response. Is this a similar situation? Why not deploy blast overpressure surveillance to at least begin to capture the data? Accurate measurement 

of overpressure exposure is critical in protecting Sailors and Marines, and in understanding potential health consequences of exposure. There are several challenges associated with this, including understanding how different devices measure overpressure, how differences in measurement relate to actual physiological and brain 

exposure, and then what different levels of exposure mean for risk to brain integrity, as well as clinical consequences. Advances have been made in all of these 

areas. Despite this progress, the current state of science is inconclusive with regard 

to exposure to sub-concussive events and subsequent injury or symptoms, and there 

is a need for continued partnerships to advance the science. Efforts to accurately 

measure and understand overpressure exposure have shifted from wide-scale deployment which had limited utility for understanding effects and development of 

subsequent policy. In order to better understand overpressure phenomenon, current 

use of overpressure measurement is in focused, rigorously studied settings. This allows for capture and analysis of data in a systematic way which is contributing to 

ongoing advancement of understanding of exposure and subsequent policy and practice changes. Navy and Marine Corps are proactively involved in collaborative research including measurement of overpressure exposure in institutional review 

board controlled trials which will allow for systematic collection and analysis of data 

in specific environments and applications, which is necessary to answer the questions above. NMRC is aware of several efforts within the DoD medical research and 

development community to develop and refine blast sensor technology. The Office 

of Naval Research (ONR) is conducting the Blast Load Assessment Sense and Test 

(BLAST) program which is developing technologies that quantify the physiological 
514

effects of blast loads on personnel in the field. The objective is to address militaryspecific blast overpressure induced injury as well as blunt force injury. D. DARPA 

has recommended expanding the fielding of the gauge because it ‘‘ensures timely 

evaluation and treatment of TBI.’’ How many of our men and women are using the 

gauges in the field or in training? Do high-risk units have access to the devices? 

How many devices have been purchased and where are they today? Navy Medicine 

doesn’t manage distribution of blast sensor devices and is not in a position to respond to questions of distribution. However, it should be noted that there is, as of 

yet, no definitive evidence linking repetitive overpressure exposure to traumatic 

brain injury. The state of science is emerging, and Navy Medicine stands at the 

forefront of research to understand these relationships, and to adjust policy and 

practices as indicated to protect Sailors and Marines. 

Answer. A. The Service Chiefs are very concerned about the potential for blast 

overpressure (BOP) injuries and enforce established occupational health standards 

and safety procedures to protect personnel who use weapon systems in field and 

training environments. In parallel, the DoD and the Army have implemented policies to maximize the identification and screening for Service members exposed to 

BOP. Medical information collected as a result of policy is leveraged for immediate 

healthcare delivery, while exposure data is shared through Service or departmentwide efforts to maximize understanding of BOP. B. DoD-level policies task operational commanders to oversee the safety of training events, and enforce policies 

and procedures that provide maximal surveillance, mitigation, and treatment of 

BOP-related injuries. The Army serves as the Executive Agent for coordinating all 

DoD blast injury research which bridges medical and operational commands. U.S. 

Army Medical Command (USA MEDCOM) has the lead on occupational health compliance, clinical care for injuries, and development of medical research on occupational hazards related to BOP. C. It is unclear at this time if direct parallels can 

be drawn between personalized radiation measurement and blast overpressure surveillance. The Army previously deployed a large-scale blast overpressure surveillance program during OEF deployments, which did not produce actionable information. The Army has since moved to a focused approach, involving research level data 

collection and surveillance from environmental sensors in training. This effort aims 

to: (1) optimize sensor technologies for surveillance in training environments, (2) understand the health effects of single and repetitive exposure to BOP, (3) establish 

evidence-based injury thresholds, and (4) provide immediate feedback to Leaders on 

BOP profiles in training. D. In 2012, the Army procured approximately 108,000 

gauges for use in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The data from this effort did 

not provide actionable information or insights into the impact of single or cumulative BOP. The Army’s effort to understand low-level BOP shifted to a more tailored approach in the training environment. Within the current Army effort (Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT)), there are 1600 gauges in use on select training ranges: artillery, breacher, mortar, grenade, engineers, and shoulder fired weapons. These gauges are drawn from both existing inventory and purchase of newer 

designs. The gauges are available to ‘‘high-risk units’’ as commercial off the shelf 

(COTS) devices. 

BLAST OVERPRESSURE EXPOSURE

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Scientific studies have linked repetitive blast overpressure exposure to 

structural changes in the brain, increased risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases. A. Why has this research not resulted in blast overpressure surveillance programs that provide actionable exposure data to protect and preserve our 

warfighters, particularly considering the signature injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan have been TBI and PTSD. B. Given the significant scientific evidence linking 

blast overpressure exposure and brain injury, how do you explain the hesitation to 

monitor to fully document exposures and take steps to reduce those exposures? 

Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and advancing. As technology and 

knowledge increase, awareness of potential risks become known, and policies and 

practices are adjusted accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use 

and have undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with ongoing 

active research to further improve our ability to protect Sailors and Marines. While 

there is some emerging indication of a relationship between repetitive overpressure 

exposure and subsequent health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and 

specific correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports ongoing 

research to better understand overpressure exposure, we continue to implement and 
515

advance evidence based practice to increase detection and treatment to maximize 

health and readiness of Sailors and Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD 

policy is designed to protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. 

However, advances in science in this area have shown that previously established 

standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national standards do not 

exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to 

effects of sub-concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer 

reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There are active and robust efforts 

to translate knowledge from research into actionable equipment, practices, and 

interventions both on the field and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect 

Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is currently working with 

leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event. This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were triggered 

by ‘‘potentially concussive events’’’ and did not take into account single or repetitive 

exposure to ‘‘sub-concussive’’ events. The effects of individual sub-concussive events 

may be minor and not identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with 

traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, 

ongoing research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately monitor 

exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure, which will increase 

ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness. 

Answer. A. The DoD has surveillance programs to protect our warfighters from 

exposure to BOP which are based on prior research efforts and the current scientific 

understanding. In accordance with occupational health standards, the BOP programs are managed within the DoD Auditory community and coordinated with the 

TBI community as appropriate. The link between low-threshold repetitive blast 

overpressure (BOP) exposure to ‘‘structural changes in the brain, increased risk of 

PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,’’ is currently debated in the medical 

and scientific communities (internal and external to the DoD) and remains a topic 

of research rather than settled science. B. The link between low-threshold repetitive 

blast overpressure (BOP) exposure to ‘‘structural changes in the brain, increased 

risk of PTSD, and age related neurological diseases,’’ is currently debated in the 

medical and scientific communities (internal and external to the DoD) and remains 

a topic of research rather than settled science. The DoD has taken actions to improve our understanding of BOP through the analysis of retrospective and prospective human exposure data from the training and operational environment while simultaneously implementing policies to monitor, protect, screen, diagnose, document 

and treat not just diagnosed TBls, but also potentially concussive events. Through 

event-driven screening for exposures, and early medical evaluation and documentation, the Army is the lead for the DoD and is maximizing the identification and 

treatment of Service members with injuries. 

EXPOSURES IN TRAINING WITH WEAPONS SYSTEMS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. DoD research studies have shown exposures in training with weapon 

systems that are routinely above currently established safe overpressure exposure 

limits. Monitoring revealed these exposures, and can help to identify and reduce repetitive exposures in the future. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal 

overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety standards are routinely violated? B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and mild TBI impact unit 

readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of mild TBI 

symptoms with those commonly experienced by servicemembers (headache, sleep 

disturbance, etc), isn’t monitoring essential to maintaining unit readiness? C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase I and Phase 

II SBlR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system which was delivered 

in September 2016. Is this technology being used to monitor exposures for at risk 

personnel? If no, why not? 

Answer. A. The DoD uses a combination of environmental monitoring, in select 

higher risk training environments, with connections to active medical research pro-
516

tocols. The output of these efforts are improving environmental sensor capabilities 

and honing our understanding of BOP and the potential short-term or long-term 

clinical outcomes. The Army protects personnel by assessing health risks associated 

with the use of weapon systems prior to rollout and by implementing evidence based 

safety standards that are enforced by operational commanders. The Army no longer 

uses universal monitoring of blast overpressures (BOP) exposures in combat because 

this program did not produce actionable information. However, the Army does employ a targeted monitoring effort to protect personnel. B. The DoD maintains readiness through policy, education, and standardized clinical care to produce an educated force trained and prepared to recognize potential for risk and provide early 

recognition, treatment and tracking of concussive injuries to protect Service member 

health. The DoD is also funding research efforts with the goal of validating exposure 

thresholds. C. Since the development of the blast gauge, the Army, USSOCOM, 

DARPA and the USMC have all purchased and used blast gauges in varying capacities. The Army’s Environmental Sensors in Training (ESiT) program is primarily 

using the earlier generation 6 gauges. However, the DoD through Walter Reed 

Army Institute of Research is actively working to assess and improve the gauges 

including the generation 7. 

Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and advancing. As technology and 

knowledge increase, awareness of potential risks become known, and policies and 

practices are adjusted accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use 

and have undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with ongoing 

active research to further improve our ability to protect Sailors and Marines. While 

there is some emerging indication of a relationship between repetitive overpressure 

exposure and subsequent health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and 

specific correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports ongoing 

research to better understand overpressure exposure, we continue to implement and 

advance evidence based practice to increase detection and treatment to maximize 

health and readiness of Sailors and Marines. A. Where standards exist, current DoD 

policy is designed to protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. 

However, advances in science in this area have shown that previously established 

standards may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national standards do not 

exist. The Navy continues to be engaged in collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to 

effects of sub-concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer 

reviewed publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often developing policies and practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There are active and robust efforts 

to translate knowledge from research into actionable equipment, practices, and 

interventions both on the field and in the medical realm. B. As knowledge of exposure dose and cumulative effects evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect 

Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy adapts. Navy Medicine is currently working with 

leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in Southern California to develop a protocol for routine periodic assessment and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event. This is a step forward in practice. Historically, screenings were triggered 

by ‘‘potentially concussive events’’ and did not take into account single or repetitive 

exposure to ‘‘sub-concussive’’ events. The effects of individual sub-concussive events 

may be minor and not identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with 

traditional screening tools. However, the effects of repeated exposures may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment is expected to enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for earlier intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, 

ongoing research efforts with our partners will improve ability to accurately monitor 

exposure, as well as possible medical consequences of exposure, which will increase 

ability to mitigate effects and enhance readiness. C. Yes, the GEN 7 B3 sensor developed to measure blast overpressure in the Phase I and Phase II SMIR is currently being used by researchers for monitoring personnel exposures to blast. Current users include Naval Research Laboratory Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Office of Naval Research and Special Operations Command. We are currently working with our Training and Education Command and Walter Reed to get 

the system sensors approved for use at the Weapons Training Schools. Anticipated 

deployment is late FY18. 

Answer. The state of science and knowledge associated with overpressure exposure and subsequent health risks is ongoing and advancing. As technology and 

knowledge increase, awareness of potential risks become known, and policies and 

practices are adjusted accordingly. Overpressure detection capabilities are in use 

and have undergone successive iterations as knowledge has increased, with ongoing 
517

active research to further improve our ability to protect Sailors and Marines. While 

there is some emerging indication of a relationship between repetitive overpressure 

exposure and subsequent health risks, this is also an evolving state of science, and 

specific correlations are still unknown. As Navy Medicine actively supports ongoing 

research to better understand overpressure exposure, we continue to implement and 

advance evidence based practice to increase detection and treatment to maximize 

health and readiness of Sailors and Marines. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety 

standards are routinely violated? Where standards exist, current DoD policy is designed to protect Sailors and Marines from known overpressure risks. However, advances in science in this area have shown that previously established standards 

may be inadequate, and as of yet, more refined national standards do not exist. The 

Navy continues to be engaged in collaborative research to improve capability to accurately measure overpressure, as well as increase knowledge related to effects of 

sub-concussive overpressure effects. Even in advance of publication in peer reviewed 

publications, DoD proactively acts on emerging data, often developing policies and 

practices to protect Sailors and Marines. There are active and robust efforts to 

translate knowledge from research into actionable equipment, practices, and interventions both on the field and in the medical realm. B. Repetitive blast overpressure 

exposure and mild TBI impact unit readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the overlap of mild TBI symptons with those commonly experienced by 

service members (headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn’t monitoring essential to 

maintaining unit readiness? As knowledge of exposure dose and cumulative effects 

evolves, policy and practice is evolving to protect Sailors and Marines from unnecessary exposure, and to evaluate and mitigate effects. As science emerges, policy 

adapts. Navy Medicine is currently working with leaders in the Naval Special Warfare unit in Southern California to develop aprotocol for routine periodic assessment 

and monitoring that is not triggered by a specific event. This is a step forward in 

practice. Historically, screenings were triggered by ‘‘potentially concussive events’’ 

and did not take into account single or repetitive exposure to ‘‘sub-concussive’’ 

events. The effects of individual sub-concussive events may be minor and not identified by the Sailor, and may not even be identified with traditional screening tools. 

However, the effects of repeated exposures may be cumulative, and because an individual event may not trigger a screening protocol, establishing routine reassessment 

is expected to enable identification of cumulative effects which will allow for earlier 

intervention and mitigation. As mentioned above, ongoing research efforts with our 

partners will improve ability to accurately monitor exposure, as well as possible 

medical consequences of exposure, which will increase ability to mitigate effects and 

enhance readiness. C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million 

in a Phase I and Phase II SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? Defer to Marine Corps Systems 

Command.

Answer. A. Why have the services failed to institute formal overpressure monitoring programs in areas where existing safety standards are routinely violated? 

While operational guidelines exist for safe distancing from acute blast sources, we 

are not aware of existing overpressure standards from the Occupational Health and 

Safety Administration, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the American National Standards Institute, or other recognized certifying 

standards organization, that characterize and establish exposure limits for repetitive or sustained blast exposures. B. Repetitive blast overpressure exposure and 

mild TBI impact unit readiness. Given the hidden nature of brain injury and the 

overlap of mild T81 symptoms with those commonly experienced by servicemembers 

(headache, sleep disturbance, etc), isn’t monitoring essential to maintaining unit 

readiness? The current surveillance science regarding overpressure continues to 

evolve, but is currently not sufficiently reliable to protect against the effects of such 

exposures. The key performance element of any such monitoring device or test is 

its positive predictive value, the ability to associate exposures with outcomes in a 

reliable, predictable manner. The devices which are environmental sensors, have 

proven particularly deficient in this regard when tested in the field, particularly in 

their ability to correlate blast events to Traumatic Brain Injury. Until such time as 

better sensors are available, we will continue to maintain readiness through policy, 

education, and standardized clinical care to provide early recognition, treatment, 

and tracking of all concussive injuries. C. Marine Corps System Command has invested over $1 million in a Phase I and Phase 11 SBIR to develop a blast overpressure measurement system which was delivered in September 2016. Is this technology being used to monitor exposures for at risk personnel? If no, why not? The 

Air Force has not procured any elements of the system for use within the Air Force. 
518

Though this is a Generation 7 gauge, its extremely low detection threshold results 

in high sensing variability, thus limiting its effectiveness as a reliable surveillance 

device.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky. 

Questions submitted by Ms. Roby and the answers thereto follow:] 

SEA HAWK HELICOPTER

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. As you both know, the Sea Hawk Helicopter is the workhorse of the 

Navy as we have sustained a very high OPTEMPO for many years. The current 

Seahawk fleet of 555 aircraft is based on a five year old Force Structure Assessment 

that was updated in December 2016 from 308 to 355 ships. If this plan is carried 

out, the Navy will need a corresponding increase in helicopters. Meanwhile the 

Service Life Extension program will ultimately take roughly 50 aircraft out of service each year. Procuring additional aircraft now will help address these needs as 

well as prevent a key production line from going cold. What are the Navy’s plans 

for procurement of the Seahawk in the coming years? 

Answer. The Department is committed to building the capability and capacity in 

our Fleet, and Seahawk helicopters play a vital role in accomplishing these goals. 

The Navy operates nearly 600 MH–60 helicopters around the world, and intends to 

modernize and sustain MH–60 inventory via planned Service Life Extension Program and/or Mid-Life Upgrade initiatives. These programs will ensure the capabilities of these aircraft remain relevant well into the future. Although the current fleet 

of Seahawks is fulfilling our needs, we need to consider airframe delivery schedules 

relative to future ship delivery timelines before committing to purchasing additional 

Seahawks. The decision to procure or recapitalize the current MH–60 in the face 

of increasing threats will be considered alongside all of our warfighting priorities. 

Thank you for your continued support of the Navy and in particular, Naval Aviation.

STRYKER

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. 203 Members of Congress and 10 Members of this Subcommittee wrote 

a letter to the Army earlier this year urging funding both for Stryker lethality and 

survivability upgrades. I was surprised to see no funding for either modernization 

programs in the President’s FY18 Budget request. Given that we know that 

Strykers are critical to the 21st Century Army, what would the Army choose such 

a path? What is the impact on the industrial base? 

Answer. Although the Army has not specifically requested funding for Stryker 

lethality and survivability upgrades, the Army requested $97.6 million for Stryker 

modifications in Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18). This funding will support procurement of 

Stryker Training Aids; Devices; Simulators and Simulations (TADSS); Stryker 

Lethality hardware; fielding support (wholesale parts); and various Stryker fleetwide modifications including addressing Command, Control, Communication,, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C41SR) obsolescence. The 

Army will field the 2nd Cavalry Regiment’s 30 millimeter Strykers in 4th Quarter 

FY18 but has yet to determine the solution for the entire fleet. The Army is solidifying requirements for improving the lethality of the remaining eight Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and is scheduled to present options in October of this year to 

the Chief of Staff of the Army to determine lethality and survivability options moving forward. These options all include near-term lethality upgrades to the Stryker 

fleet. Although the Army’s fourth Double V Hull (DVH) Stryker brigade is on the 

Chief of Staff of the Army’s FY18 Unfunded Requirements List, the Army continues 

to modernize the DVH fleet. The DVH vehicles that have been procured beyond the 

current three DVH Brigades come equipped with the latest upgrades that include 

engine, suspension, and electrical network. These Strykers will go into the current 

DVH brigades to allow older DVH vehicles opportunity for these upgrades. The 

Army is aware of a potential impacts to the Stryker industrial base, and has developed options to mitigate any production gap between completion of DVH production 

and upgrades to current DVH Strykers. 
519

MUNITIONS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. I am concerned about our stockpiles of key munitions like the Hellfire. 

What else can we do to ensure that our munitions stockpiles are at a sufficient 

level? I also noticed that funding for THAAD looked a bit light. I would think that 

we would be ramping that up with the increasing ballistic threats from Iran and 

North Korea. 

Answer. The Army continues to place emphasis on ensuring critical munitions are 

being produced, stockpiled and positioned appropriately to support world-wide contingencies. For example, the HELLFIRE missile is currently being produced at its 

maximum rate of 6,000 missiles per year. Additionally, a $77M investment in the HELLFIRE production line in FY17 will 

increase capacity from 6,000 missiles in FY16 to 11,000 missiles in FY19. The Army 

will see results from this investment but deliveries of HELLFIRE missiles take 

place approximately 24 months after they are put on contract. The Army is a user 

of the THAAD system, but procurement for THAAD interceptors is programmed by 

the Missile Defense Agency using Defense Wide Funds. The FY18 budget request 

procures 34 THAAD interceptors out of a potential maximum production capacity 

of 96. 

LCS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. Could you please provide an update on the transition from the Littoral Combat Ship to the Frigate? B. What are the priorities for the development 

of the Frigate and how will it improve upon the current Littoral Combat Ship? C. 

Is the Navy still planning to down-select between the two current vendors in FY19 

or has that been pushed to FY20? Given the vulnerability of the shipbuilding industrial base, what would be the benefits of keeping the contract split between the two 

vendors?

Answer. A. The 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) validated the requirement for 52 Small Surface Combatants. To date, nine LCS have been commissioned 

into the Fleet and 19 are under contract (LCS 27 & 28 were awarded in June 2017), 

with 11 of these 19 LCS in various stages of construction. A total of 30 LCS are 

planned to be procured. FY19 LCS quantities are under review and will be provided 

with the FY19 budget submission, following completion of the Defense Strategy Review. The Navy recognizes the critical nature of maintaining the shipbuilding industrial base while transitioning from LCS to Frigate and will weigh this factor in the 

FY19 budget submission. For FFG(X), the Navy will consider multiple proposed designs for a lethal, multi-mission ship capable of integrated strike group operations 

and operating independently in contested environments while incorporating Navy 

standard combat system elements. The Navy is evaluating capability and cost trade 

space associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request for Information from 

industry. Additionally, a competitive industry environment will contribute to maturing multiple designs during the Conceptual Design phase with an anticipated FY20 

contract award for Detail Design and Construction. B. FFG(X) priorities for development include improved lethality and survivability beyond that of LCS and the previous Frigate baseline. The FFG(X) will include improved radar, combat systems, 

launchers, weapons, and electronic warfare, and add capability in the electromagnetic maneuver warfare area that LCS does not currently possess. These improvements will make the FFG(X) a blue-water capable, multi-mission ship capable 

of operating in contested environments with robust self-defense. LCS was designed 

to be a focused-mission ship with limited self-defense. FFG(X) will have the ability 

to protect itself and potentially others with improved air defense capability and 

shock-hardened systems for decreased vulnerability.The FFG(X) will be capable of 

simultaneous multi-mission execution in Surface Warfare (SLJW), Anti-Submarine 

Warfare (ASW), Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare (EMW), and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. It will implement Navy standard combat 

system elements to achieve commonality, decreasing development risk while ensuring required capability, lowering life cycle costs, and streamlining sparing, training, 

and maintenance requirements. These improvements over LCS will enable FFG(X) 

to support Distributed Maritime Operations by extending the Fleet tactical grid 

with improved EMW, Electronic Warfare (EW), unmanned, and Command, Control, 

Communications, Computer, and Information (C4I) systems and provide relief for 

large surface combatants to conduct missions for which they are uniquely qualified. 

FFG(X) requirements will be refined and finalized based on industry feedback on 
520

the feasibility of meeting the desired performance levels and accommodating common Navy standard systems in the various ship designs in a cost effective manner. 

C. The Navy does not plan to down-select between the two current LCS shipbuilders, but instead will hold a full and open competition for the FFG(X) utilizing 

existing designs. The Navy is evaluating trade space associated with FFG(X) requirements through a Request for Information from industry that maximizes capability at the appropriate cost. Additionally, a competitive industry environment will 

contribute to maturing multiple designs during the Conceptual Design phase with 

an anticipated FY20 contract award for Detail Design and Construction. 

ARMY FIXED WING AIRCRAFT

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Can you please provide your thoughts on cost savings that can be 

achieved through the Army’s replacement of the C12? 

Answer. The Army is in the process of replacing the legacy C–12 fleet with a commercially available aircraft and expects to award a procurement contract in 

3QFY18. With an estimated savings of approximately $100M in operation and 

sustainment costs over the life of the aircraft. These savings estimates are based 

on costs of similar, currently available, commercial aircraft. 

CYBER

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. With so much happening in the Cyber domain, I was hopeful That you 

could share your vision regarding DOD’s increasing role in this fight and what additional resources may be required. How can we recruit and retain the type of cyber 

warriors we need for this fight? 

Answer. In addition to defending DoD’s network, data, and weapons platforms, 

our cyberspace operations provide commanders with options across all domains to 

apply combined arms maneuver, create dilemmas for the enemy, complicate adversaries’ strategic calculus, and ultimately gain the advantage on the battlefield for 

the Joint Force to win. The Army continues to grow its specialized fields and recruit 

much needed cyber skills, recently accessing 30 officers into the established Cyber 

branch. Both the Army’s Cadet Command (USACC) and the US Military Academy 

(USMA) have been mentoring cadets to consider degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields for the last several years. As a result, the 

STEM degree average rose to 26% of FY17 new lieutenants commissioned through 

ROTC, from 15.5% in FY12. USMA conducts STEM outreach for diverse youth as 

part of its recruiting strategy, and its Cyber Research Center and Cyber Center of 

Excellence prepares cadets in the acquisition, use, management, and protection of 

information. The Army is also executing a direct commissioning pilot program into 

cyber specialties to uniquely skilled and experienced individuals who meet program 

requirements. On the enlisted side, many of our highest level enlistment and reenlistment incentives are dedicated to cyber and other information technology fields. 

The Army also offers a variety of compensation incentives to recruit quality civilian 

talent into the cyber workforce, including up to 25% of the annual rate of basic pay 

for newly appointed employees, a higher pay rate through the Superior Qualifications and Special Needs Pay-Setting Authority, and up to $60,000 to repay student 

loans for a highly qualified employee. The Army retention program retains sufficient 

numbers of retention-eligible Soldiers consistent with fluctuating end strength requirements. The Army developed Special Duty (SD) and Assignment Incentive Pay 

(AlP) incentives to focus on Soldiers serving in critical cyber work roles, which complement the professional development and training benefits that also enhance the 

ability to recruit and retain quality personnel. The Army offers its civilian cyber 

workforce similar opportunities for career growth and formal training, as well as retention and relocation incentives to retain high performing employees. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Ms. Roby. Questions submitted by Ms. McCollum and the answers thereto follow:] 

FIGHTER OXYGEN DEPRIVATION

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Gentlemen, I want to ask you about what appears to be a growing problem in which pilots across our services are reporting symptoms of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. In the past few months, Senior Navy officials have reported a ris-
521

ing rate of psychological episodes experienced by F–18 pilots during flights. The 

Navy also halted the entire fleet of T–45 trainer jets because of pilots’ breathing 

concerns. And then just last week the Air Force temporarily stopped flying F–35 

fighter jets at Luke Air Force Base due to a number of incidents where pilots were 

reporting symptoms of hypoxia. It seems like we have a serious problem that is not 

unique to one fleet and extends across the services. Safety of flight is non-negotiable, and the increasing number of pilots suffering from oxygen deprivation is simply unacceptable. Gentlemen, how concerned are you about these reports and what 

is being done right now to ensure that our pilots are operating in a safe environment?

Answer. The DOD and the Services are extremely concerned about aircrew safety 

related to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. This is the number one safety issue, with 

the utmost priority to fix. All available assets (e.g. laboratories, specialists and test 

facilities across DOD and Industry) and expertise (e.g., NASA, Industry and Academia) are being utilized to assess, isolate and correct root cause(s). As the scientific 

and engineering investigations work toward determining the root causes, the Services are concentrating on four major pillars of action: to alert, monitor, protect and 

prevent hypoxia and oxygen deprivation. Although aircraft oxygen systems vary in 

complexity, there are two major potential contributors to hypoxia and oxygen deprivation that are common: the oxygen system not providing sufficient oxygen to the 

aircrew and cockpit pressure fluctuations. There are multiple technical paths being 

pursued, to include aircraft system hardware re-designs and component improvements; maintenance and support process implementation and modification; interim 

operational limitations and modified flight procedures; aircrew and aircraft sensor 

integration; aircrew flight gear modifications; and aircrew awareness and training— 

to name a few. The department has deemed this a resources unconstrained approach and will continue to receive maximum attention and prioritization until the 

risks of hypoxia and oxygen deprivation are resolved. 

DOD TRANSGENDER POLICY

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Mr. Secretary, we are approaching the July 1st deadline for the Defense 

Department to implement the policy that lifted the ban on transgender personnel 

from serving in the military. Is the Pentagon considering delaying this decision and 

if this is the case, was this a decision that was made internally at the Pentagon 

or was this direction that came from the White House? 

Answer. STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON MILITARY 

SERVICE BY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS: The Department of Defense has received the Presidential Memorandum, dated August 25, 2017, entitled ‘‘Military 

Service by Transgender Individuals.’’ The Department will carry out the President’s 

policy direction, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security. As directed, we will develop a study and implementation plan, which will contain the 

steps that will promote military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, with due regard for budgetary constraints and consistent with applicable law. The soon arriving 

senior civilian leadership of DoD will play an important role in this effort. The implementation plan will address accessions of transgender individuals and 

transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military. Our focus 

must always be on what is best for the military’s combat effectiveness leading to 

victory on the battlefield. To that end, I will establish a panel of experts serving 

within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and 

recommendations on the implementation of the President’s direction. Panel members will bring mature experience, most notably in combat and deployed operations, 

and seasoned judgment to this task. The panel will assemble and thoroughly analyze all pertinent data, quantifiable and non-quantifiable. Further information on 

the panel will be forthcoming. Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my 

advice to the President concerning implementation of his policy direction. In the interim, current policy with respect to currently serving members will remain in 

place. I expect to issue interim guidance to the force concerning the President’s direction, including any necessary interim adjustments to procedures, to ensure the 

continued combat readiness of the force until our final policy on this subject is 

issued.

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Ms. McCollum. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and the answers thereto follow:] 
522

F–35

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. For such an expensive aircraft, I’m concerned about our pilots having 

to self-limit their flying in this way. How long do we anticipate having this issue 

with the F–35? Are we concerned about adversaries exploiting this weakness by adjusting their tactics against the F–35? B. Do you anticipate further slippage in the 

F–35 schedule? 

Answer. A. The restriction on the weapons bay doors was removed in March 2016 

as a result of further analysis, test, and requalification of the limiting component, 

which was the Remote Input/Output unit within the weapons bay. With this restriction lifted there are no concerns related to adversary exploitation. B. Since the flight 

restriction related to excessive weapons bay temperature was lifted in March 2016, 

the F–35 program does not anticipate any related schedule slippages. In a broader 

context, the F–35 program continues to make steady progress toward the completion 

of its System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase and delivery of full 

Block 3F capability. Following the 2011 re-baseline, the program of record estimate 

for the end of developmental flight test was October 31, 2017. Since the time of this 

re-baseline, the F–35 Joint Program Office has recognized a 3 to 4 month risk associated with this date, putting the end of SDD flight test in early CY 2018. The program is tracking to completion of SDD flight test in that timeframe. Delivery of full 

Block 3F capability remains on track as well; current estimates for delivery of full 

Block 3F capability by variant are shown in the table below. 

FULL BLOCK 3F CAPABILITY DELIVERY 

2011 Post Nunn-McCurdy APB Dates Current Estimate 

Objective: August 2017 ............................................................. F–35A: October 2017 (w/o AIM–9X). 

November 2017 (w/AIM–9X). 

F–35B: November 2017 (1.3 Mach). 

May 2018 (1.6 Mach). 

Threshold: February 2018 .......................................................... F–35C: January 2018 (1.3 Mach). 

February 2018 (1.6 Mach). 

The delivery of full capability for all 3 variants falls within the 2011 Acquisition 

Program Baseline dates with the exception of the B-model envelope between 1.3 and 

1.6 Mach. This is due to the fact that only one B-model test aircraft (BF–3) has been 

properly instrumented for the testing needed to reach 1.6 Mach. 

WEAPONIZED DRONES

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. Do you have adequate funding and authorizations to deal with emerging 

threats, such as weaponized drones? How can Congress support you better? 

Answer. The Department has adequate authorities to respond to emerging 

threats, such as weaponized drones, in zones of active conflict overseas. For instance, Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA) provided under section 806 (c) of Public 

Law 107–314, enables the Secretary or Deputy Secretary to waive certain laws, and, 

with certain limitations, permit the use of any funds available to the Secretary, in 

order to respond quickly to Urgent Operational Needs and to expedite delivery of 

capabilities to the warfighter. DoD authorities to counter potential (weaponized) 

drone threats in the homeland are constrained by provisions of Federal law. Congress—in the FY2017 NDAA—established section 130i of title 10, U.S. Code, which 

authorized the Secretary to mitigate threats posed by drones to the safety or security of facilities and assets related to three DoD mission areas, including nuclear 

deterrence, missile defense, and the national security space. DoD is seeking a modest expansion of this authority in the FY2018 NDAA to, in part, incrementally expand the covered missions detailed in the authority. The Department will continue 

to plan for and resource capabilities to counter weaponized small unmanned aircraft 

consistent with the risks these threats pose and their overall priority in future 

President’s Budget requests. 
523

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. How are we empowering our servicemembers to use additive manufacturing? Are you receiving sufficient funding? B. Is there work to include contractual requirements for the manufacturing base to provide MILSPECS for additive 

manufacturing parts when they cease carrying existing product lines? 

Answer. For several years the DoD Manufacturing Technology programs, under 

the collaborative umbrella of the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel, 

have been working to enhance standards for technical data packages (TDPs). A TDP 

is ‘‘a technical description of an item adequate for supporting an acquisition strategy, production, engineering, and logistics support. The description defines the required design configuration and procedures to ensure adequacy of item performance. 

It consists of all applicable technical data such as drawings, associated lists, specifications, standards, performance requirements, quality assurance (QA) provisions, 

and packaging details.’’ Citation needed. Although TDPs are applicable to all types 

of manufacturing (not just additive manufacturing), their widespread use would 

greatly enhance DoD’s ability to make parts after the original manufacturer has 

ceased production. Regardless of whether parts are made additively or otherwise, 

each acquisition program office is responsible for deciding whether to include delivery of TDPs as part of the contract deliverables. While providing TDPs benefits DoD 

by providing information needed to make the parts indefinitely, industry’s concerns 

include: (1) TDPs are often considered proprietary, and manufacturers may only 

agree to document and deliver the data at a significant expense to the DOD; (2) the 

packaging and delivery of TDPs may require special handling which adds further 

expense; and (3) there is a wide variance in the capabilities of the acquiring organizations to validate and store TDPs. Through the DoD-wide AM Business Model 

Wargame working group, the Department is working with industry to address the 

concerns with acquisition contract language related to technical data. The various 

efforts in this area hope to address both concerns of industry and the needs of the 

Department.

TRANSLATORS AND VISAS

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. Can you comment on the impact of our translators to the safety of 

our military forces? B. Can you discuss how strengthening our ties with allied citizens in these regions and honoring our commitment to our translators preserves the 

safety of our forces? C. Do you recommend that we continue to authorize and appropriate Special Immigrant Visas? 

Answer. Translators provide a valuable service to our military forces serving overseas, particularly in areas of active combat. I agree that our translators should be 

well compensated for their service in order to promote continued support amongst 

our partners. The authorization and appropriation of Special Immigrant Visas however, needs to be weighed in the larger context of visa authorizations as determined 

by the State Department. 

INF TREATY

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. From your perspective as the senior military advisor are Russian 

treaty violations a risk to US Forces and commitments? Are we unduly constrained 

by treaties which only our nation is complying with, such as the INF Treaty? B. 

Do you find our defense unduly constrained by the INF Treaty given that we appear 

to be the only nation in compliance with this agreement? C. One additional area 

the General Dunford acknowledges as a risk to our strategic advantage are mounting global ballistic missile threats. I am aware that growth in missile defense capabilities for the United States have been paused while the administration conducts 

a Ballistic Missile Defense Review. Do you have an anticipated timeline for completion of the BMDR? 

Answer. Currently, we are able to satisfy our military requirements while remaining in compliance with the INF Treaty. However, any treaty violation that could 

allow Russia to unlawfully gain a military capability advantage poses a potential 

threat to U.S. forces. With respect to the INF Treaty, I believe the status quo, in 

which the United States remains in compliance with the Treaty and the Russians 

are in violation of it, is untenable. The INF Treaty is in our national security interest if all parties comply with their Treaty obligations. We will continue to engage 
524

Russia—directly and together with our allies—to urge Russia to return to full and 

verifiable compliance with its Treaty obligations, but our patience is not unlimited. 

Regarding missile defense, our goal is to complete the Ballistic Missile Defense Review in the October timeframe. However, I would like to assure you that our development of missile defense capabilities is not on hold during this process. The approximately $8 billion fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) missile defense programs includes funding for completing construction of 

the Aegis Ashore site in Poland, continuing development of the redesigned kill vehicle, developing a long-range discriminating radar, beginning work on a new radar 

in Hawaii, and continuing funding for advanced discrimination sensor technology 

and space-based kill assessment programs. We also remain on track to complete the 

deployment of 8 more interceptors in Alaska by the end of this year, bringing the 

total to 44, and we are moving forward with efforts to bolster our defenses against 

advanced cruise missiles. 

INDUSTRIAL BASE

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. Is reliance on non-American-made products a risk to our national security? B. Could your share where you feel the Department will find its biggest challenges in the industrial base? What can Congress do to help you build up these lost 

industries? Is the solution more funding or more time? 

Answer. The Department understands there may be security concerns in some key 

technology and production areas that support maintaining our technical dominance. 

These security concerns might be associated with critical technology areas such as 

microelectronics, robotics, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality, or security-ofsupply concerns resulting from foreign dependency on products from adversarial nations. However, reliance on non-American made products is necessary to take advantage of the cost and technology benefits offered by access to global suppliers and 

many of our non-American made products are provided by trusted allies. The Department continues to identify and address risks related to supply-chain disruption, 

counterfeit parts, sabotage, and theft of critical American defense technology. Our 

job is to create a balance that allows us to benefit from global markets without putting at risk our national security. The biggest industrial base challenge the Department is facing is to sustain a healthy and resilient industrial base. DoD is concerned 

about the viability of critical elements of the supply chain at the lower-tiers for defense-unique markets and heavily commercial markets where DoD has very limited 

participation. On July 21, the President signed an Executive Order requesting the 

Department, in coordination with Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Homeland Security, to provide a report assessing the products and materials essential to national 

security and the resiliency of the manufacturing and defense industrial base and 

supply chains to support national security needs. In the next months, we will be 

working with multiple government agencies and industry to do the required assessment and provide recommendations to mitigate identified issues. The solutions to 

mitigate industrial base risks involve both adequate funding and time to implement 

them. The Department thanks you for your continuous support to the programs and 

authorities that allow us to sustain an innovative and healthy defense industrial 

base. Programs like the Manufacturing Institutes, the Industrial Base Analysis and 

Sustainment Funds, Defense Production Act Title Ill, and ManTech are helping us 

to work with industry to identify and reduce supply-chain risks. We ask you to continue supporting sufficient and timely investments to sustain the industrial base. 

AAFES AND NEXCOM

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. A. What is the status of healthy, convenient food options for our 

servicemembers? Are you getting the support necessary from AAFES and NEXCOM 

to provide healthy choices for our servicemembers? B. What can we do to encourage 

a healthy style of eating that will support our servicemembers career and fitness 

needs? For example, would it help if every base has a Nutrition Coordinator to help 

unify the efforts of dining facilities and convenience food outlets elsewhere on base? 

Answer. A. Healthy, convenient food options continue to expand Army wide. 

Building on the success of the DoD Healthy Base Initiative, the Healthy Army Communities (HAC) program commenced as a coordinated Army-wide program to improve the health and wellness of the total Army community, including active duty, 

reservists, families, civilians and retirees. The program focuses on changing the environment to make the healthy choice easier while helping individuals change their 
525

behavior towards healthier lifestyles. This includes the reshaping of Army garrison 

communities to be healthier places to live, learn, eat, work, play and shop. AAFES 

is a very committed partner with HAC and has already begun identifying brand 

transition opportunities and contract timelines to consider brands with healthier offerings. AAFES also provides for healthier options through the ‘‘Be Fit’’ program of 

vetted healthy nutritional criteria that’s highlighted in the Express locations with 

Healthy Only item end caps and new refrigerated island coolers featuring healthy 

only grab and go products. The program is more than just food, but also aligns with 

active wear and fitness equipment to promote overall health and wellness. Additionally, AAFES is actively participating in the development and implementation of the 

Military Nutritional Environment Assessment Tool (m-NEAT 2.0) and working with 

the DoD Food and Nutrition Subcommittee. B. We believe HAC and the newly 

launched Army Holistic Health and Fitness Initiative are the most effective way 

ahead to promote healthy eating, increased physical activity, improved sleep and the 

reduction of tobacco products in the total Army community. Stakeholders are in the 

process of coordinating and developing action plans with short and long-term initiatives. These plans will be used as a foundation for implementing both short and 

long-term improvements. In FY18, ten Army Installations will conduct Innovation 

Demonstrations that will highlight and measure many of the efforts and initiatives 

developed to encourage and promote health and wellness to the total community. 

These demonstrations will take full advantage of the many programs and support 

structures already in place to support the community and will increase education 

and awareness. 

Answer. A. Healthy food options are generally available to Sailors who, depending 

on their messing status, have a variety of choices for where they obtain their food. 

For the approximately 70% of Sailors who live off-base and receive a basic allowance 

for subsistence (and those who live on base but are authorized to mess separately) 

food options include the base or ships galley, the commissary, civilian grocery stores, 

NEXCOM mini-markets, and both on-base and off-base restaurants. Sailors provided subsistence in kind are entitled to take all of their meals at the galley, which 

always provides healthy options, but are free to use their income to purchase food 

at commercial establishments if they desire. NEXCOM supports healthy eating 

across the spectrum of food sales. The food and merchandising experts, with the 

guidance of the staff dietician, work to ensure a balance of eating options at each 

installation. As part of NEXCOM’s ‘‘A Better You Program,’’ exercise and healthy 

lifestyle products and information are promoted, and healthy eating is addressed 

through: 1. Food Service—NEXCOM provides name-brand food service as a complement to government dining facilities (where available) and home eating. Food 

service contracts include a clause requiring food partners to post nutritional information on their food offerings. The Subway chain represents approximately 20% of 

NEXCOM’s fast food portfolio and is widely recognized as an industry leading 

healthy brand, and each restaurant is encouraged to provide healthy menu options. 

As new or existing spaces become available, new partners that promote healthier 

eating are pursued. 2. Retail—NEXCOM has extended a Fresh Food Initiative to 87 

locations such as minimarts and micromarkets, across CONUS and OCONUS. 

These locations feature a full assortment of grab-and-go healthy options such as 

whole and cut fruits, gourmet wraps, salads, sandwiches, vegetables and yogurt. B. 

Providing for the optimal nutritional fitness and well-being of Service members, 

without unreasonably infringing on their personal liberties, is a priority for the 

Navy. Optimized nutrition is a significant component of preventive health strategies 

with potentially significant pay back in maintaining mission readiness, long-term 

health, and well-being while reducing personnel losses, subsequent accessions and 

training, and direct health treatment costs. Sailor’s food choices are affected by 

taste, price, convenience, and nutritional literacy. The Navy has several programs 

to improve nutritional literacy, including ‘‘Go For Green’’ food labeling in the galleys 

and the Navy Operational Fitness and Fueling Series (NOFFS). However, while 

Sailors are generally aware of the healthy food choice, they often choose less nutritious options because of taste, price or convenience. The proposed example of a Nutrition Coordinator on every base is likely to have a low return on investment because of the challenge posed by complex mix of appropriated, non-appropriated and 

off-base food options and the vastly different business imperatives they face. 

Answer. A. Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs’ (M&RA) Business & 

Support Services Division (MR) encompasses the Marine Corps Exchange (MCX), 

Marine Marts, Vending, Tactical Field Exchanges and MWR Food Operations (clubs, 

food courts, snack bars, and restaurants). These are valued non-appropriated fund 

(NAF) entities that provide critical financial support to a myriad of MWR, and Family Readiness programs. These venues provide a variety of items geared towards the 

promotion of an active healthy lifestyle. Our MCX has increased the number of 
526

healthy grab-and-go offerings at Marine Marts, highlighting ‘‘Better for You’’ products including beverages, fresh fruits, yogurts, smoothies, boiled eggs, snack foods, 

sandwiches, salads, as well as, creatively packaged lunch kits designed as portioncontrolled convenience offerings. Similarly, Marine Corps NAF food courts, snack 

bars and restaurants feature several healthier concepts such as Wheatfields, 

LifeJuice, Panera Bread, Chopz and Jamba Juice. Additionally, many Marine Corps 

clubs offer reduced portion sizes, expanded salad bars, and alternative sides such 

as fruit or steamed vegetables. B. The Marine Corps actively participates in several 

DoD-led programs to develop new ways to promote healthy lifestyles for Marines 

and their families, including: DoD’s Total Force Fitness initiative, which is a framework for building and maintaining health, readiness and performance; Operation 

Live Well, a DoD wellness campaign, aimed to make healthy living an easy choice 

for service members, retirees, civilians and their families; and DoD’s Nutrition Committee. We have also partnered with Cornell University, the National Association 

of Convenience Stores, and Pepsi & Coca-Cola to test new ways of promoting 

healthy consumption choices. A mandated education component by credentialed nutritional educators would assist in demystifying purported ‘‘healthy’’ items. Transforming available food options on the installations by nutritionally educated Marines who choose to spend their food dollars on healthy options, rather than on less 

healthy options. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Ryan. Questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur and the answers thereto follow:] 

DOMESTIC SMALL GAS TURBINE ENGINES

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. What steps are the DoD taking to preserve a dual domestic source for 

procurement and maintenance of small gas turbine engines (the type used to power 

Harpoon and F–107 missiles)? 

Answer. Small gas turbine engines power the U.S. Navy Harpoon, Standoff LandAttack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM–ER) and Tomahawk weapons. The Harpoon and SLAM–ER are powered by J402 engines, which Teledyne Technologies 

manufactures. Tomahawks are powered by F107 and F415 engines manufactured by 

Williams International. Both Teledyne Technologies and Williams International are 

domestic companies. Currently, these weapons are in production for the U.S. Navy 

or foreign military sales. Additionally, there are maintenance activities for 

sustainment that include tasks performed by these engine companies. Looking to 

the future, Williams International, Teledyne Technologies, and Florida Turbine 

Technologies (also a domestic company) are individually partnered with the Department of Defense under the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) 

Consortium. This consortium aligns technology investments with projected requirements of future programs. The domestic industrial base for small gas turbines is assessed as healthy. This position is supported by participation of two domestic engine 

companies in production and maintenance activities of current weapon systems 

along with membership/involvement of three domestic sources in technology advancement of small gas turbines. This level of participation and interest is providing 

an innovative environment that includes competitive pressure. 

U.S. STEEL INDUSTRY

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. What are the DoD’s concerns as related to our national security due to 

the stresses on our U.S. Steel Industry caused by severe dumping by China, South 

Korea and Russia? 

Answer. The Department’s concerns related to our national security resulting 

from stresses caused by excess foreign production capacity on the U.S. Steel Industry are generally associated with potential adverse impacts and negative effects on 

the viability of U.S. steel producers. DoD needs a healthy U.S. steel industry, but 

military uses of steel represent approximately three percent of U.S. steel demand. 

Therefore, the Department believes that DoD programs will be able to acquire the 

steel necessary to meet national defense requirements. 
527

BERYLLIUM

WITNESS: MATTIS, JAMES

Question. What is the DoD doing to preserve our single source of domestic Beryllium?

Answer. In 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) executed and successfully 

completed a 9-year beryllium domestic-production, capacity-development project. 

The project’s purpose was to establish and preserve an assured supply of beryllium 

for U.S. defense requirements. The Department is undertaking a refreshed industrial base assessment of beryllium. The purposes of this assessment are to identify 

any new unmet U.S. defense requirements for beryllium, and if so, the potential 

need for further industrial base investment by the Department in related areas. We 

expect to complete this assessment during 2018. 

RUSSIAN THREAT

WITNESS: DUNFORD, JOSEPH

Question. Please summarize the nature of the Russian threat. 

Answer. Russia presents the greatest array of military challenges and remains 

the only potential existential threat to the United States. They continue to invest 

in a full-range of capabilities designed to limit our ability to project power into Europe and meet our alliance commitments to NATO. These capabilities include longrange conventional strike, cyber, space, electronic warfare, ground force and undersea capabilities. Russia is also modernizing all elements of its nuclear triad. These 

modernization efforts must also be viewed in the context of their activities in the 

Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. Russia’s operations, capability development, and asymmetric doctrinal and strategic approaches are designed to counter NATO and U.S. 

power projection capability, and undermine the credibility of the NATO alliance. 

ARTICLE 5

WITNESS: DUNFORD, JOSEPH

Question. Please state for the record, why are the European Reassurance Initiative and affirmation of our Article 5 commitment so critical to democracy? 

Answer. The North Atlantic Treaty is founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. The Treaty reflects the commitment of all 

NATO Allies to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their 

people, to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area, and to unite 

their efforts for the preservation of peace and security and for collective defense. Article 5 is the foundation on which this commitment is based, and has ensured the 

security of the Euro-Atlantic area since 1949. The U.S. commitment to Article 5 not 

only reassures our NATO Allies that the U.S. will take action, in the event of an 

armed attack against one of more of them, to restore and maintain the security of 

the North Atlantic area; but it also serves to deter any potential aggressor from conducting an armed attack against any NATO nation, knowing the U.S. will respond, 

in accordance with Article 5. The 2014 Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea, and subsequent Russian backed and led fighting in the Donbass, has shown 

Russia’s willingness to use force to achieve its objectives, and disregard for the sovereignty of independent nations. These Russian actions have led to concern and uncertainty in many of the democratic nations of Europe. The European Reassurance 

Initiative is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to democracy in Europe, 

reassures our democratic allies that we are committed to their sovereignty, and 

shows Russia that their efforts to undermine democracy in Europe will not be tolerated, and will be met with force if needed. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Ms. Kaptur.] 

(529)

PUBLIC WITNESS STATEMENTS 

The Neurofibromatosis Network 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society 

The Michael J. Fox Foundation 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 
530

Public Witness Testimony 

Submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 

By Kim Bischoff, Executive Director 

The Neurofibromatosis Network 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Subcommittee on the impm1ance of 

continued funding for the Department of Defense's Peer-reviewed Neurofibromatosis (NF) 

Research Program (NFRP). NF is a terrible genetic disorder closely linked to many common 

diseases widespread among the American population. The highly successful Neurofibromatosis 

Research Program has shown tangible results and direct military application with broad 

implications for the general population. 

On behalf of the Neurofibromatosis (NF) Network, a national organization ofNF advocacy 

groups, I speak on behalf of the 120,000 Americans who suffer trom NF as well as 

approximately 175 million Americans who suffer from diseases and conditions linked to NF 

such as cancer. brain tumors, heart disease, memory loss, bone abnormalities, deafness, 

blindness, and psychosocial disabilities, such as autism and learning disabilities. Thanks in large 

part to this Subcommittee· s strong support, scientists have made enormous progress since the 

discovery of the NFI gene in 1990 resulting in clinical trials now being undertaken by the NFRP. 

In Fiscal Year 2018, we are requesting $15 million to continue the Army's highly successful 

Neurofibromatosis Research Program (NFRP). The NFRP is now conducting clinical trials at 

nation-wide clinical trials centers created by NFRP funding. These clinical trials involve drugs 

that have already succeeded in eliminating tumors in humans and rescuing learning deficits in 

mice. Administrators of the Army program have stated that the number of high-quality scientific 

applications justify a much larger program. 

What is Neurofibromatosis (NF)'! 

NF is an unpredictable genetic disorder of the nervous system that affects almost every organ 

system in the body. There arc three types of "'F: NFI, which is more common, NF2, which 

initially involves tumors causing deafness and balance problems, and Schwannomatosis, the 

hallmark of which is severe pain. NF causes tumors to grow along nerves including in the skin, 

just below the skin, and in the brain and spinal cord. NF is the most common neurological 

disorder caused by a single gene and a!Tects more people than Cystic Fibrosis, hereditary 

Muscular Dystrophy, Huntington's disease and Tay Sachs combined. It strikes worldwide, 

without regard to gender, race or ethnicity. Approximately 50 percent of new NF cases result 

from a spontaneous mutation in an individual's genes and 50 percent are inherited. 

NF can cause a myriad of devastating clinical problems including nerve and brain tumors; 

disfiguring skin growths; inability to heal after bone fracture. which may ultimately require 

amputation; psychosocial disabilities, including autism and learning disabilities; unmanageable 

chronic pain; deafness; blindness; cardiovascular defects; vascular disease; muscle weakness; 

and paralysis. NF gene mutations are also important 'drivers' of cancers in the lungs, liver, brain 

and breast. 
531

NF's Connection to the Military 

Neurofibromatosis (NF) has become a clinical 'model' for advancing medical research. The 

genetic information learned from NF holds the key to understanding a number of health issues 

that benefit the war fighter, as well as the general population, including cancer, bone fracture and 

repair, vascular disease, wound healing and nerve regeneration, behavior and psychosocial 

issues, muscle weakness, and pain. 

The Neurofibromatosis Research Program (NFRP) is providing critical research that directly 

benefits the War Fighter including: 

Bone Repair- At least a quarter of children with NFI have abnormal bone grov.ih in any part of 

the skeleton. In the legs, the long bones arc weak, prone to fracture and unable to heal properly; 

this can require amputation at a young age. Adults with NFI also have low bone mineral density, 

placing them at risk of skeletal weakness and injury. The NFRP is a strong supporter of NFI 

bone defects research and as a result this field has made significant progress in the past few 

years. Bone fractures sustained by the war lighter and how to repair them is of interest to the 

military. Research studies will identify new information about understanding bone biology and 

repair, and will pave the way to new strategies to enhancing bone health and facilitating repair. 

Pain Management- Severe and unmanageable pain is seen in all forms of NF, particularly in 

schwannomatosis, and signilicantly impacts quality oflife. NF research has shown similarities 

between NF pain and phantom limb pain. NFRP funding has been critical in supporting this. 

Chronic pain, and how to treat it effectively, is one of the most poorly understood areas of 

medicine, but has very high relevance to those in the military recovering from service-related 

injuries. NF Research in this area could help identify new ways to target pain effectively with 

the right drugs or therapies. 

Vascular Disease and Wound Healing- NFI elevates the risk of vascular disease including 

aneurysm, stroke and vessel occlusive disease. This can cause premature death, particularly in 

younger patients. In addition NFI seems to make small blood vessels around wounds less able 

to heal. This research will help develop markers for early detection of vascular changes that can 

predict those at risk of potential forthcoming cardiovascular events as well as developing 

treatments for this and to increase wound healing capacity which is of great relevance to the 

warlighter. 

Psvchosocial Disabilities - In the last couple of years, NFRP research has revealed common 

threads between NFI learning disabilities, autism and other related disabilities. Research being 

done within the NF Clinical Trials Consortium, NFRP created clinical centers, has led to 

important findings and expanded research in this area. This research contributes to our 

broadening understanding of how brain signaling can impact on behavior and psychosocial 

ditiiculties. Members of the military returning from service can suffer from psychological 

trauma and it is not easy to understand how this can be e!Tectivcly treated. As we learn more 

from the NF population about psychosocial function, we will be able to shed light on this area for 

the benefit of the military. 

Muscle Weak11e.1·s- There is growing evidence that children with NFI have inherent low muscle 

tone and muscle weakness which impacts on quality of life. This emerging area ofNF research 
532

has potentially broad relevance. This research opens up a new area of NF research and has 

potential broader application for recovery from military injuries in particular restoring optimal 

muscle function. 

The Army's Contribution to NF Research 

While other federal agencies support medical research, the Department of Defense (DOD) fills a 

special role by providing peer-reviewed funding for innovative and rewarding medical research 

through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). CDMRP research 

grants are awarded to researchers in every state in the country through a competitive two-tier 

review process. These well-executed and efficient programs, including the NFRP, demonstrate 

the government's responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

Recognizing NF's importance to both the military and to the general population, Congress has 

given the Army's NF Research Program strong bipartisan support. From FY96 through FY16 

funding f(Jr the NFRP has amounted to $302.85 million, in addition to the original $8 million 

appropriated in FY92. In addition, between FY96 and FYJ5, 353 awards have been granted to 

researchers across the country. 

The Army program funds innovative. ground breaking research which would not otherwise have 

been pursued, and has produced major advances in NF research, including conducting clinical 

trials in a nation-wide clinical trials infrastructure created by NFRP funding, development of 

advanced animal models, and preclinical therapeutic experimentation. Because of the enormous 

advances that have been made as a result of the Anny's NF Research Program, research in NF 

has truly become one of the great success stories in the cunent revolution in molecular genetics. 

In addition, the program has brought new researchers into the field ofNF. However, despite this 

progress, Army officials administering the program have indicated that they could easily fund 

more applications if funding were available because of the high quality of the research 

applications received. 

In order to ensure maximum efficiency, the Army collaborates closely with other federal 

agencies that are involved in NF research, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

Senior program staff from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), 

for example, sit on the Army's NF Research Program Integration Panel which sets the long-term 

vision and funding strategies for the program. This assures the highest scientific standard for 

research funding, efliciency and coordination while avoiding duplication or overlapping of 

research efforts. 

Thanks in large measure to this Subcommittee's support; scientists have made enormous 

progress since the discovery of the NF 1 gene. Major advances in just the past few years have 

ushered in an exciting era of clinical and translational research in NF with broad implications for 

the general population. These recent advances have included: 

• Phase II and Phase III clinical trials involving new drug therapies for both cancer, hearing 

tumors, vision tumors, bone graft and cognitive disorders; 

• Establishment of the Neurofibromatosis Clinical Trial Consortium which includes an 

operation center and 19 clinical sites. Allows for partnerships with well-established NF 
533

Centers, pooling expertise and resources, quicker turn arounds of scientific reviews and 

regulatory approvals, leveraged work with pharn1aceutical companies all towards the 

common goal of new treatments and a cure for Neurofibromatosis; 

• Successful elimination of tumors in ;.JFl and NF2 mice with the same drug; 

Development of advanced mouse models showing human symptoms; 

Rescue of learning deficits in mice with an already existing well known drug; 

Determination of the biochemical, molecular function of the NF genes and gene products; 

Connection ofNF to numerous diseases because ofNF's impact on many body functions. 

Fiscal Year 2018 Request 

The Army's highly successful NF Research Program has shown tangible results and direct 

military application with broad implications for the general population. The program has now 

advanced to the translational and clinical research stages, which are the most promising, yet the 

most expensive direction that NF research has taken. Therefore, continued funding is needed to 

continue to build on the successes of this program, and to fund this promising research thereby 

continuing the enormous return on the taxpayers' investment. 

We respectfully request that you include $15 million in the Fiscal Y car 2018 Department of 

Defense Appropriations bill for the Peer-reviewed Neurofibromatosis Research Program. With 

this subcommittee's continued support, we will prevail. Thank you for your support. 
534

[Insert Subcommittee Name Here] 

Witness Disclosure Form 

Clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires non· 

governmental witnesses to disclose to the Committee the following information. A 

non-governmental witness is any witness appearing on behalf of himself/herself or 

on behalf of an organization.\!!.!!!!: than a federal agency, or a state, local or tribal 

government. 

Your NJme, Business Address, and Telephone Number: 

/(.t'm '8,-sr:!-AD F F 

.;i. I 3 S . W lz P.:;; 1-oA.J /f-(.)8, 

(,u)t,.,OtMfi.."; ::;;C(_ 6o!l?7 

l. Are you appearing on behalf of yourself or a non-governmental organization? 

Please list organization(s) you are representing. 

2. Have you or any organization you are representing received any Federal grants or 

contracts (including any subgrants or subcontracts) since October I, 2012 related 

to the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes 

3. Have you or any organization you are representing received any contracts or 

payments originating with a foreign government since October I, 2012 related to 

the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes @ 

4. If your response to question #2 and/or #3 is "Yes", please list the amount and 

source (by agency and program) of each Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or 

contract (or subcontract thereof), and/or the amount and country of origin of any 

payment or contract originating with a foreign government. Please also indicate 

whether the recipient was you or the organization(s) you are representing. 

Date: t.;j.rj;? 
535

National 

Multiple Sclerosis 

Society 

Leslie Ritter 

Senior Director, Federal Government Relations 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society 

Email: Lcslie.RilleniU,nmss.org 

Before the United States !louse of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

provide testimony on behalf of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (Society) regarding 

Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 2018 and to discuss the importance of 

federal research programs that impact those affected by multiple sclerosis (MS). As you 

consider priorities for FY2018, we urge the Subcommittee to provide $10 million in 

discretionary spending for the MS Research Program (MSRP) within the Congressionally 

Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP). 

MS is an unpredictable. often disabling disease of the central nervous system that intenupts the 

flow of information within the brain, and between the brain and body. Symptoms range from 

numbness and tingling to blindness and paralysis. The progress, severity, and specific symptoms 

ofMS in any one person cannot yet be predicted. Most people with MS arc diagnosed between 

the ages of20 and 50, with at least two to three times more women than men being diagnosed 

with the disease. 

The Society works to provide solutions to the challenges of multiple sclerosis (MS) so that 

everyone atTected by this disease can live their best lives. To fulfill this mission, we fund cutting 

edge research, drive change through advocacy. facilitate professional education, collaborate with 

MS organizations around the world, and provide services designed to help people affected by 

MS move their lives forward. We see ourselves as a fundamental partner to the U.S. government 

in many critical areas particular in the field of MS research. Last year, we dedicated 

approximately $40 million in MS research that are complementary to research ftmded by the 

federal government, including the MSRP within the CDMRP. 

The CDMRP is a peer-reviewed program funded through the Department of Defense via the 

Defense Appropriations Act. Importantly. individual programs like the MSRP are funded at the 

direction of Congress and till research gaps by funding high impact, high-risk and high gain 

projects that other research agencies- like the NIH, may not venture to tund. The CDMRPs are 

distinctive in that they involve active participation of people living with the program disease 

area. These patients and patient representatives are highly coveted roles, as they are involved in 

all areas of the program- from establishing the mission/vision of the program, to reviewing 

applications and making recommendations for funding, and evaluating the impact of the 

program. People living with MS value these opportunities within the MSRP as a way they can 

engage in the research process. Further, the Society applauds the way MSRP's design and 

believes that it aligns with the direction of patient centered drug development and care. 
536

Nationaf 

Multipl~ Sclero:5is 

Society 

lv!S and military servi<:e 

In the Cnited States, there are approximately 32,870 veterans living with diagnosed MS. Out of 

that number, over 11,000 have MS that is deemed service-connected, meaning that their MS was 

incurred or aggravated during their military service. Each year, the Veterans Health 

Administration provides cure to more than 20,000 veterans living with MS. 

MS is considered a presumptive condition and veterans who have symptoms ofMS in the 

military or 1.vithin seven years after honorable discharge arc eligible for the service-connected 

status. An advisory committee by the Veterans Administration recently recommended further 

study into the potential link between combat service and increased risk of developing MS. As the 

underlying cause of MS is still unknown, it is imperative that the federal government fund basic 

research to help answer fundamental question, and research to help improve the lives of those 

serving in the military who may be called upon to service in areas and environments that may 

increase the risk of developing diseases like MS later in life. Research into the underlying causes 

of MS and improving methods of diagnosing, treating and potentially curing MS is critical to 

improving the lives of our military servicemen and servicewomen and all of those living with 

MS. 

Multiple Sclerosis Research Program 

The MS Research Program (MSRP) was established by Congress in 2009. Its vision is to 

prevent, cure, reverse, or slow the progression, and lessen the personal and societal impact of 

MS. Like m<my of the other programs within the CDI\1RP, the MSRP specifically encourages 

applications that address critical needs of the :VIS community and concentrate on: the biological 

basis of disease progression, risk factors leading to the prevention of MS, drug discovery and 

biomarkers for preclinical detection of MS. To date, Congress has appropriated approximately 

$40 million dollars to the :V1SRP, including $6 million in 2017. From those appropriations, the 

MSRP has funded 74 awards that have funded studies that examine gap in MS from basic 

science to rehabilitation research. As this is a relatively new program. many studies are still in 

the publication process as biomarkers and other discoveries move through the scientific process 

and ore incorporated into the drug discovery process. 

A particular area of interest in MS research is imaging technology, as diagnosis of MS and 

tracking disease progression remains challenging, both for active duty military personnel, 

veterans and civilians. MRI's are often used by health care providers to track disease activity. 

Currently, MRI findings are not accepted by the Food and Drug Administration as indicators of 

clinical meaningfulness in the drug development and approval process and more research is 

needed in the form of more long-term studies con·clating brain MRI with disability progression. 

This is a critical body of research that will improve the drug development process. the ability of 

the healthcare system to better track disease progression and activity, and allow healthcare 

pro\'iders to better anticipate the needs of people living with MS. The Nationallnstitutcs of 

Health, the nation's preeminent biomedical research facility. also conducts imaging research 

within the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering: however, the emphasis 

2 
537

National 

Multiple Sclerosis 

Society 

on the research performed at that Agency is on technical development rather than detailed 

applications to specific diseases. The clinical application of the research done at MSRP is 

particularly important for those who are living with MS and diagnosed in the military, as it will 

facilitate better conversations surrounding troop readiness and the ability of an individual to 

deploy. 

The l'v!SRP has timded many studies that have examined mdhods to improve imaging 

technology to better track disease progression and to allow fL1r direct detection and quantification 

of myelin changes in people living with MS. Two innovative ways that imaging improvements 

are being explored are summarized below: 

• Researchers at Case Western Reserve University were funded by the MSRP in 2009 to 

examine in vivo imaging of myelination for drug discovery. Their goal was to develop 

novel therapeutics for MS. These researchers developed a myelin-imaging agent, Case 

Imaging Compound (C!C), which penetrates the blood-brain barrier and attaches to 

myelinated regions of the brain. ere has been used for positron emission tomography 

(PET) imaging that allows for direct imaging of myelin changes in vivo. These studies 

indicate that this type of imaging could be used as an imaging marker of can be used as 

an imaging marker of myelination. which has the potential to be translated into clinical 

studies in MS and other myelin-related diseases for early diagnosis, sub-typing. and 

enicacious evaluation of therapeutic treatments aimed at myelin repair. The researchers 

plan to utilize this imaging to examine the cfticacy of therapeutic agents in animal 

models of MS. Results from this study, and subsequent follow up studies, have been 

published in Journal ofNcurosciencc and the Annals of Neurology. 

• A MSRP funded study that is currently under>vay at Vanderbilt University is examining 

ways to improve magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques to quantifiably measure 

underlying tissue abnormality in brain gray matter areas that results in decreased 

cognitive performance. Conventional 'v1RI methods are not well suited to measure tissue 

damage and lesions in the gray matter ofthc brain, if successful. this study may improve 

the ability of the healthcare community to diagnose, understand and treat cognitive 

issues. This study could be transformative f(x people living with MS. but also for 

individuals who suffer from other dis.:ases and conditions that result in cognitive 

impairment. 

Because of the tremendous impact the 'viS CD\I!RP has on research and development of 

potential therapies for MS. the National MS Society requests that Congress provide $10 

million in discretionary appropriations. This funding will allow the CDMRP to continue the 

innovative research that will improve the lives of those living with MS. Because oflimited 

funding, on average, fewer than 15% of research applications submitted to the MSRP were able 

to be funded annually between fiscal years 2009-2014. 
538

National 

Multiple- Sclerosis 

Society 

The Society thanks the Committee for its investment in the CDMRP, and in particular the 

MSRP. We appreciate the oppmiunity to provide written testimony and our recommendations tor 

FY2018 appropriations for the program. The MS CDMRP is of vital impmiance to people living 

with MS and we look forward to continuing to working with the Committee to help move us 

closer to a world free of MS. 

4 
539

[Insert Subcommittee Name Here] 

Witness Disclosure Form 

Clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires nongovernmental witnesses to disdosc to the Committee the following information. A 

non-governmental witness is any witness appearing on behalf of himself/herself or 

on behalf of an organization .!!.!h.£!: than a federal agency, or a state, local or tribal 

government. 

Your Name, Business Address, and Telephone Number: 

Lts\. t \2(\t-.u- .. 1 

110o Ne,;.U '(o-ILA.ve, Nvv ~t\;~ -\.4:()-6 

you on a non-governmental organization? 

Please Jist organization(s) you are representing. 

tV~t.h<MtLl U<.tl*'~\t Sc_\e.""osi<o Socu.~ 

2. Have you or any organization you are representing received any Federal grants or 

contracts (including any subgrants or subcontracts) since October 1, 2012 related 

to the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes 

3. Have you or any organization you are representing received any contracts or 

payments originating with a foreign government since October l, 2012 related to 

the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes (~ 

4. If your response to question #2 and/or #3 is "Yes", please list the amount und 

source (by agency and program) of each Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or 

contract (or subcontract thereof), and/or the amount aJtd country of origin of any 

payment or contract originating with a foreign government. Please also indicate 

whether the recipient was you or the organization(s) you are representing. 

Signature: ,j I . : ·"J:? .1 I '/LM{);:'tl\''-~ t../ 

Date: 5\2.-) \"'=t 
540

Testimony ofThe Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research 

United States House of Representatives 

Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs 

The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (MJFF) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Defense. Our 

comments focus on the importance of federal investment in biomedical research at the 

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). MJFF supports appropriation 

of at least $20 million to the CDMRP Parkinson's Research Program (PRP)- which will 

go part of the way toward recovering money lost since 2010, when the program was funded at 

$25 million- and bring us closer to better treatments and a cure for Parkinson's disease (PD). 

As the world's largest nonprofit funder of PD research, MJFF is dedicated to accelerating a cure 

for Parkinson's and developing improved therapies for those living with the disease today. In 

providing more than $700 million in PD research to date, the Foundation has fundamentally 

altered the trajectory of progress toward a cure. However, MJFF investments are a complement 

to, rather than a substitute for, federally funded research. With critically needed Parkinson's 

breakthroughs on the horizon, robust and reliable federal funding is imperative to drive progress. 

Currently, there is no therapy to slow, stop or reverse the progression of PD. Additionally, 

existing treatments are limited in their abilities to address patients' medical needs and remain 

effective over time. 

An estimated 80,000 veterans and one million people overall live in the United States with PD, 

the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer's disease. Parkinson's 

results in an estimated annual economic burden of $19.8 billion to $26.4 billion. Investing in 

research on the front end to develop innovative therapies and cures can lower back-end costs. 

New treatments would relieve the burden on Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of 

Veteran Affairs. 

PRP: Efforts to Prevent and Stop Parkinson's Progression 

Started in 1997, the CDMRP's Parkinson's Research Program aims to identify and understand risk 

factors associated with PD {such as chemical exposures, psychological stress and traumatic brain 

injury) in order to prevent or delay the onset of symptoms, as well as advance the development of 

new treatments. The program has granted more than 250 awards to investigate a variety of 

mechanisms of and factors influencing disease progression. 

In recent years, program funding has significantly decreased (from $25 million in FYlO to $16 

million in FY16). Reinstating funding at previous budget levels will ensure scientific progress of 

importance to our nation's service members can continue. 

For example, PRP-funded research has identified several PD risk factors of interest to the military 

community and the greater population. Previous studies have implicated exposure to chemicals, 

such as pesticides and solvents, common in rural communities as associated with the disease. 

Building on this idea, in 2015, Caroline Tanner, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San 

Francisco analyzed data and samples from Alaska natives with and without Parkinson's disease 

and found higher blood levels ofhexachlorobenzene and PCBs in people with Parkinson's 
541

disease. However, some people without PD also had high levels of the chemicals in their blood, 

leading Dr. Tanner to hypothesize a combination of susceptibility and environmental exposure 

contributes to Parkinson's disease. Understanding possible environmental causes of the disease 

will help the military reduce exposure through protective equipment or other mitigations and 

help civilians take measures to reduce their risk. 

CDMRP: Unique Research with Reach Beyond the Military 

The research portfolio supported by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program 

fuels scientific discovery by propelling exploration of revolutionary ideas and concepts with 

potential impact for support and treatment for members of the military and the greater national 

population. The CDMRP funds highly innovative projects -for which support is typically limited 

or unavailable-from research teams at top universities and medical centers. 

It is important to note, as well, Department of Defense programs neither duplicate nor supplant 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) research programs, but rather enhance those efforts. NIHfunded basic research serves as a foundation for groundbreaking, disorder-targeted research at 

the DoD. NIH and DoD program officers meet to ensure collaboration and prevent duplication. 

The well-executed and efficient programs within the defense health research programs 

demonstrate responsible government stewardship of taxpayer dollars and benefit current and 

former military service members, the general patient population, and our nation's economy. 

DoD's biomedical research funding has led to many significant breakthroughs and 

achievements, contributing to national security and the health and welfare of U.S. Armed Forces 

personnel and their dependents. 

Please continue investment in Americans' health and wellbeing by allocating $20 million dollars 

for the PRP in FY2018 and supporting CDMRP programs generally. Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony. 

Todd Sherer 

Chief Executive Officer 
542

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

[Insert Subcommittee Name Here] 

DoD 

Witness Disclosure Form 

Clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires nongovernmental witnesses to disclose to the Committee the following information. A 

non-governmental witness is any witness appearing on behalf of himself/herself or 

on behalf of an organization other than a federalogeney, or a state, local or tribal 

government. 

Your Name, Business Address, and Telephone Number: 

Thr.-Mi<J>qQ. \ J. F oi.. 'F"u"Jo.+io•-> 

(-,.va ... cl Con I-va) Si<>+loVJ 

P-o. r:,ox <l·:rr'l 

fJ~,u yo o > 0<'ul '{o lo ~~::., ~'f?--rr 1800. 7'08· +r:. <./<I 

I. Are you appearing on behalf of yourself or a non-governmental organization? 

Please list organization(s) you are representing. 

Th.o. W!ichae I J i=o'i. Po~.£. ... dc..+J('J.r) 

2. Have you or any organization you are representing received any Federal grants or 

contmcts (including any subgrants or subcontracts) since October I, 2012 related 

to the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes ~~ 

3. Have you or any organization you are representing received any contracts or 

payments originating with a foreign government since October l, 2012 related to 

the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes C§:J -

4. If your response to question #2 and/or #3 is "Yes", please list the amount and 

source (by agency and program) of each Federal grant (or sub grant thereof) or 

contract (or subcontract thereat), and/or the amount and country of origin of any 

payment or contract originating with a foreign government. Please also indicate 

whether the recipient was you or the organization(s) you are representing. 

Date: 0 5jo1. f f 
543

Human Factors 

and Ergonomics 

Society 

Official Written Testimony in Support of 

Fiscal Year 2018 Science and Research Funding 

Submitted to the House Subcommittee on Defense, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

June 6, 2017 

Submitted by 

Nancy J. Cooke, Ph.D., President, !Iuman Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Lynn Strother, Executive Director, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

On behalf of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (1-IFES), we are pleased to provide this 

written testimony to the House Subcommittee on Defense and Related Agencies for the official 

record. HFES urges the Subcommittee to provide robust funding levels for Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) at the Department of Defense (DOD) in the 

fiscal year (FY) 2018 appropriations process. Specifically, we urge the Subcommittee to 

direct DOD to identify opportunities to transition human performance research to defense 

acquisition programs to reduce cost, strengthen force protection, reduce potential for rcengineering, and enhance training. 

HFES and its members recognize and appreciate the challenging !iscal environment in which we 

as a nation currently !ind ourselves; however, we believe strongly that investment in scientific 

research serves as an important driver for innovation and the economy and for maintaining 

American global competitiveness. We thank the Subcommittee for its longtime recognition of 

the value of scientific and engineering research and its contribution to innovation in the U.S. 

The Value of Human Factors and Ergonomics Science 

fiFES is a multidisciplinary professional association with over 4,500 individual members 

worldwide, including psychologists and other scientists, engineers, and designers, all with a 

common interest in designing safe and effective systems and equipment that maximize and adapt 

to human capabilities. 

For over 50 years, the U.S. federal government has funded scientists and engineers to explore 

and better understand the relationship between humans, technology, and the environment. 

Originally stemming from urgent needs to improve the performance of humans using complex 

systems such as aircraft during World War II, the field of human factors and ergonomics (I-IF/E) 

works to develop safe, effective, and practical human use of technology. 1-IF/E does this by 

developing scientific approaches for understanding this complex interface, also known as 
544

!Iuman Factors and f~·rgonomics Society, June 6, 2017 

"human-systems integration." Today, HF/E is applied to fields as diverse as transportation, 

architecture, environmental design, consumer products, electronics and computers, energy 

systems, medical devices, manufacturing, office automation, organizational design and 

management, aging, farming, health, sports and recreation, oil field operations, mining, 

forensics, and education. 

With increasing reliance by federal agencies and the private sector on technology-aided decisionmaking, HF/E is vital to effectively achieving our national objectives. While a large proportion 

of HF/E research exists at the intersection of science and practice-that is, !I FIE is often viewed 

more at the "applied'' end of the science continuum-the field also contributes to advancing 

"fundamental'' scientific understanding of the interface between human decision-making, 

engineering, design, technology. and the world around us. The reach of HF/E is profound, 

touching nearly all aspects of human life from the health care sector, to the ways we travel, to the 

hand-held devices we use every day. 

Human Factors and Ergonomics at the Department of Defense 

HFES and its members believe strongly that federal investment in DOD will have a direct and 

positive impact on the U.S. economy, national security, and the safety and well-being of 

Americans. It is for these reasons that HFES supports robust funding for DOD, especially for the 

Army Human Factors Engineering Technology applied research program and the Navy 

Personnel, Training. Simulation, and Human Factors program within Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development to encourage further advancements in the fields of technology, 

safety, and human factors. among others. 

DOD has openly acknowledged the significance of human factors research and the potential for 

interagency collaboration through the creation of the Department of Defense Human Factors 

Engineering Technical Group (DOD HFE TAG). Composed of representatives from DOD, 

National Aeronautical and Space Association (NASA). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

and the Department of Homeland Security (DI·IS), the scope of this working group is broad and 

its benefits are diverse. 

In particular, the goals of DOD HFE TAG are to: 

Provide a mechanism for the timely exchange of technical in formation in the 

development and application of human factors engineering. 

Enhance coordination among government agencies involved in HF/E technology 

research, development, and application. 

Assist in the preparation and coordination of tri-service documents, and sponsor in-depth 

interaction, which aids in identifying HF/E technical issues and technology gaps. 

This research undoubtedly affects the safety and well-being of American citizens and it is for this 

reason that we request robust funding levels for human factors research in DOD in FY 2018. 

Conclusion 

P.O. Box 1369. Santa Monica. CA 90403-1369, USA 

310/394-1811 Fax310/394-2410 

Email: info@hfes.org Web site: http://www.hfes.org 
545

!Iuman F,K'Iors and Ergonornics Socie(v, June 6, 2017 

Given DOD's critical role in supporting fundamental research and development across 

defense and engineering disciplines, HFES supports robust funding levels for DOD 

RDT&E programs, especially those that specifically fund human factors, in FY 2018 as 

well as improvements to the inclusion of human systems integration in acquisition 

programs. These investments fund important research studies, enabling an evidence base, 

methodology, and measurements for improving organizational function, performance, and 

design across sectors and disciplines. 

On behalf of the HFES, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

Please do not hesitate to conta~t us should you have any questions about 1-lFES or 1-lF/E research. 

HFES truly appreciates the Subcommittee's long history of support for scientific research and 

innovation. 

P.O. Box 1369, Santa ~tonica, CA 90403-1369, L:SA 

3101394-1811 Pax 310/394-2410 

Email: info@hfes.org \Veh site: http://wwv•l,hfcs.org 
546

\) 

[Insert Subcommittee Name Here] 

Witness Disclosure Form 

Clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires non· 

governmental witnesses to disclose to the Committee the following information. A 

non-governmental witness is any witness appearing on behalf of himself/herself or 

on behalf of an organization other than a federal agency, or a state, local or tribal 

government. 

Your Name, Business Address, and Telephone Number: ( 2C 

l. Are you appearing on behalf of yourself or a non-governmental organization? 

Please list organization(s) you are representing. 

2. Have you or any organization you are representing received any Federal grants or 

contracts (including any subgrants or subcontracts) since October I, 2012 related 

agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

3. Have you or any organization you are representing received any contracts or 

payments originating with a foreign government since October l, 2012 related to 

the agencies or programs funded by the Subcommittee? 

Yes 

4. If your response to question #2 and/or #3 is "Yes", please list the amount and 

source (by agency und program) of each Federal grant (or subgrant thereat) or 

contract (or subcontract thereof), and/or the amount and country of origin of any 

payment or contract originating with a foreign government. Please also indicate 

whether the recipient was you or the organizalion(s) you are representing. 

Signature: Date: 
(i)

WITNESSES 

Page 

Arrington, Hon. Jodey C. ........................................................................................ 187 

Bischoff, Kim . .. . . . ........... ..... ......... ... . . . ......... ........ ......... .......... .. . . . . ....... ........ ........ .. .. . . 530 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl ........................................................................................... 110 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z. ................................................................................... 2 

Bridenstine, Hon. Jim ............................................................................................. 10 

Byrne, Hon. Bradley ................................................................................................ 90 

Cartwright, Hon. Matt ............................................................................................ 161 

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy ............................................................................................... 69 

Cook, Hon. Paul ....................................................................................................... 99 

Cooke, Nancy J. ....................................................................................................... 543 

Davidson, Hon. Warren ........................................................................................... 169 

Dunford, General Joseph F. .................................................................................... 473 

Fitzpatrick, Hon. Brian K ...................................................................................... 16 

Franks, Hon. Trent .................................................................................................. 117 

Gaetz, Hon. Matt .. . . . ...... .......... .. . . . ..... .. . . ....... .......... .. . ....... .. . . . ........... .. . . . . .. ....... ..... .. . 64 

Gallagher, Hon. Mike .............................................................................................. 175 

Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen ......... .. . . . .. . . . ........... .......... .. . . . . . ......... ......... ... . . . .......... .. . .. . ... 52 

Harris, Admiral Harry B., Jr .................................................................................. 282 

Hartzler, Hon. Vicky ................................................................................................ 149 

Hunter, Hon. Duncan .............................................................................................. 78 

Johnson, Hon. Mike ................................................................................................. 123 

Kelly, Hon. Trent ..................................................................................................... 136 

Knight, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 140 

Langevin, Hon. James R. ........................................................................................ 45 

Lengyel, General Joseph L. ..................................................................................... 319 

Lieu, Hon. Ted ......................................................................................................... 107 

Luckey, Lieutenant General Charles ..................................................................... 349 

Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle ............................................................................... 73 

Mattis, Hon. James N. ............................................................................................ 455 

McCollum, Vice Admiral Luke ................................................................................ 363 

McGovem, Hon. James P. ....................................................................................... 143 

McMillian, Lieutenant General Rex ....................................................................... 387 

MeSally, Hon. Martha ............................................................................................. 28 

Meehan, Hon. Patrick ..... ........ .. . . . .......... .......... .. . . . . .......... .. . . . . ......... .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . ... 35 

Miller, Lieutenant General Maryanne ................................................................... 415 

Norquist, David ........................................................................................................ 451 

Panetta, Hon. Jimmy .............................................................................................. 39 

Radewagen, Hon. Auma Amata Coleman .............................................................. 103 

Ritter, Leslie . .. . . . . .......... .. . . . ......... ... . . . . .......... .......... .. . . . . . ......... .. . . . .......... .. . . . . .......... ... 535 

Scaparrotti, General Curtis M. ............................................................................... 259 

Sherer, Todd ............................................................................................................. 540 

Stivers, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 84 

Strother, Lynn .......................................................................................................... 543 
ii

Page 

Suozzi, Hon. Thomas R. ... . ... . . . . ... . . ... ....... ........ .. ......... ....... .. .. .. . ..... .. . .. . .. . .. . . ... . . . .. . .. .. 59 

Tenney, Hon. Claudia .............................................................................................. 131 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn ............................................................................................ 6 

Vote!, General James .............................................................................................. 189 

Wagner, Hon. Ann ................................................................................................... 165 

Webster, Hon. Daniel .............................................................................................. 182 

Wenstrup, Hon. Brad .............................................................................................. 154 

Williams, Hon. Roger ............................................................................................... 20 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ...................................................................................................... 24 

0