U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

30–694 2019

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–107] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING 

ON

ARMY FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET 

REQUEST READINESS POSTURE 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 19, 2018 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

ANDREW WARREN, Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN GARRETT, Professional Staff Member 

MEGAN HANDAL, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Anderson, LTG Joseph, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–3/5/7, U.S. Army ......... 3 

Kadavy, LTG Timothy, USA, Director, Army National Guard, U.S. Army ........ 5 

Luckey, LTG Charles, USA, Chief of Army Reserve, U.S. Army ........................ 6 

Piggee, LTG Aundre, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4, U.S. Army ................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Anderson, LTG Joseph, joint with LTG Aundre Piggee, LTG Timothy 

Kadavy, and LTG Charles Luckey .............................................................. 30 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Army EDI Information Paper .......................................................................... 45 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Brown ......................................................................................................... 49 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 53 

(1) 

ARMY FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST 

READINESS POSTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 19, 2018. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. The Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee of Readiness 

will come to order. I welcome you to this hearing of the House 

Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee on the United 

States Army readiness posture. 

Today the subcommittee will hear from four Army senior leaders 

regarding their service’s fiscal year 2019 budget request in correlation to current and future readiness across the total Army. 

We are grateful to have the Regular Army component, the Army 

National Guard, and Army Reserve so superbly represented. And 

I was grateful to point out to each that I have served in the Regular Army, the Guard, and Reserve. So I am particularly grateful 

to be here with you. You truly embody the integration of the total 

Army. 

I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank our witnesses 

for their service. A combined 144 years of service is seated before 

us today. 

Specifically, I would like to explore the shortfalls, gaps, and critical challenges that lie ahead as you continue to implement the 

Army’s readiness recovery plan. We also want to recognize the 

progress achieved thus far and gain a better understanding of how 

the fiscal year 2019 budget request enables critical warfighting capabilities and life-cycle sustainment. Ultimately, how does this 

budget request support the Army mission and those men and 

women who wear the uniform and are in harm’s way. 

The fiscal year 2019 base and overseas contingency operations 

budget request for total Army operation and maintenance includes 

$70 billion, an approximate $4 billion above the fiscal year 2018 

National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] amount. 

We appreciate the Army’s prioritization of readiness and efforts 

to train towards decisive action capabilities, increased global posture and capacity and lethality to defeat the threats identified in 
2 

the National Defense Strategy [NDS], but we recognize there is 

more work to be done. It is our responsibility as members of the 

subcommittee to understand the readiness situation and how the 

budget request impacts the Army in correcting deficiencies and restoring the capabilities this Nation needs. 

President Ronald Reagan frequently used the term ‘‘peace 

through strength.’’ I agree with President Reagan and believe we 

must maintain a high state of readiness across our armed services 

in order to achieve that goal, as also has been restated by President Donald Trump. 

Needless to say, we have a lot of ground to cover this morning. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on varying aspects of Army readiness and concrete ways this committee can 

help. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I turn to Ranking Member Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, distinguished lady from Guam, 

for opening comments she would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And a warm ‘‘hafa adai’’ to all of the witnesses, since most of you 

have been on Guam. I want to thank you for testifying here today 

and thank you all for your leadership within your respective organizations as well as your service to our great Nation. 

I especially look forward to the service posture hearings and 

hearing from leaders within the various branches on your plans for 

the coming years, the challenges that you face, and how we, the 

Members of Congress, can help you surmount these challenges. 

And I do realize that we have had to reschedule this hearing several times over the past couple of months, and I appreciate the witnesses being flexible and making themselves available to be here 

today. 

Restoring our military’s readiness has been identified as a priority for the Department of Defense as well as for this subcommittee. At previous hearings, I have expressed concern with the other 

service budget request and their focus on modernization accounts 

rather than the operations and maintenance accounts that support 

training, maintenance, and building blocks for military readiness. 

However, I am pleased to see the Army’s budget request appears 

to reflect some increases in the operations and maintenance accounts over and above the fiscal year 2018 levels. That being said, 

I still have questions on the Army’s budget request, and I look forward to hearing specifically how this budget will support the 

Army’s readiness recovery. 

I note that the Army’s unfunded requirements list did not include items related to training, maintenance, or near-term readiness recovery. So this suggests that you believe the budget request 

fully resources your near-term readiness recovery plans. 

However, given the readiness shortfalls driven by sequestration 

and budget uncertainty, I wonder if the Army would be able to ex-
3 

pend additional resources for depot maintenance, supply, training, 

and other key readiness-enabling accounts in fiscal year 2019. 

This committee wants to support your efforts to rebuild readiness 

and recover from the budget uncertainty caused by sequestration 

and continuing resolutions. So we do hope that today’s hearing 

helps provide more details on the Army’s near-term and long-term 

readiness recovery plans as we move toward markup of the fiscal 

year 2019 NDAA. 

So, again, welcome to you all, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

I am pleased to recognize our witnesses today. I want to thank 

them for taking the time to be here with us. 

We have Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, the Deputy Chief 

of Staff, G–3. We have Lieutenant General Aundre Piggee, the 

Deputy Chief of Staff. We are grateful to have Lieutenant General 

Timothy Kadavy, the Director, Army National Guard; and Lieutenant General Charles Luckey, the Chief of Army Reserve. 

And before I begin, I would like to remind each witness that we 

have your written statement that has been submitted for the 

record, and if you could summarize your comments to 5 minutes or 

less. And then we will proceed to members asking questions. Thank 

you very much. 

Beginning with General Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF LTG JOSEPH ANDERSON, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF 

OF STAFF, G–3/5/7, U.S. ARMY 

General ANDERSON. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for the 

opportunity to testify on the readiness of the U.S. Army. And 

thanks to all of you for your continued support and demonstrated 

commitment to our soldiers, civilians, families, and veterans. 

Today, your Army remains globally engaged, with over 187,000 

trained and ready soldiers committed to meeting combatant command deterrence and counterterrorist requirements. 

This demand falls disproportionately on the Army. We meet 50 

percent of the combatant command base demand and 70 percent of 

emergent demand. To maintain this tempo and sustain readiness 

at levels required to support contingency plans, the Army must accept risk in end strength, capable capacity, sustainment, and modernization. 

Readiness for ground combat is and will remain the Army’s first 

priority. Our Army is focusing resources to maximize readiness and 

those units most likely to respond to possible contingencies around 

the world. We are also focusing on the increasing integration of the 

Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. 

We appreciate the bipartisan effort that produced the 2-year 

budget agreement for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. That type of certainty must continue well into the future so that we can effectively 

plan and align our resources with our top priorities. 

The National Defense Strategy focuses on the return of great 

power competition, where the Army will face a more technically capable adversary on a more lethal battlefield. The Army is expand-
4 

ing, building, and manning new units to meet the demand for areas 

such as security force assistance, cyber and EW [electronic warfare] 

capabilities, and piloting new operating concepts such as the new 

Multi-Domain Task Force. 

We appreciate the opportunity to grow the Army to 1.025 million 

soldiers. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the young men and women who make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our Nation are not sent into harm’s way without 

being given what they need to be ready. 

I look forward to answering your questions. Thanks again for 

your time and attention. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Anderson, General 

Piggee, General Kadavy, and General Luckey can be found in the 

Appendix on page 30.] 

Mr. WILSON. General Anderson, thank you very much. 

And General Piggee. 

STATEMENT OF LTG AUNDRE PIGGEE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF 

STAFF, G–4, U.S. ARMY 

General PIGGEE. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, 

and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today. 

I echo General Anderson’s comments. Your support is essential 

for readiness, and the Army needs it more now than ever. Efforts 

like the 2-year bipartisan budget agreement are game changers for 

readiness and future planning, but 2 years won’t get us where we 

need to be. This predictability has [to] become the norm. 

The Army is thinking ahead now. As you just heard from General Anderson, the Army is doing a lot. As the Army G–4, it is my 

job to predict what soldiers will need, where they will need it, and 

how much to give them to make sure they can do all of those things 

that General Anderson spoke about. 

We are looking at where to preposition our most critical equipment for the beginning of a conflict and how to maintain and store 

it to be ready for combat within hours. 

We are assessing our industrial base and looking at our skills of 

our workforce and what skills that they require, the infrastructure 

and equipment in our facilities, and thinking about how we should 

modernize to meet future demands. 

We are making progress to ensure we have enough of our preferred munitions in the right places, but there is more work to be 

done. We are working with our industry partners to ensure our 

supply chain is responsive and capable to meet our needs. And we 

are maintaining our equipment in a higher state of readiness to 

meet higher OPTEMPO [operations tempo] demands. 

None of this is possible without the ability to plan ahead. We are 

committed to being ready, but we need your support to make that 

happen. 

Thanks again for this opportunity to testify today and your continued support for our soldiers and our families, and I look forward 

to your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General. 

And now we proceed to General Kadavy. 
5 

STATEMENT OF LTG TIMOTHY KADAVY, USA, DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, U.S. ARMY 

General KADAVY. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Bordallo, distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the total Army readiness. 

On behalf of the 343,500 Army National Guard soldiers, we 

thank you especially for your strong support and unwavering commitment to our soldiers, their families, our wounded warriors, and 

especially the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. 

Your Army National Guard is mobilized today with more than 

19,000 soldiers supporting combatant commanders both overseas 

and in the homeland. Before the end of this fiscal year, we anticipate mobilizing a total of more than 24,000 Army National Guard 

soldiers for high-profile United States Army missions, including 

Operation Spartan Shield in the Middle East and the enhanced forward posture mission in Europe. 

Here at home, we currently have approximately 3,800 Army National Guard soldiers supporting Governors and States, as well as, 

as we have all heard in the news recently, an additional 951 Army 

National Guard soldiers recently called to duty on the southwest 

border. 

Readiness continues to be our number one priority. Everything 

we do must support this priority. After losing readiness to budget 

reductions, repeated continuing resolutions, and a drawdown in 

end strength, the Army National Guard, with your help, is now on 

a solid path to recover this lost readiness. 

We continually build readiness through balanced manning, training, and equipping strategies. Our modernization efforts nested 

with the Army’s plan include recapturing readiness through modernizing our mission command systems, air defense artillery, Humvees, tanks, and aircraft. 

Full-time support personnel continue to be the number one most 

critical contributors to both individual and unit readiness in the 

Army National Guard. Our full-time personnel perform vital mandatory missions, from training and administrative support to supply and maintenance of our critical platforms within the Army National Guard. 

These hardworking soldiers are truly the foundation that makes 

us the most capable, best prepared combat reserve force in the 

world. Without these dedicated full-time-serving soldiers, we would 

simply not achieve the readiness required by the Army and by the 

Nation. 

Individual readiness includes professional military education, 

medical and dental readiness, and individual weapons qualification. 

With almost half of the Army’s combat structure residing in the 

Army National Guard, our enhanced readiness initiatives will 

render the Army, in our view, sufficiently responsive to national 

defense needs. 

We thank the committee for our increase in our end strength of 

343,500. This allowed the Army National Guard to increase our 

readiness enhancement account created in the fiscal year 2017 

NDAA, allowing us to focus on our high-priority units. 
6 

We are also grateful that in the fiscal year 2019 budget it includes the growth of 441 additional recruiters to fill positions in 

our community-based Army National Guard across the Nation. 

This year, we begin to recapture readiness and improve lethality 

by implementing the foundational elements of Army Guard 4.0, 

thanks to strong support from Congress, the Secretary of the Army, 

the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, and all 54 of our adjutant generals. 

In our efforts to reclaim lost readiness in fiscal year 2017, we 

went to a 4-year training model for armored brigade and Stryker 

brigade combat teams and other urgent formations. This year, we 

will double our combat training center rotations from two to four. 

And at the end of this fiscal year, September 30, more than 30,000 

Army National Guard soldiers will have trained at the United 

States Army’s premier training centers during this fiscal year. 

We have also increased the money for professional education for 

our commissioned officers and our noncommissioned officers. 

Overall, this readiness strategy will require additional training 

days for many of our soldiers. 

Your support keeps the Army National Guard warfighting-capable and Governor-responsive. In short, we are part of the Army’s 

operational force, and we greatly appreciate all you have done to 

support us. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak here today. And thank you 

for all that you do for our citizen soldiers, their families, their employers, and the civilians of the Army National Guard. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General. 

We now proceed to General Luckey. 

STATEMENT OF LTG CHARLES LUCKEY, USA, CHIEF OF ARMY 

RESERVE, U.S. ARMY 

General LUCKEY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

It is an honor for me to represent the some 200,000 soldiers and 

civilians of America’s Army Reserve who serve, as I speak, in 20 

time zones around the world. And on behalf of them and their families, I want to thank each of you for your support. 

With a presence in 50 States, 5 U.S. territories, and 30 countries 

around the world, your Army Reserve is becoming the most capable 

combat-ready and lethal Federal reserve force in the history of the 

United States of America. 

Over the past year, we have continued to refine our Ready Force 

X [RFX] construct as the driver and intellectual forcing function for 

all aspects of manning, training, and equipping our formations and 

deploying key capabilities on compressed timelines. As I tell our 

troops, RFX is a verb, not a noun. 

At its core, Ready Force X does two things. First, it is a way of 

seeing ourselves as a force from a readiness perspective with high 

fidelity within the context of Joint Staff-validated war plans. It enables us to prioritize activities and target policies to get after manning, training, and equipping formations, and early deploying capabilities prior to mobilization. In essence, it anticipates and priori-
7 

tizes what needs to be done first in order to dramatically reduce 

post-mobilization timelines. 

Second, it forces commanders at echelon to realistically assess 

the amount of time they will need to finalize the preparation of 

their units for combat post-mobilization and to commit to timelines 

that are measured in days and weeks. This is essential because it 

enables us to articulate and mitigate both risk to mission and risk 

to force by clearly assessing the criticality of mobilizing, making 

mobilization decisions well before we expect some units to arrive in 

theater fully combat-ready. 

As America’s Army Reserve becomes more capable and ready 

over time, we also remain consistently ready for our Defense Support of Civil Authorities missions and responsibilities here in the 

homeland at a moment’s notice. 

Last year, leveraging its immediate response authority, your 

Army Reserve conducted hundreds of missions to evacuate and rescue thousands of citizens in need, to transport emergency responders and airlift lifesaving medical supplies, to generate power, purify 

water, open ports and clear roads, delivering food, water, and supplies in support of operations responding to [hurricanes] Harvey, 

Irma, and Maria. 

That said, readiness remains this team’s number one priority. 

We are well on our way to more than doubling down on last year’s 

production of Operation Cold Steel—at that time, our largest crewserved weapons gunnery exercise in the history of the United 

States Army Reserve. This year, Cold Steel II, conducted over 9 

months at multiple locations, triples the throughput of our key 

enablers’ key capabilities and increases the scope, complexity, and 

throughput of complex formations as they aggressively produce 

readiness for America’s Army. From 1908 until today, America’s 

Army Reserve has never done what it is doing now to get formations ready to go to combat. 

As we look to the future, your Army Reserve continues to assess 

shifting demographics in emerging markets as we position and posture structure to ensure that we continue to leverage and share the 

best talent in America with employers across the Nation. 

Targeting in some cases digital key terrain, your Army Reserve 

is driving to exploit its Private Public Partnership program to develop and expand unique employment relationships with the private sector as a screening force for the Army. 

Creating new structure and moving it to key regions to gain and 

retain talent in areas such as cyber operations, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, your Army Reserve team works 

closely with the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental—that is, 

the DIUx—and MD5—that is the Military District 5 here in Washington with the Department of Defense—and other critical defenseoriented industries. This initiative is already well underway and 

bearing fruit. 

In closing, I encourage each of you to continue to reach out to 

the communities, cities, campuses, and employers in your districts 

and to influence the influencers with the sound of your voice. Let 

them know that we appreciate their full partnership in the national security of the United States of America. They are sharing 

the best talent in the world with America’s Army Reserve. We 
8 

could not generate the capability that we do for the Nation without 

their continued and sustained support. It is essential if we are 

going to continue to be ready enough to be relevant but not so 

ready that our soldiers are unable to keep good, meaningful civilian 

jobs and healthy, sustaining family lives. 

On behalf of my entire team, we appreciate you, your support, 

and your leadership. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General Luckey. 

And we will proceed now. And Drew Warren, our professional 

staff member, will maintain the 5 minutes for each person, beginning with me. 

So, at this time, first of all, I want to thank each of you, but, 

General Luckey, when you were referencing hurricane recovery and 

relief, how important that is. We see how important it is in Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands, the Caribbean, certainly the catastrophic effects to the hurricanes on the East Coast and the Gulf 

Coast. So there is such an emphasis on overseas operations, but domestically, how important it is. 

And I am really grateful for the leadership of President Trump, 

to have National Guard personnel on the border to reduce drug 

trafficking, the potential of terrorists crossing, human trafficking, 

how important that is, and I am really grateful. One of my sons 

served in the Army Guard on the border at Arizona, and he told 

me how helpful it was to back up to the Border Patrol and how effective this can be. So, over and over again, we can see a potential 

positive, domestically and overseas. 

General Anderson, what is the status and planned timelines for 

the six security force assistance brigades? And how has the Army 

ensured that the first of these units was sufficiently manned, 

trained, and equipped for deployment to Afghanistan, particularly 

given the accelerated schedule? 

General ANDERSON. Thanks, Chairman. 

Well, the good thing is they were originally supposed to go in November and they ended up going in February. So, if we had really 

had to get them out the door by November, we would have been 

challenged from a manning, equipping, and training, because their 

validation exercise at Fort Polk wasn’t until January. 

So the good news is, Congressman, they are on the ground. They 

are out in about 36 different locations supporting both kandaks [Afghan National Army battalions], brigade and corps headquarters, 

institutional training sites, and NSOC Alpha [NATO Special Operations Component Command Afghanistan]. So they are very welldispersed. We will start to get feedback on how they are doing here 

soon, because they have been out about a week now. 

Number two is being stood up at Fort Bragg. That should be 

fully up and running by summertime. And then number three, at 

a location to be determined, we will start this up this summer and 

should be finalized by the fall. 

So the first three will be done by the end of calendar year 2018, 

and then we will work on four and five in the Active Component 

in 2019, and we will work on the Guard in 2019. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And, General Piggee, I was very pleased as you were referencing 

the recent budget predictability, the ability to plan ahead, the lead-
9 

ership of President Donald Trump. Secretary James Mattis, what 

a positive influence. And then someone that we appreciate, who we 

will miss, is Speaker Paul Ryan. He truly was impacted by different briefings that have been provided to him, and his leadership 

made it possible for the budget to pass. 

Can you, General, please discuss the current and future plans for 

modernization command? And do you see any potential friction between the leadership within the modernization command and existing commands? 

General PIGGEE. Thank you for your question. And, again, we 

really appreciate your support in the past and as we go forward. 

I think that the modernization command will be an extension of 

the readiness challenges and be focused more on what those specific requirements are as they look to assist in acquisition reform 

and modernization of specific pieces of equipment. 

And I think it fills a seam and a gap that we have not had in 

previous organizational structure, as we had multiple organizations 

touching various aspects of a life cycle of a piece of equipment. 

With this Futures Command, I think we will have from grave to 

cradle—or cradle to grave. We will have one organization responsible for overall acquisition of that process. 

So I think it will be much more efficient and effective as we go 

forward. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, we appreciate your leadership very much. 

And a final question, General Anderson. One of the highlights of 

my life was, last August, to lead a delegation to Bucharest, Romania, to Sofia, Bulgaria, to Vilnius, Lithuania, to Riga, Latvia, to 

Tbilisi, Georgia, to Zagan, Poland, to see the liberation of these 

countries. It is due to the American military that the countries that 

I visited, each one, is free and the people are living in freedom 

today. 

One of the highlights, I was with my son, who is an engineer in 

the Army Guard, and he arranged for a fellow graduate of U.S. 

Army Engineer School to meet us, a captain in the Lithuanian 

Army. Who would ever imagine in our lifetime? So thank you for 

your success. 

And just a concern, though, that I have is the infrastructure of 

Central and Eastern Europe. And working together with the European Union, NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization], with the 

host countries, what do you see is the effort being made for the infrastructure, for the health and safety for everyone? 

General ANDERSON. The good news is, Chairman, that Poland desires to make about a $2 billion investment in their infrastructure. 

As you know if you went to the camp there where our brigade 

headquarters is, the barracks, the motor pool, and those conditions 

are a little not to our standards. But we knew that, because we 

knew the enhanced forward presence was going to be an expeditionary—it wasn’t going to be like the FOBs [forward operating 

bases] you have been on in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

So, over time, the goal will be to build that capability to support 

our—we are not looking for forward presence. We are looking for 

continued rotational capability from the heel-to-toe brigade for Operation Atlantic Resolve and sustaining the Enhanced Forward 

Presence Battle Group—is the NATO terminology with that bat-
10 

talion, with a British infantry company, a Romanian air defense 

company, and a Croatian special forces asset. So it is a very good 

package. 

Mr. WILSON. And I have seen the development of the M.K. 

[Mihail Kogalniceanu] Air Base—— 

General ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. In Romania—remarkable—— 

General ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. And Novo Selo in Bulgaria. To see 

young Bulgarians and Americans working together, how inspiring. 

I now yield to Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Lieutenant General Anderson, this question is for you. As I said 

in my opening statement, I am interested to hear your assessment 

of the fiscal year 2019 budget request given the readiness shortfalls 

that the Army has faced. 

So, in your professional opinion, if additional funding was made 

available for operations and maintenance, do you believe the Army 

has areas where additional resources for these accounts would help 

accelerate readiness recovery? And can you please give an example? 

General ANDERSON. Yes, ma’am. 

The key on the O&M [operations and maintenance] funding you 

are talking about with respect to readiness is a function of maintaining our CTC [combat training center] rotations. So it is 19 a 

year this year. It goes to 20 a year next year. And we are trying 

to get repetitive, to get brigades back through there more than just 

once a year. 

So that glide path from the validation exercise to enhanced home 

station training and an enhanced exercise program will help us 

keep recovering, like we are. A year ago right now, we had two brigades fully ready. Well, it is four times that much now. So that is 

great improvement over the course of the year. 

The other part that I think you are referencing would be also all 

the maintenance piece. This is about having the parts as we try to 

enhance our readiness rates and modernization. Those have both 

fallen behind. But if we can have more standard stockage lists and 

have them all around the country, available, to reduce shipping 

times and parts to put on the vehicles, aircraft, et cetera, that is 

where that money would come, more investment in those types of 

things. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good. Thank you, General. 

My second question is for General Kadavy. And this is the National Guard, of course. 

When you last visited me, you mentioned that the Guard was 

still evaluating a proposal to have the Guam National Guard assume some portion of the THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area 

Defense] mission. 

I recently spoke with the Chief of Staff of the Army, and he 

thought it made sense to have the Guam Guard support the mission and allow the Army to save money by not having to deploy 

other units from their home station, many thousands of miles, to 

perform tasks that the Guam Guard was perfectly capable of assuming. In this way, the Army would not have to find housing for 
11 

the families—some are with families—the cost of travel, and other 

expenses. 

So what is the status of your assessment? And can you find 

someone that can come by my office and update me on the findings? 

General KADAVY. Well, hafa adai, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Hafa adai. 

General KADAVY. We agree with you. We are in the process of 

running through the analysis to determine which pieces of that 

particular mission fits squarely into the structure and end strength 

that the Guam Army National Guard—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. I think we had the security, General, right? 

General KADAVY. Right. Security, maintenance, supply, logistics 

are certainly things that reside in Guam. And, between us and the 

G–3, we are working diligently to determine what that need is so 

that we can move it forward. 

And we would be more than happy to come by and give you an 

update on that, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. In my opinion, it would be a great savings, because right now we are bringing them in from the States. 

General KADAVY. Right, a great savings, but just a tremendous 

way to continue to develop readiness in our Guam Army National 

Guard, as well, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is right. 

Lieutenant General Anderson, my next question is for you. The 

Army Chief of Staff has called on the Army to prepare for war on 

the future battlefield and move away from the focus on counterinsurgency operations that have consumed the Army’s focus for the 

last two decades. 

Can you give examples of how the Army will leverage this year’s 

budget request in regards to training to ensure soldiers continue to 

be prepared to meet global counterterror operations while pivoting 

to fulfill General Milley’s intent? 

General ANDERSON. Yes, ma’am. We are still required to perform 

the CT [counterterrorism] mission. That won’t go away, principally 

because of Iraq, Afghanistan, and places like Syria. 

But what you are talking about is how do we—as I mentioned 

the combat training center rotations a little while ago, these become full-spectrum rotations, which means—and the other term 

you will hear is ‘‘decisive action,’’ whether it is a combined-arms 

maneuver, wide-area security. But this is air-ground integration, 

this is fires, this is obstacle belts, so electronic warfare, cyber, information operations, things that we hadn’t done out there in 

years, where you actually shut down a network and that brigade 

has to actually maneuver without radios. 

So that is what the chief has told us to do, make these as hard 

as we can against near-peer/peer competitors like Russia, like 

China, like North Korea, and be able to fight on that kind of a battlefield. And that is exactly what is happening in home stations, 

training centers. And our exercises are designed exactly the same 

way. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, good. That answers my question. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. 
12 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Piggee, Chairman Wilson mentioned Futures Command. 

It is my understanding that Atlanta is a finalist on the list that 

is yet to be—I don’t think the final determination has been made 

yet of where that Futures Command will be. But I want to point 

out that there is uniform support from every Georgia Member for 

putting that Futures Command in Atlanta, and certainly we would 

love to have it there. The Army has been good to Georgia, and I 

think Georgia has also been good to the Army, and look forward 

to expanding that relationship, if possible. 

General PIGGEE. Thank you, Congressman. I concur. And I do believe, just recently, the Under [Under Secretary of the Army] released the list of the 15 potential candidates, and I think Atlanta 

was one of that 15. I know that the G–3 was talking about in Georgia recently—I was in there last month, and my daughter lives in 

Atlanta. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ah. Great. 

General PIGGEE. I went to college there. So I am well aware of 

all of the ambience and capability that exists, technology that exists in that great State and in Atlanta in particular. And I am sure 

that it will get its due rigorous evaluation as we review all of the 

potential candidates. 

Mr. SCOTT. So which school was she at? 

General PIGGEE. She went to Clark Atlanta. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, there are a tremendous number of great institutions in Atlanta, and certainly glad you were there. 

I know, General Anderson, you were also at Benning this week. 

First Security Forces Brigade was set up there. I hope that the 

third potentially can come to Fort Stewart. I would love to have 

that there. 

And my question on the security forces brigades is, can you kind 

of speak to the differences in the organizations of the security force 

brigade versus traditional brigade combat team and how they are 

aiding in our readiness as a Nation as a whole? 

General ANDERSON. Sure, Congressman. 

The SFAB [security force assistance brigade] is structured off of 

an infantry brigade combat team table of organization, so it is 816 

people. It has the entire structure of a brigade, E–5 and above. 

There are no lieutenants, and there are no E–4s and below. And 

they are capable of manning 36 12-man maneuver adviser teams. 

So, as we are employing them over there right now, they are 

pretty much being employed as we design them but not necessarily 

totally, because some of them are doing institutional, and some of 

them are supporting special operations teams over there as well. So 

we will see at the end if we have to make any modifications as we 

build the second and third. 

And, as you know, Congressman, the goal was, once these SFABs 

got employed over there, it would relieve—back to your readiness 

question—it would relieve brigade combat team presence there, 

and we would bring them home. Currently, because of the fight 

going on there and Afghanistan being the number one priority 

right now in CENTCOM [United States Central Command], the 

two brigades that are on the ground remained. And the question 
13 

will have to be—we are looking at options next calendar year when 

we do the turnover. 

So first brigade will come home in November. We think the second brigade will go winter, and the third brigade will go spring. 

And the question will be will they both go. Because this year the 

challenge was, enabler-wise, when it came to medevac, ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance], logistics, et cetera, there 

wasn’t enough enablers on the ground, air, to support two SFABs. 

So we will see if they both go and, at the end of the day, do we 

yield a brigade combat team back. And that is when we will start 

recovering readiness from a demand perspective, which we have 

not realized that yet. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. We have to have our brigade combat teams, but 

just, as I look at the world, you know, even if you just take—I 

mean, Africa is a billion people, just that one continent. You know, 

our ability to train, advise, assist and to put enough power into an 

area to have a big impact is going to become more and more important in the future. And I think that an organization smaller than 

a full-size BCT [brigade combat team], I think we are going to become more dependent on them in the future. 

So, gentlemen, as you know, Fort Gordon has the Cyber Center 

of Excellence. I will mention it is in Georgia. Georgia has been good 

to the Army; the Army has been good to Georgia. 

But, as we talk about cyber going forward, what steps are in the 

fiscal year 2019 budget to push the cyber capabilities to the tactical 

level to enable a multi-domain battle? 

General ANDERSON. It is a total Army approach. So you know 

about the 61 Cyber Mission Force teams that we have out there. 

Not all fully operational yet, but the 41 Active are. And the Guard 

and Reserve are catching up. 

But the key now, Congressman, is how do we operationalize 

cyber. So, at the strategic level, the National Mission Force, the 

Cyber Protection Brigade, both in the Guard and the Active, are all 

fully doing business. The issue is, how do you get this at corps and 

below. And that is the future growth that will occur fiscal year 

2019 and beyond, is getting the cyber cells at brigade level, but 

how do you give brigade commanders operational capability to do 

things like knock a power grid, a water grid off the map without 

having to shoot around. That is where we are driving our training 

and capabilities, which right now don’t exist. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

General KADAVY. If I could just add to that real quickly, the 

Army National Guard has also provided all 50 States, 3 territories, 

and District of Columbia an element we call the Defensive Cyber 

Operations Element to help protect the military network that goes 

into each one of the States and then also provide a capability to 

assist the States and local governments in cyber defense. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Scott. And 

your testimony was so reassuring to all of us. 

We now proceed to Congressman Anthony Brown of—— 

General ANDERSON. I am just confused, Chairman. What State is 

Congressman Scott from? 
14 

Mr. WILSON. Well, and the only thing—equally good, Fort Gordon 

is adjacent to Aiken, South Carolina. So, indeed, Congressman 

Scott was very prescient. I agreed with every word he said. 

Now we proceed to somebody else I am sure I am going to agree 

with, Congressman Anthony Brown of Maryland. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presence here today and your 

leadership in the Army. 

I had an opportunity to travel to Eastern Europe both in October 

and February. I was in Poland in October; I was with Representative Stefanik in Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine and looked at some 

of the exciting things we are doing with the EDI, the European Deterrence Initiative. 

I want to ask a little bit about our permanent presence in Europe, but let me preface with this: It is my understanding that the 

December 2017 GAO [Government Accountability Office] report 

found that the DOD [Department of Defense] is not estimating 

EDI’s long-term sustainment costs or communicating their future 

costs to Congress. 

We have a permanent presence. The vast majority of it is rotational, heel-to-toe. Some of it is permanent, I think a very small 

slice. There have been comments from senior leadership about 

wanting a more forward presence of a greater percentage, some 

maybe aviation units. 

It is hard for policy makers to understand how we can support 

that mission if we don’t have the data that we have been asking 

for. So this is more of a comment. Please provide us the data as 

soon as we can have it. 

So I know that there are costs associated with a forward presence versus rotational. You have commissaries, you have schools. 

I also know that some of our allies are willing to bear the cost— 

and they already are—in delivering the infrastructure that would 

support a forward presence versus a rotational. 

My question is, when will the Army assess long-term costs for 

that permanent presence so that we can better compare the costs 

of rotational versus forward stationing of forces? 

And I know that General Anderson will take the bulk of that response, but I would also like to know, what is the impact on the 

Reserves and the Guard in terms of your getting your reps [repetitions] in if we go to forward versus rotational? 

General ANDERSON. Perfect, Congressman. Thanks. And the 

Guard will send their first—278 ACR [Armored Cavalry Regiment] 

will be the next rotation for EFP [Enhanced Forward Presence], 

but Tim can talk about that. 

We will give you all that. We have an EDI white paper, and the 

EDI white paper lays out all things Europe, from a MILCON [military construction] exercise, rotational force, build partnership capacity—all the elements of EDI. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

pages 45 and 49.] 

General ANDERSON. Our experience, Congressman, tells us, 

though, that what we have learned, when we started heel-to-toe rotations with 3rd Brigade, 4th ID [Infantry Division] last year and 
15 

now 2nd Brigade, 1st ID this year, the readiness built by doing rotational forces versus permanent station is 10 times as powerful. 

And the bottom line is our commanders on the ground—we rotate forces through Kuwait, Europe, and the peninsula. And every 

commander says that rotational force is a more ready force than, 

in this case, 2CR [2nd Cavalry Regiment] and 173rd, the two Europe-stationed forward presence brigades. 

So that is why we do it, because we learn everything from port 

to foxhole, by rail, by convoy, by ship, all the border crossings, all 

the maneuver. And at the end of the day, it makes our Army so 

much better when we do it that way versus permanently stationed. 

We are increasing air defense over there. We are increasing fires 

over there. We are most likely going to put a corps headquarters 

over there. That is all in the works. So there will be some forward 

stationing. 

Mr. BROWN. Let me just jump in here, and I know that maybe 

the response from the Guard and Reserves I will have to get in 

writing or in follow-up conversations. 

But, you know, I am always defending the cost of our services to 

my constituents. They say, hey, you take the second, you know, top 

eight spenders, Russia, China, et cetera, et cetera, they don’t add 

up to the United States. And I say, well, that is because we have 

an expeditionary force, we have long logistics trails, we are bringing the fight to other continents. So we don’t have—we have the 

cost and the benefit of being in the Western Hemisphere. 

But, again, we need not just the year-to-year costs of rotational 

versus permanent; we need the long-term costs. I get the readiness. 

I grew up in 1985 Army when we were defending the Fulda Gap, 

and we had 300,000 uniformed personnel in Germany, and we 

thought that we were ready to defend. And I get the readiness 

piece. 

But there is a cost to that readiness versus a permanent presence. And it would be good for Congress to have that comparison 

and that information. And it is my understanding that we are not 

getting that long-term estimation. We are getting year to year. We 

need long term. 

I come out of the 1985 school where I want to see more permanent presence, so—or more forward presence. So show me the numbers, and I can compare them to your readiness evaluations as 

well. 

Mr. Chairman, I have used up all my time. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Congressman Brown. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had the honor of hosting Secretary Mark Esper at Fort Drum 

just a few weeks ago. And in our discussions with family members 

but also service members, he focused on the need to address things 

that were eating up our readiness. And one of the examples was 

online training. 

What are some of those other examples of exercises, things that 

we are asking our men and women in uniform to do that are eating 

up the readiness? 
16 

And the reason I am asking this: Because our number one focus 

is on readiness recovery, how can we address that excess, whether 

it is training, exercises? I would love your perspective. 

General ANDERSON. Ma’am, he has beaten me up over that every 

day—every day—just on email last night. Because he is at 1st Cav 

[Cavalry] Division right now, and he said the commanders are telling him, because of the European rotational requirements, behavioral health stuff, other medical issues, about 200 to 300 of our soldiers there probably aren’t going to go because of theater requirements. 

So, quickly, it depends on what authoritative documents you are 

talking about, but 350–1 is the Army self-inflicted training requirements. We have just reduced those now down to individual marksmanship, PT [physical training], battle drill, collective tasks, and 

took all the other mandatory training—and the Secretary is allowing commanders to accept risk to mission, risk to force. 

It doesn’t mean things like SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault 

Response and Prevention], EO [Equal Opportunity], suicide prevention, aren’t important, but by us telling them to do that every year 

for an hour in a classroom, it is not working. So he is not a fan 

of that. He is not a fan of online training requirements like TRiPS 

[Travel Risk Planning System], so every time people want to go on 

leave or pass, they have to spend a whole day filling out this questionnaire, which takes forever. So he shut that off last week. 

But then the bigger issue becomes, what are other theaterrequired issues? Like, at CENTCOM, the individual requirements 

are three pages long if you are going to deploy to the CENTCOM 

theater. 

So we are working with OSD P&R [Office of the Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness], Mr. Wilkie’s team, the Joint Staff, 

in trying to find out what would make, minus environmental/geographic issues like diseases and things, what would make Africa 

different than CENTCOM, different than Europe, for rollover drills 

and those kinds of things. But how do we get that litany of things 

down and say, hey, here is your basic requirements to get on an 

airplane and go. 

So it is a holistic look at everything, but when I say everything, 

it is about a 73-page document with 900-something tasks that we 

have uncovered, that he has made us do, which is—we will go as 

fast as we can to give commanders more flexibility. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you for noting the importance of programs 

like SHARP. By addressing some of the mandatory online training, 

what I thought was particularly helpful, hearing from Secretary 

Esper and our men and women in uniform, was that we need to 

have principles that we practice every single day, not just broken 

down into an hour of taking an online training course. 

My second question is about some of our future challenges when 

you look at 21st-century warfare. With the creation of Army Futures Command and the need to be ready for wars of tomorrow, 

how do you envision AI, artificial intelligence, being incorporated 

into the Army modernization priorities that you have already established? 

General ANDERSON. It fits right in with everything we were talking about earlier, about all the multi—it is part of our Multi-Do-
17 

main Task Force approach from an intel, cyber, electronic warfare, 

space perspective. 

But just last week, Secretary McCarthy directed the G–2, 

ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology] and myself to go out to Microsoft, and we are 

going to partner with industry to figure out how to go faster with 

AI, and not slower, as we incorporate what artificial intelligence 

will give our commanders sooner than later. So I think we are 

doing Amazon next week and we are doing Microsoft, like, a week 

or two later. But trying to learn from industry, who is so much further ahead of us on that, and figure out how to integrate into our 

training policies, et cetera. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Great. I am glad to hear that. I think that is very 

important, particularly as we look at near-peer adversaries in 

terms of their investment when it comes to AI, and they really integrated it into their militaries, but also how they are approaching 

readiness in the 21st century and making sure that we have the 

capabilities we need. 

Thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

We will now proceed to a second round. 

General Kadavy, I was so impressed with the State Partnership 

Program and would like to know what the status of the State Partnership Program is and what more can we do to help you. 

On my visit with Prime Minister Boyko Borisov in Bulgaria, he 

just felt so comfortable with the National Guard troops working 

and training with his troops. 

I had the opportunity to visit in Tbilisi, Georgia, a joint parachute jump. And it is very appropriate that the State partnership 

is the State of Georgia with the Republic of Georgia. And then, in 

South Carolina, we appreciate that South Carolina is associated 

with Colombia. And so, to have people from Columbia go to Colombia over and over again, there has been a thoughtfulness here that 

is just amazing. 

And our State Guards being so professional, with their experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, now to serve around the world, it is so 

uplifting. And the American people need to know about this. 

General KADAVY. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 

State Partnership Program is very important to the adjutant generals and to the National Guard at the bureau level too. 

My personal military opinion is that it has really grown over the 

years from what was originally intended to be an exchange, an engagement type program, to something that is under theater security cooperation. Our adjutant generals work very closely with the 

combatant commanders and with the Army service component commanders. So it is really a leverage now to not just do engagements 

but exercise and other partner type things. 

The parachute jump with the Georgia National Guard. You 

talked about Bulgaria and Romania, and you think about the Tennessee and the Alabama Army National Guards, which are the 

State partners, respectively, to those two States, and their ability 

to leverage their experience and their relationships to enhance the 
18 

ability to help them develop their training, locations: Novo Selo, 

and I can’t remember the other one. 

Mr. WILSON. M.K. [[Mihail Kogalniceanu]. 

General KADAVY. Right. So they have worked very hard there. 

And we have rotated engineer units from Tennessee and Alabama 

through those locations again and again and again, and it has really helped U.S. Army Europe to engage and utilize those relationships. So I think it has come a long way. For what the cost is, I 

think it is very cost-effective. 

Mr. WILSON. And I’ve identified that I really appreciate President Trump’s efforts on the border with Mexico to block the potential terrorist crossing over the—stop the human trafficking, to stop 

drug importation. And with the recent deployment order, can you 

be specific as to the type of activities and functions that the Guard 

personnel will perform? How many personnel will be providing this 

mission, and will the Guard members be conducting law enforcement activities, and will they be armed? 

General KADAVY. First, I think the President and the Secretary 

of Defense have authorized a ceiling of 4,000. I don’t know where 

the final number will be. We are in support of the States and particularly also Custom and Border Patrol. There is a work group 

that works very closely between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, that are validating the requirements along with the States. Most those missions are administrative, supportive, logistics, in support of CBP [Customs and Border 

Protection]. Also I think where our largest assistance is, is in aviation support in, you know, assisting Customs and Border Patrol as 

they do their mission there. At this point in time I’m not aware of 

anybody that is going to do direct law enforcement in support. I believe some Governors have authorized for self-defense, the carrying 

of weapons, but nothing in an offensive manner. 

Mr. WILSON. I am really grateful that the Governor of South 

Carolina, Henry McMaster, has been supportive from day one of 

the initiative. And the Guard members, Adjutant General Bob Livingston, have just been so enthusiastic about the ability to serve. 

I now yield to Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Lieutenant General Piggee, members on both sides of the aisle 

have taken a great deal of interest in the Army prepositioned stock 

program, especially with respect to support for U.S. Forces Korea 

and for U.S. Army Europe. 

So can you please briefly describe some of the initiatives that you 

are taking in fiscal year 2018 and then plan to undertake in fiscal 

year 2019 with respect to prepositioned stocks. 

General PIGGEE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for that question. And 

as you know, our prepositioned stocks continue to be extremely important and provide a level of deterrence with our potential enemies. 

We have primarily focused on configuring our prepositioned 

stocks in a capacity where they are ready to fight tonight. By configuring them for combat, we think it can reduce our time to issue 

that equipment to units that will fall in from a month or more to 

days. Our goal is 96 hours. But without configuring that equipment 

to combat, for combat, we can’t do that. 
19 

This budget allows us to do that. We have started that. We are 

in the process of converting those brigades in Europe and in the 

Pacific. We expect those to be complete this fiscal year, and then 

we will extend that to other locations, to include sustainment brigades, which we have not been able to attack, because we haven’t 

had the resources to do that. 

So this influx of additional budget will allow us to configure 

those prepositioned sets where they are prepared to fight tonight, 

able to transfer that equipment in hours vice weeks and almost 

months. And our major focus was initially Korea and in the European location. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, General. 

And, General Anderson, I have another question for you. I would 

like to shift now from soldier readiness to theater missile defense 

and defense of our Nation. I see that the air and missile defense 

is your fifth modernization priority. Is that right? 

General ANDERSON. [Nonverbal response.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. And that the service is including nearly a billion 

dollars for missile defeat and defense enhancements. 

Now, as you know, on Guam, we have a THAAD missile defense 

system. So can you please expand on changes to missile defense capabilities and how the budget allocations enhance national ballistic 

missile defense? 

General ANDERSON. Yes, ma’am. Well, the key, as you know, we 

just put THAAD on the Korean Peninsula, which was a big additive to what was on Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. It was quite a struggle. 

General ANDERSON. It was, but a great news story at the end. 

So, from a THAAD perspective, that posture is set. The issue now 

is SHORAD [short-range air defense]. So the two other gaps that 

enhance or support ballistic missile defense are SHORAD and longrange fires. And those are what you also see, long-range precision 

fire, on that list of six modernization priorities. 

And so between growing SHORAD capability back to division 

level, a SHORAD battalion per division, and working the longrange extension of the capability of fires from an offset perspective, 

those, combined with existing THAAD/Patriot capabilities, will ultimately be the way ahead. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, General. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. General Luckey, we spoke briefly the other day about 

your components and the impact on employers and the families. 

One of my bigger concerns as we have dealt with CRs [continuing 

resolutions] and other things is when we look at the Guard and the 

Reserve Component, as those dates approach and your training has 

to be canceled, the opportunity to fill that time, in some cases, isn’t 

there. 

Could you speak to that issue briefly for us? 

General LUCKEY. Yes, sir. So, Congressman, as we discussed the 

other day—and my guess is that General Kadavy would have a 

similar view. One of the challenges, as you well know, in having 

any sort of lapse in funding, and as we discussed the other day, 
20 

predictability, consistency is critical. In fact, I would say that, in 

some respects, a steady stream of less is better than, you know, episodic fluctuations of cash, and so I would just—financing. 

So I would say, first of all, lapses in funding, as you well know, 

have significant impact for the Reserve Components. I will speak 

just to COMPO–3 [U.S. Army Reserve Component 3] because, unlike our Active Duty counterparts, the battle assembly weekends 

are disrupted when there is a lapse in funding. 

Now, I want to give credit here to the G–3 [operations staff] of 

the Army, because one of the things, as I mentioned to you the 

other day, we did work our way through sort of those critical tasks 

which our formations inside America’s Army Reserve had to continue to train to execute, admittedly for a short period of time during lapses in funding, but had to train. Because to lose that weekend for some of our formations—and as you well know, Congressman, that is one-twelfth of the year from a battle assembly perspective—to lose that one weekend can be absolutely devastating 

from a medical readiness perspective or for some other critical 

function that has to occur then, because we can’t just put it off to 

the next week because we have employers we have to deal with. 

We have families we worry about. So it is critical we execute those 

functions. 

So we have worked very closely, as a total Army, to make sure 

we are, at a minimum, making sure we put maximum focus on 

those critical things that have to happen and acknowledge that, in 

some other cases, I have to manage risk prudently. 

So anything and everything that this body can do to ensure consistency in funding and no further lapses I think would be a significant impact from a readiness enhancement perspective for the 

Army Reserve. And my guess is my counterpart, General Kadavy, 

sees it no differently. 

General KADAVY. If I could just add a couple things, Congressman. First, you know, I think we have all heard the Army National 

Guard Reserve Component model was 39 days a year, one weekend 

a month and 15 days in the summer. I believe our model, truthfully, is we share soldiers with families and employers, and predictability is a key part of maintaining that bond of trust with them. 

And so they make family arrangements and plans for the entire 

year around our schedule so their soldiers can participate in training. 

And when we cancel something, two things happen: One, many 

of the families rely on the pay and allowances associated with that 

training period. They will not get that. Although the resources will 

come later in the year, we do have the drill, but now they have to 

change plans in order to attend that additional drill period later in 

the year. So that impacts families. I agree with General Luckey: 

Our dental and medical readiness was impacted. We do a lot of 

that during the times of the years that the CRs—but the other 

thing is, as we build training strategies, it is a building upon one 

training event to another training event to another training event. 

So we miss it, and it messes up the strategies. We try to build 

readiness throughout the year to achieve the highest levels we can 

during annual training. So, if we miss a step, we don’t always 

achieve what we are trying to do in a given year. 
21 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am very concerned about what happens between 

now and October 1st and making sure that we get the agreement 

finished for you in a timely manner. I just hope that we are able 

to finish out the appropriations process sooner rather than later, 

especially with regard to the DOD. 

And there are a tremendous number of things going on around 

the world, and we will be doing every American a big favor if we 

can get you an appropriation sooner rather than later. We know 

what we think we are going to have at the 716, but in the end, it 

is going to require the House and the Senate to come to an agreement and get that signature from the President. 

So thank you for all that you do and look forward to seeing you. 

Mr. WILSON. Again, Congressman Scott is correct on his issues. 

And another side consequence, it is always inspiring to me to see 

the number of people who commute long distances to drill. Okay? 

And they had air costs. They had accommodations costs. And then 

they had to change their flight plans. And these are dedicated people who it is just inspiring to see that they would travel across the 

country to come to drill in another State to keep their proficiency. 

We now proceed to Congressman Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope this is not a breach of protocol. I do want to thank General Herbert, who is in the room, for your service and I also really 

want to thank you for how great a mentor you are and the ability 

to train and direct my current MLA [military legislative assistant] 

when she was working on your team, Sapna Sharma, who is in the 

room there blushing. But she is doing a great job. Thank you for 

your service. 

If I could return to the permanent presence forward stationing 

versus rotational deployments. And, certainly, General Kadavy, if 

you could speak to what that impact is on the Guard, opportunities, costs, also General Luckey. 

But let me start with another preface. I spent 5 years on Active 

Duty. I commend the men and women on Active Duty. I couldn’t 

do it, because I couldn’t envision raising a family for 20 years 

where I would have to move them six times. So I commend and I 

thank our Active Duty members. 

But then I went to the Reserves, and it was even a more challenging lifestyle because of balancing my civilian job with my military. And, in fact, after 5 years as a Reserve aviator, I just couldn’t 

do it. So I had the good fortune of being able to branch transfer 

to the JAG [Judge Advocate General] Corps, where I could align 

my civilian pursuits to my Reserve duties. And I know General 

Luckey knows all about that because he is an infantry lawyer himself. 

So if you could just speak to sort of like the pluses and the 

minuses of rotational versus forward from the Guard and the Reserve perspective. 

General KADAVY. From Army National Guard perspective, we see 

tremendous value to these rotational stationing. We talked a little 

bit about the enhanced forward presence. So we do a number of 

things. One, just from a soldier level, mobilizations are a retention 

tool for us. We get our best retention numbers out of units that mo-
22 

bilize and deploy. It is because that is what our young soldiers are 

joining to do, and they want to be part of the Army and the Army’s 

missions. 

Two is, for us, because we don’t do the turnover like the Active 

Component and all the PCSing [permanent change of station], 

these mobilizations, deployments, and exercises are really readiness enhancers, not, you know, consumption of readiness, because 

when our units return, they are still the units that we sent, and 

now they have this additional experience that they can’t get anywhere else. So we find great value in that. 

Third, from the standpoint of mobilizations and the Army overall, there is muscle memory that we must continue to work and utilize, and that is the mobilization process. How you take soldiers 

and formations from a non-mobilized status, get them through 

post-mobilization training and deploy. So those are all great things 

for the Army and value from the presence. 

From the standpoint of cost, you know, the one thing I would 

note is that many of these missions are done in 12304 Bravo versus 

12304. So, when you think about the premobilization training and 

things the States are used to under the previous 12304 model, you 

can’t use the overseas contingency operations dollars to help prepare for that mobilization. And so that cost—because we have got 

to help them get ready and achieve the readiness levels they need 

at the time of mobilization so they can meet all timelines. That 

then comes out of the base, and those were things that we were 

not always estimating. 

But I think we are learning. I looked at the G–3. I think we are 

learning a lot. A lot of these things are firsts. We got the 155 

Armor Brigade Combat Team mobilizing today, going to Kuwait in 

a few months. General Anderson spoke about the 278 and sending 

battalions to do EFP. We are going to learn a lot. 

Mr. BROWN. General Luckey, you might want to talk about—— 

General LUCKEY [continuing]. Yes, sir. So thank you for that. 

Just very briefly, so I was in Lithuania and Poland the week before last. And to your direct point, we are already doing some rotation of civil affairs capabilities and other things in both of those locations as a part of other operations and activities. And I will just 

tell you I think that is minimal risk from a sustainable perspective. 

I can get you the cost figures if it is relevant, but it is a relatively 

small footprint right now that is rotating in and out of some of 

those locales. 

The larger point, and I would put a little different spin on it, 

Congressman. As you well know, America’s Army Reserve has a 

fairly significant forward presence—candidly, that is what it is— 

nonrotational, but a forward presence in Europe, because we have 

a lot of American citizens who have civilian jobs. And they work 

in Berlin, and they work, you know, in Bonn and other locations 

in Germany, and they also man our formations in civil affairs and 

signal capabilities, engineer capabilities, et cetera. So you have an 

extant capability set there already. 

I will tell you, looking to the future—this is a conversation General Cavoli and I had last week or 2 weeks ago in Wiesbaden. I am 

not sure that, as we look at force structure from an Army Reserve 

perspective and from a total Army perspective, what we have 
23 

learned as we look through the Ready Force X construct, in terms 

of what enablers, what critical enablers are that theaters are going 

to need very quickly, I am not sure we necessarily got the right 

balance anymore for what General Anderson alluded to earlier as 

a full-spectrum decisive action threat as opposed to something less 

than that. 

So we are already partnering both with Army, from a total force 

perspective, and also specifically with USAREUR [U.S. Army Europe], to see whether or not we should rethink about some of the 

roles, missions, and responsibilities of Army Reserve structure that 

is currently in and will stay in Europe. In other words, do we have 

the right MOSs [military occupational specialties] for what the 

Army needs today in Europe. And I think that is an open conversation we will continue to have. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Brown. 

And this has been a terrific positive hearing. I appreciate it so 

much, and we appreciate your dedication and service. Mr. Warren 

has conducted well. And I want to thank Congresswoman Bordallo 

for her service as the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 19, 2018 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 19, 2018 

(29) 

Statement of the Honorable Joe Wilson 

Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee 

"Army Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request Readiness Posture" 

April19, 2018 

Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order. I welcome you for 

this hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee, 

on: "The United States Army Readiness Posture." 

Today the subcommittee will hear from 4 Army senior leaders regarding 

their service's fiscal year 2019 budget request and correlation to current and future 

readiness across the total Army. We are grateful to have the Regular Army 

component, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve so superbly representedtruly embodying the integration ofthe TOTAL ARMY. I want to take this 

opportunity to sincerely thank our witnesses for their service, a combined 144 

years of experience is seated before us. Specifically, I want to explore the 

shortfalls, gaps, and critical challenges that lie ahead as you continue to implement 

the Army's readiness recovery plan. We also want to recognize the progress 

achieved thus far, and gain a better understanding of how the fiscal year 2019 

budget request enables critical war fighting capabilities and life-cycle sustainment. 

Ultimately, how does this budget request support the Army mission and those men 

and women who wear the unifonn and are in harm's way. 

The fiscal year 2019 base and Overseas Contingency Operations budget 

request for total Army Operation and Maintenance includes $70 billion dollars, an 

approximate $4 billion dollars above the fiscal year 2108 National Defense 

Authorization Act amount. We appreciate the Army's prioritization of Readiness 

and efforts to train towards decisive action capabilities, increase global posture and 

capacity and lethality to defeat the threats identified in the National Defense 

Strategy, but we recognize there is more work to be done. 

It is our responsibility as members of this subcommittee to understand the 

readiness situation and how the budget request impacts the Army in correcting 

deficiencies and restoring the capabilities this nation needs. 

President Ronald Reagan frequently used the phrase, "Peace Through 

Strength." I agree with President Reagan and believe we must maintain a high 

state of readiness across our armed services in order to achieve that goal. 

Needless to say, we have a lot of ground to cover this morning and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today on varying aspects of Army readiness 

and concrete ways this committee can help. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I tum to Ranking Member Bordallo, the 

distinguished gentlelady from Guam, for opening comments she would like to 

make. 
30 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOSEPH ANDERSON 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY, G-3/5/7 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL AUNDRE PIGGEE 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY, G-4 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL TIMOTHY KADAVY 

DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

AND 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY 

CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SECOND SESSION, 115TH CONGRESS 

ON READINESS 

APRIL 19, 2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
31 

INTRODUCTION: 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the readiness of the United 

States Army. On behalf of our Secretary, the Honorable Mark Esper, and our Chief of 

Staff, General Mark Milley, thank you for your support and demonstrated commitment to 

our Soldiers, Army Civilians, Families, and Veterans. 

In the last year, the world has become even more volatile and unpredictable. 

Today, the Army has over 178,000 Soldiers committed to supporting Combatant 

Commanders in more than 140 countries. The U.S. Army currently fills 50 percent of 

Combatant Command base force demand and 70 percent of emergent force demand. 

In real numbers, this is a 10 percent increase in global demand for forces from this time 

last year. Soldiers currently support 10 major named operations. In the current 

strategic environment typified by long-term strategic competition with other great 

powers, a continuing terrorist threat, disruptive technological advances, and budgetary 

uncertainty the Army remains the Nation's trained and ready ground combat force. 

As other senior leaders have testified before Congress, we are at an inflection 

point where we can no longer ignore the eroding competitive advantages of our 

technologies and weapon systems. We appreciate the bipartisan effort that resulted in 

a two-year budget agreement for FYs 18 and 19. That type of certainty must continue 

well into the future so we can effectively plan and align our resources to our top 

priorities. As you are aware, the budget uncertainty imposed by the 2011 Budget 

Control Act, nine years of continuing resolutions, and two government shutdowns forced 

the Army to underinvest in readiness - it will take time for us to build that back. 

In 2018 the Army will continue manning, training, and equipping the force to 

meet our goal: 66 percent of our fighting force ready to fight at a moment's notice. We 

must focus our training, equipping and manning priorities to meet the challenges of 

generating full-spectrum readiness, including mobilizing tens of thousands of Reserve 

Component Soldiers who can deploy to the fight in a matter of days and weeks. This 

work includes having sufficient, critical Army National Guard and Army Reserve enabler 

capabilities, and ensuring that there are no interoperability gaps in areas such as 

2 
32 

mobility, lethality and mission command systems. 

Providing a ready and lethal ground combat force will remain the Army's 

number one priority. The Army is focusing resources to maximize readiness on those 

units likely to respond to a possible contingency. We are focusing on increasing the 

integration of the Regular Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve. We are also 

evaluating new force structure that will allow the Army to take advantage of changing 

technologies deterring near-peer competitors, and winning against violent extremists 

who would attack our homeland and allies. 

Manning: 

The Army provides a majority of the forces to support Combatant Commander 

requirements globally. As a result, U.S. Army forces are critical to the Nation's 

compete, deter, and win strategy. For example, in the Pacific, where we are deterring 

North Korean aggression and countering China's hegemonic aspirations, the Army 

provides nearly 80,000 Soldiers on a permanent basis, and nearly 24,000 Soldiers 

through rotational Armored Brigade Combat Teams, aviation units, field artillery units, 

and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense capabilities. With these 

forces, the Army continues to strengthen its existing alliances and partnerships 

through exercises, such as Pacific Pathways, and programs such as the National 

Guard State Partnership Program. Bearing in mind that 20 of 27 Asian-Pacific 

countries' defense chiefs are Army Generals, U.S. Army forces are a natural fit to 

accomplish Defense objectives and attract new partners to work with the U.S. and 

achieve regional security objectives. 

The fight against violent extremists will continue long into the future. Using the 

Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs), we will continue to work with partners 

and allies to contain these threats. The Army must continue to retain talented midgrade Officers and Noncommissioned Officers to man these formations. The Army 

will deploy the first SFAB to Afghanistan this year. We activated the second SFAB in 

January and will activate a third Regular Army SFAB and an Army National Guard 

SFAB later this year. SFAB maneuver advisor teams will work with partner nations' 

militaries and will train and advise those forces in technical areas like fires, logistics, 

3 
33 

maintenance, and EOD. The Army will build two more SFABs in 2019 with your 

continued support 

The National Defense Strategy focuses on the return of great-power 

competition. With this challenge comes a more lethal battlefield and a more 

technically capable adversary. To meet this, the Army is expanding, building and 

manning new units to meet the demand for cyber and EW capabilities and piloting 

new operating concepts, such as the Multi-Domain Taskforce (MDTF). The Army is 

leading the Department of Defense in cyberspace operations. This year, 66 percent 

of the Army's planned 62 Cyber Mission Force teams reached full operational 

capacity. The Multi-Domain Task Force, being piloted in U.S. Army Pacific 

Command, will help the Joint Force pierce and neutralize our adversaries' AntiAccess/Area-Denial envelope. Like the idea of prototyping, the MDTF exemplifies 

how the Army will pilot new force structures and operating concepts to explore how 

we can compete, deter, and win in an increasingly ambiguous and contested 

environment 

In this contemporary operating environment, the Army National Guard and 

Army Reserve comprise an operational force that Combatant Commanders rely on 

during all phases of conflict To meet that demand, select Reserve units must be 

ready to deploy with little or no-notice. This expectation marks a new reality for the 

Army National Guard, a new era dubbed ARNG 4.0. A distinct break from the post9/11 period that was characterized by rotational deployments for counterinsurgency 

operations, ARNG 4.0 is an evolutionary shift that increases combat readiness and 

decreases response time. 

To meet the requirements of ARNG 4.0, the Army National Guard instituted 

new manning constructs for select units in high demand by Combatant Commanders. 

Priority units are now authorized manpower in excess of 100 percent to build and 

sustain both combat readiness and domestic response, capabilities resourced through 

the Army Readiness Enhancement Account This approach will field operational Army 

National Guard units, available to the Combatant Commanders overseas and 

responsive to the Governors of our States and Territories at home. 

4 
34 

The Army Reserve is leaning forward to improve readiness and to leverage the 

unique skills that exist in the ranks. To ensure that critical capabilities such as 

aviation, engineer, medial, civil affairs, chemical, and logistics units are ready to 

deploy on compressed timelines, the Army Reserve has formed Ready Force X 

(RFX), a pool of units tasked with maintaining higher levels of readiness to deploy, 

enable, and fight in days and weeks. Further, the Army Reserve continually assesses 

its organizational structure to ensure that our force is postured to keep up with the fast 

pace of change in the private sector- in areas such as quantum computing, artificial 

intelligence, robotics, and materials science, medicine and genetic research and 

engineering to name a few. We continue to work closely with our partners within the 

private and public sectors such as Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx), 

Military District 5 (MD5) and others that are committed to strengthening the 

partnership between "Main Street" America and your Army Reserve. 

With your help, the Army is reversing manpower declines and addressing key 

capability gaps. The National Defense Authorization Act (NOAA) in FY17 authorized 

1.018 million Soldiers for the Army. Among other things, the Army used those 

increases to fill shortages in undermanned combat units and close capability caps in 

air defense artillery and long range fires. The Army also made great progress in 

reducing the number of medically non-deployable Soldiers in our ranks. These two 

factors contributed to 21 Brigade Combat Teams being manned at 100 percent. The 

FY18 NOAA authorizes more growth. In order to recruit and train these new Soldiers, 

the Army needs enacted appropriations. Then in order to retain them, and grow them 

into the highly proficient mid-grade Leaders that distinguish the U.S. Army from other 

ground-combat formations, we need predictable funding so that they can continue 

their education and development. 

Training: 

In order to meet the goal of having 66 percent of its combat forces ready to 

meet war plan requirements between FY21 and FY23, the Army is focusing on 

optimizing training resources, improving the quality of training assessments and 

enhancing Reserve Component training, integration and responsiveness. 

5 
35 

The Army recently implemented its new force generation model called 

Sustainable Readiness. Under Sustainable Readiness, the Army works to optimize 

readiness to meet known and contingency requirements for about 96 percent of the 

operating force. Using this we can shape efforts to increase training opportunities in a 

targeted manner across the force. Because of your support, the Army plans to 

conduct 19 Combat Training Center rotations in FY18 and 20 in FY19. This includes 

four rotations for the Army National Guard each year, doubling their number of Brigade 

Combat Team rotations. Beginning in 2018, the Army will hold two SFAB culminating 

training events a year. Additionally, 14 Reserve Component units are mid-way though 

the Associated Unit Pilot. There are favorable indications that this pilot is meeting its 

intent of increasing Reserve Component readiness and reducing enabler support 

challenges by establishing habitual relationships between RC and AC units. 

Concurrently, the Army National Guard is adjusting traditional training models 

and shifting focus from counterinsurgency operations to core, decisive action functions 

as part of the Army's transition to Sustainable Readiness. In order to reduce the 

amount of training time they need upon mobilization, select units within the Army 

National Guard will require more than the standard 39 training days each year. Under 

ARNG 4.0, units in high demand will require 63 training days, or more, leading up to 

Combat Training Center rotations or overseas exercises, while the training tempo for 

other units remains steady. Many Soldiers may also have individual military education 

requirements of up to two weeks that add to their cumulative annual commitments. 

This increased training time is necessary for the Army National Guard to meet its 

obligations as the largest reserve force in the Department of Defense and as a reliable 

force provider to the Total Army. 

Over the last year, the Army established a new standards based system 

designed to better measure any unit's readiness to deploy. This system is called 

Objective-T and it ensures a common understanding of how to apply these metrics 

across all components of the force. The Army is currently training under Objective T 

and the Army Reserve currently conducts Ready Force X focused operations, like 

Cold Steel which is a crew-served weapons gunnery exercise to meet Objective T 

readiness standards. Implementing Objective-T prior to Combat Support Training 

6 
36 

Exercises and Combat Training Center rotations will ensure units and Soldiers are 

trained and ready to bring key enablers to the Army and that AC/RC integrated 

formations do not suffer from differing training standards when asked to rapidly deploy. 

When the Army misses training opportunities due to budgetary uncertainty, 

continuing resolutions, or government shutdowns, we cannot recover that lost 

readiness. Losing training time, and the associated repetitions, field exercises, 

courses, and rehearsals cannot be bought back. Under current projections, by FY20, 

90 percent of all regular Army BCTs will have completed three decisive action CTC 

rotations in the previous decade. However, if the Army must operate under a six 

month continuing resolution, 13 Brigade Combat Teams will enter their AprilSeptember CTC rotations at lower training levels due to reduced home station training. 

Alternatively, Commanders may decide to shift funds and preserve Brigade Combat 

Team training at the expense of maneuver enhancement and sustainment units. 

Equipping/Sustaining: 

Last year, the Army completed fielding the first increment of the Global Combat 

Support System- Army (GCSS-Army), which is improving materiel management for 

Army logisticians. They are capitalizing on the unprecedented data it is providing to 

improve readiness. The system was fielded to the Total Army-- all components at one 

time-- the first time that has been done in recent history. 

We are balancing our capabilities across multiple threats and theaters by growing 

our Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS), and assembling them in ready-to-fight 

configurations around the globe. The stocks enable us to quickly equip and employ 

early-entry forces, assure our allies, and deter our enemies. In Europe, as the Army 

transitions from assurance to deterrence, we are adding a Fires Brigade and its 

associated enablers. This enhances the Army's lethality and demonstrates how we 

continue to work with NATO partners to improve response time in the event of Russian 

aggression. In Korea we have increased our sustainment assets to meet a "fight tonight" 

scenario and Pacific Command requirements for early-entry forces. We also are adding 

to Activity Sets in support of Africa, Southwest Asia, and South America as the strategic 

environment continues to shift. 

7 
37 

We are addressing shortages of critical preferred munitions through efforts to 

reposition munitions and modernize the industrial base. We expanded production 

capacity at Holston Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee, and we're beginning repair 

and upgrade programs to Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas and the McAlester Army 

Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma. 

The Army's 23 organic industrial base (018) facilities have transitioned from peak 

war-time workload to support regionally aligned rotational forces and enduring 

operational requirements. The 018 needs consistent, predictable funding to preserve the 

capabilities of the highly trained workforce and to modernize facilities, equipment, and 

tooling. We request congressional support as we continue to align requirements and 

resources and strategically shape a ready 018. 

The Army is undertaking an ambitious effort to establish a new Futures Command. 

The sole purpose of this organization will be to make our Soldiers and units more lethal 

so they can fight and win our Nation's wars. To do this, they will develop, procure, and 

field next generation capabilities. This year, the Army will selectively upgrade the 

equipment we have and will focus our research funding on the six Army Modernization 

Priorities: long range precision fires, next generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, 

the Army network, air and missile defense systems, and Soldier lethality. 

Conclusion: 

The Army remains ready to compete, deter, and if necessary fight and win tonight. 

However, sustaining readiness for today while modernizing to compete with near-peer 

adversaries in the future requires sufficient, consistent, and predictable funding. The 

Army's strength is its people, and the way to maximize that strength is by keeping those 

people trained and equipped. We need your continued support to satisfy our 

responsibilities to train America's sons and daughters for combat, to maintain a trained 

and ready ground force, and to be responsible stewards of our Nation's resources. 

8 
38 

Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 

United States Army 

Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson assumed the duties as the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, 

Headquarters, Department of the Army, on II May 2015. His most recent assignment was as the 

Commanding General, XVlll Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Commander, 

International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (IJC) and Deputy Commanding General, US 

Forces Afghanistan. 

Lieutenant General Anderson received his commission in the Infantry Branch from the United States 

Military Academy at West Point in 1981. He holds Masters Degree in Administration from Central 

Michigan University and National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. 

During more than 34 years of service, Lieutenant General Anderson has been afforded many unique 

professional experiences and opportunities. He has commanded units trom platoon to corps. Command 

assignments include: C Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), !87th Infantry Regiment, 193d Infantry 

Brigade, Fort Kobbe, Republic of Panama; 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis, 

Washington; 2d Battalion, 50 5th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina; 2d Brigade and 502d Infantry Regiment, I 0 I st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort 

Campbell, Kentucky; and 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Colorado. 

Other significant assignments include Aide-de-Camp to the Commanding General, United States Army 

Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Professor, Joint Military Operations Deprutment, College of Naval 

Warfare, Newport, Rhode Island; ChiefofStaft; JOist Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, 

Kentucky; Executive Officer, Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, Washington, DC; Chief 

of Staff, III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas; Chief of Staff, Multinational Corps-Iraq; Deputy Commanding 

General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky; Chief of Staff, Multinational 

Force/United States Forces-Iraq; and Director, Operations, Readiness and Mobilization, Department of 

the Army; Washington, DC. 

Lieutenant General Anderson's operational deployments and combat tours include Operation Just Cause, 

Task Force Hawk-Albania, Task Force Falcon-Kosovo, Operation Joint Guardian, Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

His military education includes the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Combined Arms 

Staff Service School, United States Army Command and Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College, 

and the United States Naval War College. 

Lieutenant General Anderson ru1d his wife, Beth, have two sons: Marc and Michael. 
39 

Lieutenant General Aundre F. Piggee 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 

U.S. Army 

Lieutenant General Aundre F. Piggee assumed duties as the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4 on 23 

September 2016. He oversees policies and procedures used by all Army Logisticians throughout 

the world. Prior to joining the Army staff he served as the Director of Logistics and Engineering, 

United States Central Command, MacDill AFB, FL. 

Lieutenant General Piggee is a Native of Stamps, Arkansas. He commissioned into the United 

States Army in 1981 from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff where he graduated as a 

Distinguished Military Graduate with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology. He has a Master 

of Science Degree in Material Acquisition Management from the Florida Institute of Technology 

and a Master's Degree in Military Strategy from the Army War College. Lieutenant General 

Piggee also received an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Doctor of Laws from the University of 

Arkansas at Pine Bluff. 

His military education includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic Course, the Ordnance Officer 

Advance Course, Combined Arms Staff Services School, the Logistics Executive Development 

Course, the Command and General StatTCollege and the Army War College. 

His most significant assignments include: Director of Logistics and Engineering, United States 

Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; Commanding General, 21st Theater 

Sustainment Command, Kaiserslautern, Germany; Assistant Chief of Staff, J4 and Combined 

Forces Command, C4, United States Forces Korea, Seoul, South Korea; and Executive Officer to 

the Vice Chief of Staff, Army, the Pentagon. 

Lieutenant General Piggee's other notable assignments include: Commander, 15th Sustainment 

Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas; Chief, Support Operation Division, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, 8111 

U.S. Army, Seoul, South Korea; Commander, Division Rear and Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry 

Division, Fort Hood, Texas; Commander, 15th Forward Support Battalion and l st Cavalry 

Division, G4, Fort Hood, Texas. 

Lieutenant General Piggee's awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, 

Defense Superior Service Medal (2 OLC), Legion of Merit (2 OLC), the Bronze Star, the 

Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Anny Meritorious Service Medal (3 OLC), Army 

Commendation Medal (4 OLC), the Army Achievement Medal (3 OLC). He is authorized to 

wear the Department of Defense and Army Staff Identification Badges. 
40 

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy 

Director, ARNG 

Lieutenant General Timothy J. Kadavy assumed duties as the Director, Army National Guard, 

National Guard Bureau, Washington, District of Columbia on 27th March 2015. As Director, he 

guides the formulation, development and implementation of all programs and policies affecting 

the Army National Guard; a force of over 350,000 Soldiers in the 54 States, Territories and the 

District of Columbia. 

Prior to his current assignment, General Kadavy served as the Special Assistant to the Vice 

Chief, National Guard Bureau, where he was responsible for representing the National Guard at 

key meetings and work sessions at the Department of Defense, Joint Staff and Inter-Agency 

level. General Kadavy also served as Commander, Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force 

Afghanistan where he was responsible for coordinating and directing the effects f(Jr 

Counter/Anti-Corruption, Counter Narcotics, Counter Threat Financing. Prior to his deployment 

to Afghanistan, General Kadavy served as Deputy Director, Army National Guard and the 

Adjutant General of Nebraska. 

General Kadavy received his commission from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, Army 

Reserve Officers Training Corps on 12 May 1984. He has commanded at the Troop, Squadron 

and Task Force Level. lIe commanded Bravo Troop, I st Battalion !67th Cavalry, First 

Squadron, 1st Battalion !67th Cavalry and the Northern United States Task Force- Stabilization 

Forces 13 (Task Force Huskers) in Operation Joint Forge, Bosnia Herzegovina. General Kadavy 

deployed to Iraq in 2006 and served as the Senior Reserve Component Advisor to the 

Commander Multi-National Corps - Iraq. 
41 

Lieutenant General Charles D. Luckey 

Chief of Army Reserve and Commanding General, United States Army Reserve Command 

Lieutenant General Charles D. Luckey assumed duty as the Chief of Army Reserve and 

Commanding General, United States Army Reserve Command on 30 June 2016. 

As the Chief of Army Reserve and Commanding General, United States Army Reserve 

Command, he leads a community-based force of more than 200,000 Soldiers and Civilians with a 

"footprint" that includes 50 states, five teJTitories, and more than 30 countries. 

The Army Reserve is a critical force provider of trained and ready units and Soldiers providing 

full spectrum capabilities essential for the Army to fight and win wars and respond to homeland 

emergencies on behalf of the American people. 

He was commissioned in the Army after graduating as a Distinguished Military Graduate from 

the University ofVirginia in 1977. He began his military career as an Infantry Otlicer leading 

Soldiers in both mechanized and Special Forces units until separating from active duty in 1982 to 

attend law school. In 1985, he retumed to active duty and served with the 82d Airbome, Ft. 

Bragg, NC. In 1991, he transferred to the Army Reserve and subsequently commanded units at 

the battalion, brigade, and group level, culminating with his assignment as the Commanding 

General of the 78th Division (TS). 

He was recalled to active duty in 2008 and selected to serve as the Chief, Office of Security 

Cooperation in Baghdad, Iraq. Prior to his current assignment, he served as the Chief of Staff, 

North American Aerospace Defense Command and Northern Command and on the Joint Staff as 

Assistant to the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff tor Reserve Matters. 

As a civilian, Lieutenant General Luckey is a litigation partner in the firm of Blanco Tackabery 

& Matamoros P.A., located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As a partner of the firm, he 

concentrates his practice on a mixture of criminal, domestic and environmental matters in both 

State and Federal courts. He is admitted to practice law in an an·ay ofjurisdictions to include the 

Supreme Comi of the United States. 

Having served in a variety of theaters with three combat tours, his awards, badges and 

decorations are consistent with those of most Soldiers who have had the honor to serve the 

United States over a period of decades and the good fortune to return safely home. He's 

blissfully married to a Tar Heel, his wife Julie from Greensboro, North Carolina. 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 19, 2018 

(45) 

INFORMATION PAPER 

12 June 2018 

SUBJECT: European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) 

1. Purpose: Update House Armed Services Committee on the impacts and costs of EDI. 

2. Bottom Line: The security situation in Europe requires an increased deterrence posture 

that exceeds current resources. The Army is dependent on EDI funds to facilitate additional 

posture initiatives in Eastern Europe to counter Russian aggression and assure NATO allies. 

Europe has seen significant changes over the past three years as a result of EDI investment. 

3. Background. 

a. Rotations and Permanent Stationing: EDI funds the full time rotation of an Armored 

Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) with enablers, a Division Mission Command Element (MCE), 

combat aviation assets to augment theater aviation (providing a full Combat Aviation Brigade 

capability), as well as our responsibilities as a framework nation for NATO's Enhanced Forward 

Presence (eFP) Battle Group in Poland 

b. Proposed Enhancements: EDI provides resources for the U.S. Army to demonstrate its 

combat power to Europe, improve interoperability with NATO allies, integrate the Total Army, 

and rehearse relevant war plans. The Army continues to meet the U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM) Commander's requirements for Europe in coordination with U.S. Army Europe 

(USAREUR) and has submitted proposed enhancements to the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense's Fiscal Year (FY) 19-23 Program Budget Review for improvements with Short Range 

Air Defense (SHORAD) Battalions (FY20), Combat Service Support Brigade Headquarters 

(FY19), and Corps Headquarters (FY TBD). 

c. Army Pre-Positioned Stocks CAPS): APS funded through EDI significantly increases 

the speed in which the Army conducts Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and 

Integration (JRSOI) activities of contiguous United States based units in times of contingency to 

counter Russian aggression. The Army is pursuing configured to fight initiatives with our APS 

equipment to reduce the burden of To Accompany Troops (TAT) equipment. EDI funding is 

used to enhance and modernize prepositioned equipment, including ABCTs, critical air defense 

launchers, and long range fires artillery. The 2 x ABCTs in APS-2 when combined with the 

rotational ABCT provide USAREUR the armored division capability necessary to deter Russian 

aggression in Europe. 

d. Military Construction (MILCON): EDI funded military construction projects address 

mobility through improvements to railheads, increased capacity of bulk fuel and ammunition 

storage facilities, and other enhancements to staging areas in Easter Europe to improve intratheater mobility to move forces where they are needed quickly. 

e. Guard and Reserve: EDI also enables the Army's efforts to build partner capacity for 

newer NATO members and increases the capability of USAREUR through the provision of more 

than 1,000 man-years of mobilized Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers (1 0 USC 12304b 

authority). RC support is planned across the Future Years Defense Program at similar levels to 

FY19. 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 19, 2018 

(49) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN 

General ANDERSON. For the last year, the Army and the United States European 

Command (USEUCOM) have conducted substantive studies of the long term costs 

of rotational versus forward station presence, concluding an Army G–8 study in May 

2017, in response to an earlier USEUCOM effort from 2016–2017. The conclusions 

of these studies are as follows: The 2017 USEUCOM analysis of the costs to forward 

station versus rotate an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) to Europe concluded that it was less expensive to forward station. The report based its conclusions on the assumption that a forward stationed ABCT ‘‘in theater’’ would fully 

meet the US obligation, and did not address the requirement to maintain a 1.0 

ABCT forward presence in Eastern Europe. If the ABCT is stationed in Germany 

(instead of Poland), it does not meet the requirement and rotational forces are still 

required. To maintain acceptable bog/dwell ratios would still require 2x ABCTs from 

the U.S. to deploy to Poland after the forward stationed ABCT completes its nine 

month rotation and enters its 18 month dwell. Army G–8 analysis factored all relevant transportation, personnel, permanent change of station (PCS), family support, 

and Operations & Sustainment costs for each scenario and determined that, 1) Rotational ABCT in Poland costs ∼$565M/year (total $2.825B for Fiscal Years 2019–23); 

2) Forward stationed ABCT in Germany and deploying from there (nine months) followed by two rotations of contiguous United States-based ABCT (to support 1:2 

dwell) costs ∼$734M/year (total $3.672 for FYs 19–23); 3) U.S. Army could fund 

seven years of rotational presence in Poland for the cost of five years of forward stationing; and 4) The Army study concluded that there is no cost advantage inherent 

to forward stationing an ABCT in Germany. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) continues to analyze and develop stationing options to accommodate potential growth 

coming from the Total Army Analysis 20–24. It is the current position of USAREUR 

that adding a permanently stationed ABCT would do little to increase its deterrence 

posture, and that any valuable basing space would be better utilized housing necessary combat enablers. European Defense Initiative (EDI) funds enable the National Guard and Army Reserve, independent of forward stationed or rotational 

force, to support the Army’s efforts to build partner capacity for newer NATO members and increase USAREUR’s capability, which is essential to meeting the 

sustainment demands of the deterrence mission in Europe. Reserve Component support is planned across the Future Years Defense Program at similar levels to FY19. 

Please see attached Army EDI Information Paper for additional context. [See 

pages 14 and 45.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 19, 2018 

(53) 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the status of the SEP report on the efforts of the Army to 

reduce the weight of personal protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) which was directed in the FY17 NDAA? It is 

our understanding that the 25th ID has completed the field testing and the report 

has been compiled. Representative Scott would like to receive a copy of the SEP report on the efforts of the Army to reduce the weight of personal protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE). 

General ANDERSON. As requested, we will provide your office a copy of the briefing 

which was sent to all four defense oversight committees and briefed to House Armed 

Services Committee professional staff members in July, 2017, as required by House 

Report 114–537. 

[The briefing referred to is retained in the committee files.] 

Æ