U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

99–648 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–104] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND 

CAPABILITIES HEARING 

ON

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES IN AN 

EVOLVING THREAT ENVIRONMENT: 

A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR U.S. SPECIAL 

OPERATIONS COMMAND 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 1, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

PETER VILLANO, Professional Staff Member 

LINDSAY KAVANAUGH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ..................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Votel, GEN Joseph L., USA, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command . 5 

Whelan, Theresa, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC) .............................................. 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Votel, GEN Joseph L. ....................................................................................... 40 

Whelan, Theresa ............................................................................................... 31 

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

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Nugent ........................................................................................................ 65 

Mr. Zinke ........................................................................................................... 65 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 69 

(1) 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES IN AN EVOLVING 

THREAT ENVIRONMENT: A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL 

YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, 

Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:35 p.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 EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this hearing of the 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House 

Armed Services Committee to order. I am pleased to welcome everyone here today to discuss our special operations forces in an 

evolving threat environment and to review the fiscal year 2017 

budget request for the U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Our special operations forces [SOF] remain essential and sometimes sole line of effort across the globe, offering lethal, flexible, 

and responsive options for geographic combatant commanders and 

the Commander in Chief. 

We have seen special operations forces increasingly leveraged for 

asymmetric and unconventional warfare operations against nationstate threats such as Russia, China, and Iran. Looking forward we 

expect special operations forces to remain heavily deployed across 

the globe in constant, sadly if not increased, numbers throughout 

fiscal year 2017. 

While the President’s budget request includes a 2.3 percent increase to U.S. Special Operations Command, many challenges remain since the force is heavily dependent on overseas contingency 

operations funding. 

Furthermore, we see dwindling support from the military services who themselves suffer broader cuts and drawdowns. As we 

conduct oversight and preparation for the National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA], this subcommittee will spend considerable 

time ensuring that all resources are aligned and all policies appropriate. 

This includes focusing on how our special operations forces are 

being used to counter adversarial propaganda and enabling our 

partner forces across the globe with new programs such as the Eu-
2 

ropean Reassurance Initiative and the Counter Terrorism Partnership Fund. 

Lastly, but of considerable importance, is the 1208 counterterrorism program authority used by the special operations requiring reauthorization beyond 2017. This important operational authority 

has proven critical to our global efforts to counter Al Qaeda and 

Daesh. 

I understand the Department [of Defense] [DOD] will seek an extension of this important authority to 2020. So we look forward to 

discussing that today. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and 

appreciate their service and perspectives on all of these issues. 

Today we welcome Ms. Theresa Whelan, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict [SOLIC], and General Joseph Votel, Commander, U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

I would like to welcome Ms. Whelan in her new role which carries many important responsibilities, but also take the opportunity 

to recognize the service of General Votel who was recently nominated as commander of U.S. Central Command. 

General Votel’s contributions have been critical in safeguarding 

our Nation and our allies. And we wish you the best of success as 

you further serve American families. 

I would like to turn to my friend the ranking member, Mr. Jim 

Langevin of Rhode Island, for any comments he would like to 

make. 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

our witnesses for testifying today on the President’s fiscal year 

2017 budget request for Special Operations Command [SOCOM] 

and special operations forces. 

And, General, in particular, thank you very much for your service. And I look forward to hearing the testimony from both of our 

witnesses today. And also welcome to you, Secretary Whelan. 

Today in the midst of our discussions and debate about decreasing end strengths of general purpose forces, and plan drawdowns 

and contingencies overseas, our special operations forces continue 

to serve in a high operational tempo. 

Special forces are the pinnacle of our strategy for defeating terrorists around the world, underpin our sensitive military operations, and stand ready to deploy on a moment’s notice. 

Although SOCOM has authority for spending on SOF-peculiar 

equipment and needs, we often neglect to recognize the reliance on 

general purpose forces and service budget’s requirements ranging 

from enablers to facilities, to family counselors. 

I hope today’s hearing will provide a better understanding of the 

impact of those drawdowns and budget reductions of their enterprise as well as inform us of the process in place for ensuring that 

SOF service common needs are being budgeted for by the services, 
3 

especially those that are necessary to preserve the health of the 

force and their families. 

With regard to SOF-peculiar investments, I am pleased to see 

stability in the science and technology allocation, as well appropriate budgeting for these activities over the Future Years Defense 

Program. 

Leveraging and spurring innovation is a theme across the Department in the budget request. And SOCOM certainly has experience in the area. 

I appreciate the use of existing authorities to push the envelope 

rather than reinventing the wheel, examples being the recent 

SOFWERX Initiative and the utilization of the Small Business Innovation Research authority. 

I also appreciate that in reaching to non-traditional defense partners, SOCOM continues to utilize the tremendous in-house capabilities available, such as our defense labs and DARPA [Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency] programs. 

So with that there is much to discuss in the hearing. And in 

order to allow for dialogue I am going to end my remarks by welcoming Ms. Theresa Whelan in her capacity as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and performing the duties of Assistant Secretary for 

SOLIC. 

With that I would also like to congratulate General Votel on his 

nomination to be the commander of Central Command. Again, General, I want to thank you for your extraordinary service and dedication to our country and look forward to your upcoming confirmation 

hearing. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and look forward to the 

hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

I would like to remind our witnesses that your full written statements will be submitted for the record. So we ask you to summarize your comments in 5 minutes or less. 

And then following your comments each person, each member of 

the panel, will have the opportunity, at a strictly enforced 5 minutes, by Mr. Pete Villano. And so that everyone has an opportunity 

to ask questions. Particularly I want Congressman Brooks to ask 

questions since he was here first. 

So we will proceed, Ms. Whelan, to begin with you. We look forward to your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THERESA WHELAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS/LOW–INTENSITY CONFLICT (ASD/SOLIC) 

Ms. WHELAN. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Langevin, and distinguished members of the committee. And thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am here performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to report to 

you on the health and welfare of our Nation’s special operations 

forces enterprise, and on our ability to address our country’s security concerns using special operations, now and into the future. 
4 

I am pleased that my partner at the table this afternoon is General Votel, who has been an exceptional U.S. SOCOM commander. 

And our entire SOLIC team was very glad to learn that he has 

been nominated to lead U.S. Central Command. 

I would like to say up front that we are very grateful for the committee’s strong support of special operations initiatives and resources. My remarks this afternoon will focus on three topics: the 

current operating environment, SOLIC’s policy priorities, and our 

oversight activities. 

Today our SOF personnel work in an environment where global 

conflict has expanded beyond the physical to dimensions such as 

cyberspace, the social media sphere, and bio warfare. Individuals, 

illicit networks, and terrorist groups such as Daesh can disrupt 

economies, interrupt the flow of information, and perpetrate significant violence, destabilizing countries and entire regions. 

We are also seeing other nations, our peers and near peers, making use of these same new technologies to enhance aggressive, 

asymmetric tactics. In the face of this evolving strategic landscape 

the ability of SOF to operate unobtrusively with a small footprint 

in contested environments is becoming ever more crucial. 

As a result it is important that we get our policy for and our 

oversight of SOF right. So I will describe some of our major priorities. First and foremost we prioritize developing the best SOF personnel and equipping them with cutting-edge technologies. 

That requires constantly improving our existing platforms, equipment, and gear. It also means investing in new, innovative technologies. Another important policy priority is building strong working relationships with the SOF of allied and partner nations. 

By boosting other nations’ SOF capabilities we have the potential 

in the future to leverage those forces including their unique authorities. In particular the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, 

CTPF, significantly boosted our most important tool, section 2282, 

the Global Train and Equip authority. 

We appreciate Congress’s continued support for this and other 

capacity-building authorities. Likewise our counterdrug authorities 

permit SOF and other DOD components to work with U.S. partner 

nation law enforcement to help counter drug trafficking and other 

forms of transnational organized crime which can serve as a source 

of funding for terrorists, insurgents, and other threat networks. 

Another important part of SOLIC’s work is oversight. For example we work with the Joint Staff and SOCOM to ensure that SOF 

activities are consistent with the policy guidance of the President 

and the Secretary of Defense. 

We also routinely conduct site surveys to assess and evaluate our 

train and equip programs so that they are as effective and efficient 

as possible. SOF amounts to roughly 1.8 percent of the overall defense budget, and we remain committed to strengthening our budget management to maximize taxpayers’ return on investments in 

SOF. 

We will continue to work closely with Congress as we allocate resources and implement programs. In conclusion, I would like to 

thank Congress for its continuing support of our men and women 

in uniform and their families. And I look forward to your questions. 
5 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Whelan can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Whelan. We now proceed to General Votel. 

STATEMENT OF GEN JOSEPH L. VOTEL, USA, COMMANDER, 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

General VOTEL. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Langevin, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon along with my teammate, Ms. Whelan, to discuss the current 

posture of the United States Special Operations Command and this 

year’s budget request. 

While my priorities remain unchanged from testimony last year, 

I can assure you right up front that U.S. SOCOM is always learning, evolving, and adjusting to meet the current operational environment. 

Our commitment to excellence and our dedication to serving the 

needs of our Nation have never been stronger. On any given day 

nearly 10,000 SOF men and women are deployed or forward stationed to roughly 80 different countries around the world. 

They fill geographic combatant commander requirements that 

span the range of our congressionally delineated core activities 

from behind the scenes information gathering and partner building 

to high-end dynamic strike operations. 

Every success that they have reinforces what we already know. 

Our people are our greatest asset. They are adaptive, bold, and innovative. Through persistent presence in harm’s way they allow us 

to see opportunities early, and they routinely deliver strategic impacts with the smallest of footprints. 

Perhaps no story makes this point more clearly than that of Senior Chief Petty Officer Ed Byers, a Navy SEAL [Sea, Air, and 

Land] who was awarded our Nation’s highest military honor, the 

Congressional Medal of Honor, just yesterday. 

Master Sergeant Josh Wheeler, an Army operator who put himself in the line of fire and gave his life to protect our partner raid 

force in Iraq as they rescued scores of Iraqi and Kurdish hostages, 

is yet another hero among our force. 

Stories of these two American heroes are now publically known. 

But it is the stories of the thousands of other quiet professionals 

that will remain unknown that truly characterize what we provide 

for our Nation. 

We recognize, however, these sacrifices do not come without a 

cost. So let me say right up front, and emphasize my strongest 

point this afternoon, I want to thank the committee for your devotion to the well-being and resiliency of our special operators and 

their family. 

Their emotional, social, psychological, and physical health is in 

good hands thanks to all of you. And we are truly grateful for your 

continued support. 

The environment in which these great Americans serve continues 

to evolve. We are in an era of rapidly shifting power, with competi-
6 

tion and conflict between both state and non-state actors, actors 

who are increasingly ambiguous and transregional. 

As a result this past year we focused on gaining a deeper understanding of today’s gray-zone challenges. And we restructured operational rhythm to focus on the transregional nature of violent extremist organizations. Given this complex security environment, 

the demand for SOF skills is understandably high. 

Yet it is clear that significant expansion of U.S. SOCOM’s role 

carries significant risk. It remains true, SOF cannot, and should 

not, be mass produced. Nor can we build or rebuild the force overnight. The skills, maturity, and agility that we expect of our force 

requires significant time, effort, training, and investment to develop and sustain. 

It is also true that we do not deploy or employ SOF without external support. U.S. SOCOM is fully dependent upon and integrated with our service partners. They provide our people much of 

the equipment that we operate and the critical enabling forces we 

depend upon on a daily basis around the globe. 

Not only do we rely on SOF-specific enhancements to servicemanaged programs but our ability to operate stands squarely on 

service-provided capabilities. Infrastructure, transportation, communications, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance], 

and close air support are but a few of the areas of dependence. 

Alongside our colleagues in the services we are grateful for the 

budget stability forged out of last year’s agreement. And we remain 

hopeful for similar stability beyond 2017. 

In closing I would like to thank Congress and the committee for 

your outstanding support in funding, in authorities, and in encouragement. Your oversight of our efforts to man, train, equip, and 

employ SOF remains critical as we confront an increasingly complex security environment. 

We look forward to continuing this great relationship. And I 

pledge to you that we will remain transparent and engaged. I remain honored and humbled to command the best special operations 

force in the world. 

I am extremely proud of each and every one of our men and 

women and their families as they continue to serve this great nation. I look forward to your questions and our dialogue this afternoon. 

[The prepared statement of General Votel can be found in the 

Appendix on page 40.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General. 

We now will proceed to the 5-minute period for each member of 

the subcommittee. Beginning first for both of you, Ms. Whelan and 

General Votel, I am very concerned about state-sponsored nonstate, anti-American, untrue propaganda. How can we improve our 

efforts to counter enemies’ slanderous propaganda and recruiting 

efforts? 

Ms. WHELAN. Thank you, Congressman. Within the Department 

we obviously have authorities for our support to military information systems [MIS]. And we support both the State Department as 

well as our operators in the field in an information operations 

arena. 
7 

In particular, in the field, we have MIS teams deployed with a 

number of embassies and supporting our COCOMs, our GCC [geographic combatant commanders] COCOMs. They are assisting in 

attempting to counter the negative messaging and the propaganda 

that we are seeing coming from ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant] and from other sources. 

Additionally, within the Department we are supporting the State 

Department’s efforts as the lead in the counter-messaging with the 

establishment of the new Global Engagement Center to look at 

overall counter-messaging against ISIL and their propaganda, negative propaganda. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

General VOTEL. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add to Ms. 

Whelan’s comments. 

First of all, let me just pass my thanks to the committee and the 

subcommittee for your support and encouragement in the pushing 

us to look at and experiment with things that we can do to look 

at how we use publically available information and how we operate 

better in this sphere. So the authorities that you have passed to 

us are greatly appreciated and we are very, very thankful for that. 

On top of Ms. Whelan’s comments, which I all agree with, I 

would offer three things that I think we have to focus on. First, we 

have to be able to move as fast as or faster than our adversaries. 

Our messaging efforts have to be responsive, and they have to be 

ahead of the enemy. 

Second of all, I think we have to be willing to experiment. We 

have to be willing to push the envelope where we can in accordance 

with authorities and in accordance with our laws, in accordance 

with the oversight that is provided for us, and continue to push in 

this area wherever we can. 

Certainly, understanding social media and public available information is an area you are encouraging us to look in. And then third 

we have to remember that messaging and information operations 

can’t be an afterthought. 

It has to be something that is baked into everything we are 

doing. It has to be something we look at right from the beginning 

as we conduct all of our operations from tactical-level operations 

that are well supported by our MIS teams that are deployed globally all the way up to larger operations that we take in the information component and messaging component of it. 

Mr. WILSON. Well. I particularly have never gotten over, I was 

in Islamabad a couple years ago and there was a column. It was 

a newspaper, very modern looking with Reuters articles, Associated 

Press. 

Then I got inside and I saw an op ed. And the op ed was this 

hate filled diatribe of how the American effort in Afghanistan was 

specifically directed at mosque and schools and hospitals. And I 

thought this is lunacy. 

And I looked to see who wrote it. It was written by Fidel Castro. 

So what an observation he had from Havana that he could see that 

far. But it needed to be counteracted. I mean it just was so ignorant and so insulting. 

And so, as a former newspaper reporter I was particular struck 

by how stupid it was. But that was published in a respectable pub-
8 

lication. I mentioned in my opening statement of 1208 counterterrorism authority which has been critical since 2005. Can you tell 

the committee how important this is and what the status of its 

maintenance? 

Ms. WHELAN. I will start, sir. 1208, I think, is probably one of 

our most important programs to the SOF community and has probably, of all the programs that we have, and we have many successful programs, has given us the best return on investment across 

the board. 

We have a number of 1208 programs underway now. And we 

very much appreciate the increase in the funding authority that we 

have to increase the number of 1208 programs. But 1208 has allowed us, they are small programs. 

We are focused. We work with the best and the brightest in the 

countries in which we have the 1208 programs. And we have a 

great deal of flexibility. That is the other factor that makes the 

1208 so valuable to our special operators, is the flexibility of the 

program, and the fact that the longevity of the program. Many of 

these programs have been in use for a number of years. 

General VOTEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just add briefly to Ms. 

Whelan’s comments because I think she hit on everything here. 

This is an extraordinary authority, very unique to Special Operations Command, and I will tell you that it is not only appreciated 

by Special Operations Command, but in particular it is appreciated 

by our geographic combatant commanders, particularly the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander and the AFRICOM 

[U.S. Africa Command] commander, where we employ this authority the most. 

There are 19 different programs in 16 different countries so this 

is an extraordinary capability, as Ms. Whelan indicated. We are developing some extraordinary partner capacity out there. It is usually very small. But it is very, very capable. And what we see is 

considerable effects, positive effects from that program. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General. We now proceed to 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thanks to both of our witnesses for being here today, what 

you are doing on behalf of the national security of our country. 

To our witnesses, as one of directed energy’s strongest advocates 

up here in the Congress, I just want to recognize that technology 

has tremendous potential to change the game in our favor. 

It is also true that operationalizing this technology is certainly 

going to be no small feat. And, therefore, I urge SOCOM to leverage the work of the Department by integrating efforts with the 

Joint Technology Office before making significant investments. 

And I support efforts to accelerate the appropriate operational 

use of this technology. But much remains to be done both programand policy-wise before it should be considered fully operational and 

fielded. 

General Votel and Secretary Whelan, can you please describe 

SOCOM’s efforts in directed energy and in particular are these efforts being synchronized with the Joint Technology Office? 

General VOTEL. Thank you. I will start, Congressman. 
9 

To answer your question, yes, they are. We are in the early 

stages of this. So I would define our efforts as being developmental 

at this particular point. 

I think what we see with directed energy is that it is a technology that will provide us precision, will provide us some level of 

scalability, and it is certainly something that we should look at for 

kind of our future operational needs. 

We are aware of the extensive amount of effort that has gone 

into directed energy in the past. And so, some of the advice that 

we have gotten along the line matches what you suggested to us 

just a moment ago. And that is to look at what is working and capitalize on that as opposed to trying to go back and reinventing the 

whole program. 

And so, we are well integrated with the services with a variety 

of different labs right now looking at this. And we have had an opportunity to talk to the Deputy Secretary of Defense about it and 

what we are doing. We have got good support from him with this. 

So we look forward to moving forward with this. 

In many ways I think SOF can help the broader force with this 

with our testing, our development, our experimentation with it, not 

only provide a capability for us, but what I hope is to be able to 

provide something of the services where their much more considerable resources can take advantage of any success we are able to 

achieve. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. Thank you. 

Secretary Whelan and General Votel, can you tell me what process is used to resolve disputes about whether an activity should be 

supported and paid for by the services? 

Ms. WHELAN. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

The primary process is we look at whether or not the activity or 

the requirement is SOF-specific or if it is also applicable to the general force. If it is SOF-specific then it moves into the MFP [Major 

Force Program] 11 SOF accounts. Otherwise we look for the services to cover it. 

General VOTEL. Congressman, I would add two quick comments 

to you. 

Part of this, I think, is making sure that we educate our force 

on what is, how we define SOF-peculiar and make sure that we understand how we are doing. And to that end we have established 

some, a narrative across the command that make sure that our 

leaders who are making decisions on funding and all that kind of 

stuff understand what it is that we consider to be SOF-peculiar. 

So we aren’t creating a problem in ourselves, spending money on 

things that we shouldn’t be. 

The other thing that I would tell you that we are doing is we are 

using our service SOCOM talks that we normally conduct in about 

a 12- to 18-month cycle with each of the services to talk about this 

specific issue right here and talk about what our requirements are 

to Congress for MFP 11, what our requirements are to the Department, what the intent of that is. 

And then using that as a mechanism to talk about service-provided support to SOCOM and how we leverage the very unique 

funding authorities that Congress has passed to us to really focus 

on SOF-peculiar capabilities. 
10 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I am glad that there is a process in place. I think 

that is important. 

Secretary Whelan, your predecessor created a special operations 

oversight council. Do you intend to continue that initiative, and is 

the council properly staffed and resourced? 

Ms. WHELAN. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, actually, I do intend to continue it. And in my capacity performing the duties I intend to maintain that council. 

I think it was a valuable tool for my predecessor because it allowed him to engage with the COCOMs, the services, as well as 

SOCOM in a high-level forum to discuss issues that may not have 

been resolved at lower levels. 

So it was a consultative tool for him in conducting his responsibilities, his specific SOCOM oversight responsibilities. I think 

that it will continue to be a very useful tool for me as long as I 

am performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

From a resourcing standpoint it does not require much in the 

way of resourcing. My SOLIC staff serves as the executive secretary for it. It only needs as necessary. 

Actually, most of the issues are resolved at the working level 

through working groups. So we had a SOPOC [Special Operations 

Policy Oversight Council] meeting this past summer more as a 

wrap-up of issues that had been resolved. I do intend to have one 

this spring, again, to just review the bidding because we don’t have 

any contentious issues. But I think it is a valuable tool. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. I am glad to hear that. Very good. Thank 

you. My time has expired. I thank you both again for your testimony, your service to our country, and, General Votel, again, all 

the best to you. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

And Congress is very fortunate to have a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan in its service, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman and lady, 

thank you for being here. 

I have got a couple things. It will probably go fast. One, I 

grabbed the Marine Corps about 2 months ago and brought them 

up to my office because there were some guys in from Australia 

where they use moving robot targets that they can network and 

program to run together, run away, or charge you, or flee. 

And what the Australian SAS [Special Air Services] figured out 

is it was the first time a lot of their guys hadn’t been overseas and 

had to shoot people, had shot a moving target. Are you aware of 

anything like this? Is SOCOM aware of them? 

General VOTEL. I am aware of a variety of—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. 

General VOTEL [continuing]. Technologies and training apparatuses that are out there that really just, you know, put people in 

situations where they have to respond. 

Mr. HUNTER. These are robots that move. 

General VOTEL. And move. And I—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Actually move away from you? 
11 

General VOTEL. Yes, Congressman. I am aware of that. I don’t 

know if it is a specific program that you are talking to. But I certainly—— 

Mr. HUNTER. This was called Marathon, but, you know, there are 

probably a bunch out there. But they just did a demonstration at 

Camp Pendleton for MARSOC [Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command] and the Marines about 2 weeks ago when I was 

in town. 

Anyway, pretty interesting stuff that I didn’t believe until I actually saw it. So I just wanted you to be, I mean, you know, there 

is tons of stuff out there and I am sure you see a whole bunch of 

it. 

Number two, you have purview over what special forces operators, or what different groups, and by group, not just Navy SEAL 

groups, but the different groups spend in their wheelhouse, right? 

You have purview and they have transparency to you on what they 

buy and what they spend. 

So it came to my attention, especially watching Senior Chief 

Byers get the Medal of Honor, I have had multiple SEALs, multiple 

times in the last 6 months come to be in San Diego because I am 

in San Diego, and tell me how things have changed dramatically 

from 5 or 6 years ago. 

Meaning, they don’t get weapons now to work up with for 2 

years. They get their weapon when a guy comes back and hands 

over the weapon. And then they have to recalibrate it, put on all 

their optics, all their laser stuff for themselves. 

And then they have to turn that weapon back in again even if 

they are still in workups and they are going to deploy 9 months 

later, they still have to give the weapon back to the next guys that 

are, you know, going out. 

It wasn’t like that in the 2001 to 2010 timeframe. Are you aware 

of that? What they have to do with their weapons? And I don’t, I 

mean, the operators get tons of stuff. I would say that the most important thing to them is their weapon. That is what you kill people 

with in the end. And things have changed. 

General VOTEL. Congressman, I am aware of your recent correspondence with Naval Special Warfare Command over this particular issue. And I know that Admiral Losey provided with an interim response here. And so to answer—— 

Mr. HUNTER. But you are familiar with the—— 

General VOTEL. I am aware of that, and we are certainly running 

that down. So I would just add that, you know, one of the things 

that we do try to do with the weapons, you would recognize as a 

veteran, these guys put a lot of rounds through the weapons. 

So—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. But I was in the Marine Corps I mean, I 

was—— 

General VOTEL. Right. 

Mr. HUNTER. You know, we just took what we got and did whatever we were told. But—you guys are special. That is why you have 

special in your name. 

General VOTEL. That is right. And so what we do try to do is ensure with that many rounds going through our weapons that they 

do have the right level of depot maintenance when they come back 
12 

from deployments or long training periods. And if that is contributing to something here that might be creating a—— 

Mr. HUNTER. This is not a factor of too many rounds going 

through the weapon barrel. And then you just change out the 

upper, the barrel anyway. 

General VOTEL. Yes. 

Mr. HUNTER. And you have armorers that do that in the Army 

and in the Navy. I have been to the armory in Coronado. But anyway that is not the problem. 

General VOTEL. Congressman, I look forward here to talking 

with the Naval Special Warfare Command about this specific issue 

and making sure that we understand it here. And that if there is 

something that we are contributing to that is impacting readiness 

of our operators we will certainly take immediate action to kind of 

correct that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Because, you know, you have different tiers within 

the special operations community, too. You don’t see the higher 

tiered units changing their weapons in when they come back. 

So I guess this is my question. It is a matter of where the money 

is being spent. So this leads me to this, what are your priorities? 

For instance, for the SEALs, so if it isn’t having a weapon that 

stays with you during your deployable term, then what are the priorities? 

Do we have more SEALs now? Do we have more special forces? 

Did we increase the manpower and that is where the money is 

going as opposed to weaponry? Is that where your priorities are? 

And do you set priorities for all the different units? And do those 

priorities that you set overarch everything, or do you set specific 

priorities for different units? 

General VOTEL. First off, to answer the first part of your question, as you know the special ops community has grown considerably over the last decade or so. So we are roughly twice the size 

of what we were. 

So that certainly is a component of that. What I do on an annual 

basis is, I provide capabilities planning guidance to my commanders, to my component commanders, to my resource sponsors 

that provide the broad outline, and principles under which we will 

make investments in our capabilities. 

I don’t get down into the specifics of individual weapons and that 

type of stuff. But what I do try to do is focus them on the priorities 

that I have. First and foremost being readiness, being the ability 

to do what the Nation expects special operations to do. 

And second of all, being able to accomplish the missions that we 

are being asked to do in support of the geographic combatant commander. So those two items, I think, as we look at resourcing, I 

think, really provide the overarching priorities that I try to focus 

the command on. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you again, Congressman Hunter, for 

your dedicated service to our country. 

We now proceed to Congressman Pete Aguilar, of California. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both our 

witnesses. 

General Votel, you mentioned in your testimony transregional 

challenges and the fact that operating across geographic combatant 
13 

command boundaries is problematic for us. Do you believe personally that the DOD’s geographic combatant command structure is 

set up in a way to effectively combat the challenges we face now 

and in the future? 

General VOTEL. I think we are. Certainly when any particular organization focuses in a particular region they have a tendency to 

focus in that region and not as much on outside of that. 

What we are attempting to do with our transregional look, particularly at terrorist organizations, is to really bridge that together. 

So what SOCOM has been asked to do is to take lead in how we 

look at transregional violent extremism, how we establish a common intelligence picture for organization like the Islamic State, 

how we establish common operating pictures, how we assess ourselves across the whole threat. 

And then how we make recommendations up through the Chairman to the Secretary of Defense for allocations of our resources, 

how we go after that particular threat. 

So you know I think what we have learned here is that the enemies we face, not just terrorists, but I think if you look at things 

like Russia or other threats that we have out there, they don’t operate with inside of bureaucratic boundaries that we may have established. 

And so, it is important that we have the ability to transcend 

these boundaries and look at the whole problem instead of just portions of the geography. And that is what our transregional approach is attempting to do. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. One more for you, General. You mentioned in your testimony this a variation of what the chairman 

mentioned, and modern mass communication technologies have 

emerged to create an opening for exploitation by outside state, nonstate actors. 

We have seen the effects of some of this communication including 

propaganda in my district. I represent San Bernardino. Could you 

expand on how you see the outgrowth of mass communication affecting us in the future and how you think these types of conflicts, 

what role SOCOM will play to assist in responding to them? 

General VOTEL. Well, thank you. I think the most immediate impact is that mass communications, you know, and combined with 

social media and a variety of tools like that really enable large populations in very disperse places around the globe to communicate 

very, very quickly. 

And I think that is an aspect of the environment that we operate 

in right now. That is not something that we have dealt with in the 

past. And so, it has changed the way that populations communicate. It has changed the way that governments communicate to 

their people. It has changed the way that popular support you 

know is developed or sustained for particular causes out there. 

And so, I think it is a feature of the environment that we are 

going to have to deal with in the future. And so what it requires 

us to do is to understand social media, to understand publically 

available information, to understand sentiments of the people out 

there, and to be able to leverage that. 

First of all, for our own understanding, and second of all, to ensure that the people that we support out there can get truthful, ac-
14 

curate information out there to the populations that we are attempting to work on their behalfs or we are attempting to support 

in various locations around the world. 

So I really think this is an area of growth for us and an area 

that we have to continue to pay more and more attention to. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Appreciate it. This question is for both of you. 

Earlier this week CNN reported that operations involving special 

operation forces have begun in Iraq. I realize that we have a limited amount of what we can go into here. But would you mind expanding on as much as possible the actions our operators are taking to confront ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]? 

General VOTEL. I would just add I think what we are doing, Congressman, is we are trying to present them with as many different 

dilemmas as we can, and make it as difficult for them to sustain 

their so-called caliphate as we can. 

And special operations plays an important role in that. So do our 

conventional forces. And I am just extraordinarily proud of the way 

that we are working with our conventional forces to kind of create 

that effect on the ground. 

And while this is an extraordinarily complex environment, a 

complex enemy, a complex political and security situation here, I 

think we are beginning to see positive aspects of some of the work 

that we are doing in this regard. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. Ms. Whelan. 

Ms. WHELAN. The only thing that I would add, Congressman, is 

that our special operations forces are critical to enabling our partners to actually be more effective in their operations in this region 

as well. So I think that that is a very important role that our special operations personnel perform and they are uniquely qualified 

to assist in that area. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congressman Aguilar. 

We now proceed to Congressman Rich Nugent, from Florida. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the 

panel here today and, General, particularly, your service to our 

country. 

I want to talk about particularly the branches and support that 

you receive from all. You know, within the current budget environment you know the support for special operations is clearly 

strained. 

For example the Navy’s intent to cut the reserve helicopter 

squadrons 84 and 85 which actually provided, you know, 70 percent 

of the lift for special operators. And obviously the Navy, you know, 

they saw it as an underutilized helicopter squadrons because it 

wasn’t supporting the Navy mission necessarily. And it kind of got 

lost in the shuffle. 

So if you could, is there a way for you to tell me the dollar 

amount in regards to what the service branches, what the quantity 

of support is that they provide you? Is there a way of breaking out 

what that is? Whether it is, you know, big Army, or the Navy, or 

the Air Force? Is there a way or is there a measurement of exactly 

what that costs those branches? 

General VOTEL. Congressman, I think there probably is. I would, 

with your indulgence, I would take that for the record and try to 
15 

provide you a response in terms of how we do that. I would just 

say right up front though that, as I mentioned in my remarks, we 

are extraordinarily dependent on the services. 

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

page 65.] 

Mr. NUGENT. Absolutely. 

General VOTEL. You know SOCOM has been well taken care of 

by the committee. And for that we are very grateful. But the message that I try to continue to send is that while we are grateful 

for the support we get for SOCOM, it is the impact on the services 

you point out that really does impact what we do. 

Mr. NUGENT. That is why I was wondering what that impact is. 

Because my understanding is that they don’t. No one has ever sat 

down and said you know what does it cost us—— 

General VOTEL. Yes. 

Mr. NUGENT [continuing]. To support. 

General VOTEL. And I would add that I think that it is multidimensional. It is, as you suggest, helicopters. And, by the way, I 

appreciate the support of this committee and subcommittee in helping ameliorate some of that and alleviate some of the stress that 

that loss of those squadrons. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, Congressman Zinke was behind you, for sure. 

General VOTEL. Well, I am aware of that, and I am thanking the 

Congressman. 

But the impact is also on people, for example. As the services 

draw down and become smaller, that is a smaller pool from which 

we can draw from. As they impact, have impacts to their training 

areas, that is an impact on training areas that we utilize. As they 

impact their school slots, that is an impact on people that we send 

to school. 

So there is extraordinary impact out there and dependence on 

the services. And so I look forward to trying to answer your question a little fulsomely here for the record. But there is no doubt 

that we are extraordinarily dependent—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Yes. I just want to make sure that as we are drawing down, and particularly, you know, the branches as the resources become less for them, that we have a way of knowing that 

they are fully resourcing the mission of the special operators to 

make sure that you can get to the places you need to get to. I am 

sure that is never a problem. But I would think on the training 

side, that is where you start getting hurt. 

General VOTEL. Congressman, you are exactly right. And I will 

speak for the service that I come from, the Army. You know right 

now every rotation we have out at the national training center in 

California has a SOF component to it to some extent. 

So while we should be concerned about the impacts and the hard 

decisions [the] services are making, the one aspect of the environment that we have now that we didn’t have 12, 15 years ago was 

the interdependence and the real understanding of SOF conventional force integration. 

I am extraordinarily proud of this. And if there has been a positive aspect to being at war for this long, one of those positive aspects is it has created the interdependence between conventional 

forces and SOF forces. 
16 

And as I talk with the service chiefs and other senior leaders, 

this is something that we always recommit ourselves to, to ensuring that we continue to train together, and we continue to build on 

those hard won lessons from combat. 

Mr. NUGENT. And just to build on Representative Hunter’s question, and I am not sure, and I don’t totally understand, you know, 

what the issue is. Well, I do understand what is the issue. But it 

is hard for me to fathom that. When I put deputies out on the 

street, I know exactly if I hired a deputy, I had to have this, this, 

this, and this and everybody got that kit. Unless you had something special, if it was a sniper, different story. 

So I don’t understand what is going on with, you know, the 

SEALs in regards to pulling weapons back and it is typically the 

one you sleep with. That is the one you work with. That is the one 

you train on. So it would be interesting to hear from Representative Hunter what the answer is that you come back with. I appreciate that. 

General VOTEL. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. NUGENT. I yield back. 

General VOTEL. Thank you. 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you Congressman Nugent for your background as a former sheriff. All of this is so helpful. 

And then we are grateful to have the former Lieutenant Governor of California of all things, Congressman John Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am just trying to figure out what help that 

might be in this context. But moving on. 

First of all, Secretary Votel and, excuse me, Secretary Whelan 

and General Votel. General, congratulations on your new assignment. 

I want to focus on ISR for a few moments, and whether the requirements are being met or what you might need. We will soon 

be writing a new authorization here. And this seems to be one area 

where there is great demand and not enough supply. So, General, 

let me start with you specifically about ISR requirements, manned, 

unmanned, any other thing that you might need. 

General VOTEL. Thanks. Thanks, Congressman. Let me just state 

right up front you are not going to meet many military leaders that 

are going to tell you that they are satisfied with the amount of ISR 

that they have. 

We have an insatiable appetite for it. It has changed our operations, the way we conduct things, significantly. And so you are not 

going meet many people who are going to say, yes, I have everything I need. 

With that, having said that, we, of course, make a fairly significant investment within our SOCOM authority here for SOF unique 

capabilities both manned and unmanned to meet some of our requirements. 

That meets a portion of our requirements. But we are, again, to 

the earlier conversation, we are dependent on the services to do 

that. So one of the things that I am very happy for this coming 

year is that there is good work at the Department level to address 

the broader ISR requirements out there. 
17 

And, of course, as you look at ISR it isn’t just about platforms 

in the sky. It is about those platforms. It is about the sensors we 

put on them. It is about the ability to transmit that information 

across the network. And then it is about the ability to exploit that 

information so we understand what we are looking at. 

And so all of that, I think, really requires a very comprehensive 

Department look. And so I am very pleased that the Department 

is approaching it in that manner. And so we will continue to press 

our requirements for that. And I think the Department has heard 

us and others here on this particular topic. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So as we develop the National Defense Authorization Act nothing special for you, but a great deal special for the 

overall Department. 

General VOTEL. I think that is right, Congressman. I think it is. 

I think we have to support that because we all depend on it. ISR 

isn’t just unique to us. Everybody depends on that. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Fair enough. I would like now to move to Ms. 

Whelan. The 1208 authorization, it is up for reauthorization. We 

are starting to work on it already. The question, apparently it 

speaks to terrorism. Is that geographically eliminated or terrorism 

wherever it might be outside of the United States, I suspect? 

Ms. WHELAN. Thanks, Congressman. No, it is not geographically 

limited. We have 1208 programs. Most of our 1208 programs are 

in the Central Command and Africa Command AORs [areas of responsibility] to date, but there are some in other locations. 

So it is just generally a very valuable tool for us in terms of 

working with our partners and enabling our partners to be part of 

the counterterrorism effort globally. And as we see ISIL in particular spreading its tentacles globally, programs like 1208 become 

very important to us. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So the authority to conduct operations, SOF operations, in Syria is from 1208? 

Ms. WHELAN. No, sir. The authority is not derived from 1208 specifically. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. We have been debating here for some time 

whether we have the courage to do an AUMF [Authorization for 

Use of Military Force]. 

Ms. WHELAN. So the 1208 is specific to working with partner 

forces. We utilize the AUMF as our legal justification for our engagement in Libya with partner forces against ISIL and/or AQ [Al 

Qaeda]. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So the current Afghanistan authorization use 

force has gone from Iraq to Syria to Libya. Next stop is? 

Ms. WHELAN. So the AUMF was focused on Al Qaeda. And the 

legal rationale was that ISIL publically declared itself to be the 

successor to Al Qaeda. And so consequently the AUMF allows us 

to address ISIL where we find ISIL in Libya or—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am out of time. But perhaps you can list all 

the places where ISIL now has declared itself to be in the world? 

Ms. WHELAN. There are a number of locations. I can list a few 

off the top of my head. It would not be exhaustive. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So could I. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi. 
18 

And now we proceed to Congressman Doug Lamborn, of Colorado. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for 

what you do for our country, General Votel, for your service. I really appreciate that. 

Let me ask, drill down on a particular issue that another Congresswoman, Gwen Graham, and I have worked on. In last year’s 

fiscal year 2016 NDAA we were able to, with the help of the rest 

of the committee and the rest of Congress, obtain money for Israel 

to do tunnel detection and research and development so as to detect and map and defeat tunnels. 

And this is a joint program because our country can benefit from 

this also. And $40 million was authorized and appropriated. And 

I know that CTTSO, the Counter Combatting Terrorism and Technical Support Office, is playing a role in this along with JITDA, the 

Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Agency. 

So how are things going? And what progress are we making? 

And what kind of feedback can you give us on this particular narrow, but important subject? 

Ms. WHELAN. Thanks for the question, Congressman. So how are 

things going? Basically we have the possibility of a few prototypes 

of new technology for operational evaluation in 12 to 18 months. 

We actually just recently met, it was in January. Sorry. It was 

in January that we met with our Israeli counterparts to discuss the 

way forward, and particularly how we were going to utilize the additional money that was authorized. 

We have agreed on 17 projects, 5 of which have actually been initiated in 2015 on a smaller scale. So we are upscaling them. Seven 

of the projects we agreed to are for detecting tunnels. Six are for 

mapping them. 

And then we have some other projects based on, focused on developing new tunnel detection and mapping technologies. We have 

one related to intelligence collections. So there is a very robust 

agenda that we have set, we and the Israelis, have set out for ourselves. 

So I think we feel that we are in a pretty good position to move 

forward with them in partnership. And we hope to, as we move forward, to clarify what, as these programs develop, what future requirements might be. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And, General, do you have anything 

to add to that? 

General VOTEL. I think Ms. Whelan has pretty comprehensively 

covered that. I would just tell you we are the beneficiaries of the 

great work that is done at CTTSO and the great programs like this 

that CTTSO provides oversight for. 

And I can tell you we watch very carefully that type of stuff. The 

subterranean aspect of the threat is one we have to pay attention 

to as well. Not just for terrorism, but for some of our other mission 

areas. And so this is all very good, good work that we think will 

benefit us as well. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, that is wonderful. I think you guys are 

doing a great job in helping push this forward with our Israeli allies. 
19 

Now changing subjects entirely, talk about the tragic subject of 

suicide. I know that that is an issue with special forces folks that 

sometimes come back with hidden injuries. What can you tell us 

about progress that we are making there in the special forces in 

particular? 

General VOTEL. Yes. Thanks. First of all thanks for the questions. 

And then let me just say it up front, the support that we have 

gotten from the committee and from Congress in general for a 

number of pilot programs and other programs related to our Preservation of Force and Family have been extraordinarily well received by our service members and their families. And so I thank 

you for the continued support. 

What I can tell you about suicides is that over the last 4 years 

we have seen a 33 percent decline in the number of suicides. We 

track them very closely. And this continues to be a challenge for 

us. 

Last year we had a total of 17 suicides across the SOCOM enterprise. That certainly is 17 too many. I do expect this is a challenge 

we will continue to deal with. But we are making good progress 

with this. 

The resources that we leveraged from the services and the resources that we are able to bring to our organizations include social 

workers, operational psychologists, additional chaplain support, licensed social workers, for example are really making a difference 

for us. 

And so what I am seeing in the command is that there is a greater willingness to make use of those resources. 

The number one message that we convey across SOCOM with respect to this particular problem is that, from our perspective, we 

consider it absolutely normal and expected that our people and 

their families will ask for help. 

That is why the resources are there. And that is why you are 

helping us make that investment. And I think that message is beginning to resonate. One of the things that I do track on a very 

close basis is not only suicides, but suicide ideations. 

And what I do see is that ideations are going up. But I would 

offer that to you as a positive sign. Because what it indicates is 

that our people know there are resources available. They know 

they can go to those resources. And they know they can go to them 

without concern for being stigmatized for asking for help. 

And in many cases we see peers, family members, and medical 

workers, other teammates that see a problem in somebody and get 

that person to care. And as far as I am concerned every one of 

those cases is a win. 

And so I am positive about the direction we are moving in. We 

have got a lot of work to do. And we will stay on this. But we are 

very appreciative for the support we get from the committee on 

this. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for what you do. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Congressman Lamborn. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Brad Ashford, of Nebraska. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for 

your service. I want to focus in on something that we are involved 
20 

in at the UARC [University Affiliated Research Institute], The University of Nebraska in conjunction with STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command]. 

The mission, one of the missions of the UARC there deals with 

basically supporting our warfighters, finding ways to protect them 

by developing wearables to detect foreign agents, and so forth and 

so on. 

And today I was talking to them. They talked about a vaccine 

that they have developed to inoculate SEALs to specific bio threats. 

So there is this ongoing, I am sure by others other than the UARC 

in Omaha, but across the country and other places. 

How is that going in developing wearables to make our warfighters safer? And where do you see those partnerships going in 

the future? General or Ms. Whelan. 

General VOTEL. Let me start. Congressman, I will tell you I am 

not particularly familiar with the program that you are talking 

about here. But to your point about the things that we are doing 

to try to protect our operators better. 

Within SOCOM we have made a significant investment in this 

particular area, particularly in some of our technology development 

areas. We have a program we call TALOS [Tactical Assault Light 

Operator Suit]. And what it is designed to do, is it is designed to 

really help protect our operators at their most vulnerable point. 

And that is not just physical protection, but it is also medical 

protection and it is increased situational awareness, it is increased 

visibility. So we are very focused on making sure that our people, 

you know, have the most advantage at the points of which they are 

most vulnerable. 

And I can certainly see a program like you are outlining here as 

being very helpful. You know, some of the areas in which we do 

operate are not the most pleasant environments. And so we have 

to make sure we do everything we can to protect our people. So I 

look forward to looking at the program that you describe here and 

how we might combine that with some of our current efforts. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Great. Thank you. Ms. Whelan. 

Ms. WHELAN. The only thing I will add to that, Congressman, is 

through CTTSO we collaborate and look for opportunities to collaborate with a lot of different partners in the university realm as 

well as, obviously, the private sector in developing new technologies 

to assist special forces personnel. So this would certainly be something that CTTSO might be interested in as well. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Ashford. 

And we are very fortunate that we have the first Navy SEAL to 

serve in Congress, and additionally he is an Iraq veteran, Congressman Ryan Zinke, of Montana. 

Mr. ZINKE. Well, I can tell you, General, it was a lot easier being 

a SEAL. But good to see that you have a Frogman with you. 

I guess what I hear from friends and acquaintances that are still 

on the teams, there is a lot of frustration on rules of engagement, 

particularly prioritization of collateral damage, and the time it goes 

through the process. There is frustration on acquisition, on getting 

things quicker to the front lines. 
21 

And you know when I looked at it, it was you know as bureaucracies expand over the period of time, we have kind of lost from 

what I see a little edge of getting things the quickest because of 

the process in place. And sometimes the process mitigates the risk. 

But the downside of it is that we don’t get things to the front line 

fast enough. 

And, of course, then the debate between is it a service support, 

is it a SOF support, what do we do? And there is an unintended 

consequence sometimes where the services have different priorities. 

And as they contract their services, the unintended consequence is 

we don’t have, you know, a view from here of what it means to 

SOF. The HS [helicopter support] squadrons for example. 

But do you track when the SOF forces ask whether it is a RPA 

[remotely piloted aircraft] or a boat or a you know regular helicopter, do we track the number of requests versus the number of 

fills, whether they fulfilled those requests? 

And if that is declining, which I sense it is, do the group commanders and the SOF forces track that so we can have a look at 

it to make sure that, if there is a cut, intended cut, we can get in 

there and make sure that the priority is known? 

General VOTEL. Certainly from the U.S. SOCOM headquarters 

level we track the requirements that our forces put out there and 

then how those are being fulfilled. So the quick answer to your 

question is yes we do. I don’t have the immediate number for you 

so I won’t hazard a guess here. 

And I would be happy to respond with something on that. But 

we certainly do track our requirements for all of our organizations. 

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

page 65.] 

Mr. ZINKE. I think all of us would be interested to know what 

the unintended consequences are on this so we can look at it and 

see if it adversely affects your mission. 

Secondly, is I don’t see the requirements for SOF going down. 

Every committee hearing I have been to in the last year here the 

solution set is always add SOF, always add SOF. You know and 

I look at it, it concerns me because I think that the force is probably—well I will ask you. I think the force is probably strained, but 

not broken. Is that a fair assessment? 

General VOTEL. I would answer it a little bit different way. I 

think our readiness right now is stable. And I think we are, you 

know, we are at a, we are at a pretty predictive level of deployment 

right now in terms of, you know, forces we are pushing out there. 

As I look at the numbers, and I track them very closely on a 

daily to weekly basis here, we are usually pretty consistent about 

7,500 people to, you know, 70, 80 different countries even before 

what is out there. And that is a pretty steady state for us. 

So one of the things we have been able to do is understand our 

deployment tempo much better. We do track operational tempo of 

organizations. We do track personnel tempo of individuals. And you 

know largely through the great work of my predecessor, Admiral 

Bill McRaven, we really got these things in place. 

Mr. ZINKE. What is your goal on pillow time? I mean, I am not 

talking training, but time at home for your operators. Is it the 
22 

same between the SEALs and the SF [Special Forces] and the 

Rangers? 

General VOTEL. The goal is to have a deployment-to-dwell ratio 

of 1:2, is what we strive for. You know the threshold is 1:1. If we 

have to go less than that then I have a requirement to—— 

Mr. ZINKE. Is that training or is that actual time at home? 

General VOTEL. I am talking mostly about deployments now in 

terms of organizations deploying. What we do try to do within kind 

of our first temple rules is we do track time that people are away 

from home for training and that type stuff. 

Mr. ZINKE. The figures I got were somewhere around 280. 

General VOTEL. It is about 250 days. 

Mr. ZINKE. 250 days gone from and the solution to that, I don’t 

think we are going to get out of wanting special operations, but 

when do you say no? Because eventually you are going to have to 

say no to these missions and task someone else. And there is a 

breaking point. Is that at 250 or—— 

General VOTEL. I would—— 

Mr. ZINKE [continuing]. 280 or 300 days, or? 

General VOTEL. I would say that we are saying no right now. You 

know as I look at all the requirements globally for special operations forces and capabilities that are out there that are being 

asked for from the geographic command commanders, we are having to make hard decisions all the time in terms of that, in terms 

of the operations that we can support. 

So you know for me it is a pretty delicate balance. We look at 

particular organizations. We look at particular capabilities we have 

out there. You know I can tell you the most heavily deployed part 

of our force right now are our civil affairs soldiers, men and 

women. 

They deploy at a higher rate than everybody else. So we pay particular attention to that. We have been with some of our elements, 

NSW [Naval Special Warfare] and our Marine Special Operations 

Command have been able to get into a fairly predictable ratio of 

deployments now that are helping with them. 

Some of our Army, some of our Air Force elements are deploying 

at a little higher rate. So I think what we have to do is we have 

to continue to look at this all the time, continue to—frankly it is 

about priorities. It is about accepting risk. And we are doing that 

on a regular basis. 

Mr. ZINKE. Thank you, sir, Mr. Chairman. And good luck and 

good hunting in SOCOM. 

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

now we will be concluding with a very dedicated member of Congress who has visited with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to Ms. 

Whelan and General Votel for testifying here today and for your 

service and leadership to our Nation. General Votel, I wanted to 

congratulate you and wish you my best for what I am sure will be 

a swift confirmation for Central Command. 

I wanted to direct my questions to you, General Votel. At your 

recommendation I recently met with Mr. James Geurts, Director of 
23 

SOF Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics about SOFWERX, 

which you and I discussed. 

And I was encouraged by their willingness to embrace and support innovation in unique ways. Can you just describe to the committee today why you think SOFWERX is important and what new 

initiatives have come from it? 

General VOTEL. Yes. Thanks. And thanks for your recent visit. 

We are very glad to host you down there. 

So what SOFWERX does for us is it provides us a publically 

available platform where we can bring members of academia, members of industry, a variety of others into our spaces, and we can collaborate on problems that we have, as perhaps you may have seen 

or heard a little bit more about that from Mr. Geurts. 

What we are able to do is we are able to take advantage of technology, laser printing, other things that are right there for us to 

do rapid prototyping. Rapid prototyping is, I think, is one of the 

biggest lessons that we have learned out of this. 

We can bring operators together with scholars, with members of 

industry. We can address hard problems. And as we look at the solutions that industry provides to us we can provide them immediate feedback from an operator who will say why this won’t work 

or why it might work or what we might do to it to make it better. 

And then we can immediately model that through the, kind of 

the magic of laser printing right here and immediately look at how 

that might work. So I think it is changing. It is helping us address 

hard problems. 

It is helping us identify solutions faster. And it is changing the 

way that we look at acquisition in Special Operations Command. 

Much more collaborative, much more focused on rapid prototyping, 

and much more focused on being open and available to industry 

and academia. 

Ms. STEFANIK. I appreciate that comment. My follow-up, which 

you answered, was about how this work can influence how DOD 

conducts acquisition and procurement. And I think your example of 

rapid prototyping and getting the best and brightest minds from industry, from tech companies, from academia is a great model. 

I wanted to ask specifically, will the decrease in procurement 

funding by $97 million from fiscal year 2016 levels in the President’s budget request impact SOFWERX’s mission specifically? 

General VOTEL. I don’t expect that it is. I looked at the numbers 

for SOFWERX and it looks pretty consistent to me. In fact I think 

it is a little bit of an increase in the coming years. So I think we 

are in pretty good shape at SOFWERX. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Great. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Stefanik. And Secretary Whelan, best wishes on your new duties. 

And, General Votel, best wishes to you. And, again, I thank both 

of you for what you have done for our country. We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 1, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(65) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. NUGENT 

General VOTEL. USSOCOM estimates the dollar value of resources and support 

provided annually by the Services at approximately $8B, more than half of which 

is provided in the form of military pay, benefits and allowances. 

SOF organizations are the recipients of Major Force Program 11 (MFP–11) funding, and accounting for MFP–11 is straightforward and easily accomplished because 

it is specifically appropriated to USSOCOM and is coded as such in financial systems. However, dollars appropriated to and used by the Services to support SOF are 

not as easily distinguishable. While some Service funding is distributed directly to 

SOF organizations by their parent Service, much of the Service funding supporting 

SOF collectively supports an entire Service’s population without regards to delineation between populations of Service SOF and General Purpose Forces. As an illustration, SOF organizations reside on military installations managed and funded by 

the services. As such, they are tenants of the installation and receive basic support 

and services as a part of the military population residing there. Examples of garrison support and services received includes facility sustainment, restoration and 

maintenance, shared use of weapons ranges and airfields. Further, SOF operations 

are almost always dependent on Services in the areas of base operating support, logistics, and infrastructure. Support to deployed SOF from the Services can also be 

provided via direct Service funding to the SOF organization, but is more frequently 

provided via funding executed by a non-SOF Service organization to support SOF 

requirements. The latter category, both in garrison and deployed, is very difficult 

to isolate in Service budgeting and accounting systems. 

Difficulties in delineating costs between SOF and the Services were also acknowledged in a recent GAO Report to Congress, GAO 15–571 dated July 2015. It concluded in part that, ‘‘. . . neither DOD nor the military services have systematically 

collected, estimated, or reported total SOF funding needs.’’ In the absence of a formal Department of Defense methodology to determine the allocation of military 

Service funding to support SOF, USSOCOM estimates the level of funding provided 

by the military Services using numerous assumptions and the values of known support, but we recognize the $8B is only a rough estimate, and the actual costs likely 

vary significantly each year and are substantially different than our estimate. [See 

page 15.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ZINKE 

General VOTEL. Although we maintain a general assessment of the fills for High 

Demand/Low Density Service Provided Capabilities (SPCs) (e.g., ISR, rotary wing, 

Base Operating Support, ships), SOF’s heavy reliance on numerous SPCs makes it 

challenging to track in a comprehensive manner. The Services have not yet fully 

identified where they would absorb future budget reductions, therefore, impacts on 

support to SOF cannot be fully assessed at this time. However, our SOF operational 

units are beginning to experience initial operational impacts due to shortfalls in 

some HD/LD SPCs. As an example, the Navy initially made the decision to decommission two helicopter squadrons (HSC–84/85) in FY16, which significantly impacted rotary wing training support to our Components. USSOCOM, working with 

the Navy and Congress, helped identify the potential training shortfall, resulting in 

the Navy’s decision to retain one of the squadrons (HSC–85). We continually assess 

the HD/LD SPC support to our SOF units, and when able, take the appropriate 

measures to ensure all parties are informed to minimize the impact to SOF operations. [See page 21.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(69) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Secretary Whelan and General Votel, the SOFWERX initiative has 

the potential to capture and spur some exciting technology. How will the lessons 

learned from this creative initiative and technologies be shared across the S&T enterprise in the Department of Defense? 

Ms. WHELAN. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and LowIntensity Conflict fully endorses U.S. Special Operations Command’s (USSOCOM’s) 

‘‘SOFWER–X’’ initiative. Through this and other initiatives, USSOCOM continues to 

build a culture that embraces and supports innovation in its research, development, 

and acquisition programs. USSOCOM is developing and testing new operating models to foster innovation through proactive coordination with other U.S Government 

science and technology (S&T) organizations. Finding innovative ways to invest in 

programs to enhance existing capabilities and create new advantages for our special 

operations forces is an important part of USSOCOM’s mission. 

USSOCOM has incorporated SOFWER–X lessons learned and technologies identified or developed into a variety of existing processes and forums for S&T collaboration. These forums include Service component briefings and updates, S&T Council 

meetings, and USSOCOM’s quarterly S&T newsletter. This information is also 

passed to the Services, the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy 

laboratories, and academia through briefings and updates in a variety of venues, 

published articles in appropriate journals, direct discussions, and briefings. Finally, 

SOFWER–X activities and status updates are presented at SOF Acquisition Summits organized by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, 

Technology, and Logistics that include participation by acquisition officials from 

across the Department. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Secretary Whelan and General Votel, the SOFWER–X initiative 

has the potential to capture and spur some exciting technology. How will the lessons 

learned from this creative initiative and technologies be shared across the S&T enterprise in the Department of Defense? 

General VOTEL. While the SOFWERX initiative is still new and has not met its 

full operational stride, we agree that it has the potential to capture and spur exciting technology for the Command and the Department. Since January 1, 2016, we 

have hosted more than 188 SOFWERX events as disparate as a high school robotics 

championship, multiple ‘‘hackathons,’’ several rapid prototyping and technology 

sprint events, five structured week-long training events, and more than 60 orientations for distinguished visitors from a variety of backgrounds. 

We have incorporated capturing and disseminating SOFWERX lessons learned 

and technologies identified or developed into a variety of our existing communications processes. We are communicating this information to our Components and 

Theater Special Operations Commands through briefings and updates at our existing S&T Council meetings and inclusion in our quarterly S&T newsletters. Externally, we are communicating information to our partners in the Services, DOD and 

Department of Energy labs, and academia through briefings and updates in a variety of venues, published articles in journals, direct discussion and briefings during 

meetings and visits, and by maintaining an open invitation for orientation visits to 

the facility. We are actively communicating the SOFWERX message and status with 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)), his 

staff, and other key members of the DOD S&T community. We participate in weekly 

telecons with (ASD(R&E)), attend several key planning meetings on an annual 

basis, and utilize those and other opportunities to actively inform key DOD S&T 

partners and include them in our SOFWERX activities. 

SOFWERX was established under a Partnership Intermediary Agreement with 

the Doolittle Institute (DI). For each SOFWERX event, DI has the responsibility to 

help USSOCOM capture results, attendees, actions, and lessons learned, and provide this information to the Command in quarterly and annual reports. In addition, 

for events that require a separate Collaborative Project Order (over and above preplanned workload), DI is responsible for preparing a detailed report of findings and 

accomplishments of the individual collaborative project in a document that is suitable for publication. 
70 

In summary, we support our SOFWERX efforts with both formal and informal 

methods of capturing lessons learned and technologies and sharing them across the 

SOCOM enterprise, the DOD S&T community, and our external partners. We are 

actively working to increase both the number of information sharing vehicles and 

the intended audience, and will actively work to keep you informed as our efforts 

progress in those areas. 

Æ