U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

63–121 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–172] 

MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE IN A TIME OF TIGHT BUDGETS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 22, 2010 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Staff Director 

ANDREW HUNTER, Professional Staff Member 

JENNESS SIMLER, Professional Staff Member 

CATERINA DUTTO, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, July 22, 2010, Managing the Department of Defense in a Time 

of Tight Budgets ................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, July 22, 2010 .......................................................................................... 43 

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010 

MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN A TIME OF TIGHT 

BUDGETS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 2 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Conaton, Hon. Erin C., Under Secretary of the Air Force ................................... 9 

McGrath, Hon. Elizabeth A., Deputy Chief Management Officer, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 4 

Westphal, Hon. Joseph W., Under Secretary of the Army ................................... 6 

Work, Hon. Robert O., Under Secretary of the Navy ........................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Conaton, Hon. Erin C. ...................................................................................... 79 

McGrath, Hon. Elizabeth A. ............................................................................ 51 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 49 

Skelton, Hon. Ike .............................................................................................. 47 

Westphal, Hon. Joseph W. ............................................................................... 60 

Work, Hon. Robert O. ....................................................................................... 70 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 95 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 95 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 94 

Mr. Skelton and Mr. Bishop ............................................................................ 93 

Mr. Taylor ......................................................................................................... 94 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Critz ............................................................................................................ 110 

Mr. Kissell ......................................................................................................... 109 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Larsen ........................................................................................................ 109 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 105 

Mr. Ortiz ........................................................................................................... 99 

Mr. Owens ......................................................................................................... 110 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 106 
(1) 

MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN A TIME 

OF TIGHT BUDGETS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, July 22, 2010. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you to today’s hearing on managing the Department of Defense [DOD] in a time of tight budgets. Our hearing continues the 

committee’s aggressive efforts to protect taxpayers at the same 

time we protect the troops and ensure our national security. 

This discussion is very timely. First, consider the budget. Much 

to its credit, the Obama Administration this year delivered a budget with real growth in defense spending. 

However, the rate of this growth will not support all the spending practices which have arisen over the last 12 years, during 

which the defense budget more than doubled. Furthermore, the significant federal deficit will make continued real growth in the defense budget a challenge. 

Second, consider the Department of Defense’s management challenge. As illustrated in the ‘‘Top-Secret America’’ series of articles 

in this week’s Washington Post, the growth in contractors and government offices devoted to fighting terrorism since 9/11 is staggering. Most of this growth has occurred within the Department of 

Defense, though much of it falls in the area of intelligence. 

But little of note at Department of Defense was eliminated to 

make way for the new growth. Instead, the Department has grown 

bigger. 

Managing all this is exactly the job Congress assigned to the Department’s Chief Management Officer [CMO], a job currently filled 

by Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bill Lynn. And while Secretary 

Lynn could not be with us today, much to my regret, we have an 

excellent panel of witnesses with us. 

Beth McGrath, Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense; Joe Westphal, Under Secretary of the Army; Robert Work, Under Secretary of the Navy; and one-time staff director 

of this committee, one who has done a wonderful job here and is 

doing a wonderful job for the Air Force, Erin Conaton, the Under 

Secretary of the Air Force. We welcome you back. 
2 

Secretary CONATON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Under Secretaries were designated by Congress 

to serve as Chief Management Officers of their respective Departments. Now, I have asked these witnesses to update the committee 

on exactly how they are creating the tools, the structures and the 

systems necessary to manage the largest, most complex institution 

in the world. I have asked them to focus on a few issues in particular. 

Congress has mandated that the Department must, as long last, 

get its finances in order and be ready for an independent audit by 

2017. Will the Department comply with the law? What progress 

has been made? 

The Department has asked and received from Congress billions 

of dollars to modernize its business systems over the past 10 years. 

What do we have to show for this investment? Do we now have the 

kind of management information about our business operations 

that we need? When will we get there? 

Last, the committee has followed with great interest the efficiency initiative announced by Secretary Gates on May the 8th at 

the Eisenhower Library. We want to know how this initiative will 

work? When the Department intends to share its findings with 

Congress? 

This committee stands four-square behind efficiency. At the same 

time, we want to ensure that major budget decisions are well considered. We should not attempt to find efficiencies through the kind 

of mindless across-the-board cuts that President Obama campaigned against. 

For my own part, I will note loud and clear that I am not for cutting the defense budget at this time. My understanding is that the 

Secretary’s efficiency initiative is not about cutting the budget, but 

I look forward to hearing more about exactly how this initiative is 

designed to work. 

I would like to also mention the fact that this committee successfully passed legislation regarding major weapons systems last 

year—Rob Andrews, Mike Conaway, and the panel—and its purpose was to reform the acquisitions system of major weapons systems. And this committee is to be congratulated on that, as well 

as those two leaders. 

Also, we passed out and passed on the floor acquisition reform, 

and it is pending in the Senate and hopefully will be taken up with 

our defense bill that we have passed and sent to the Senate. This 

is the efficiency we have already stepped up to the plate and 

passed. 

So with that in mind, I turn to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from California, Buck McKeon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix on page 47.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

I would like to thank our witnesses, all of you, for being here 

today. It is unfortunate that Secretary Lynn could not also join us. 
3 

As both the Deputy Secretary and Chief Management Officer for 

the Department, not to mention his role in helping to craft Secretary Gates’ efficiencies initiative, it would have been valuable for 

the committee to hear from him at a hearing specifically dedicated 

to the Pentagon’s management. 

As well, given that the formal responsibilities for CMO are still 

relatively new for the Deputy Secretary, we were also interested in 

his observations about that construct and his ability to balance his 

policy and management portfolios. 

With that said, we are grateful to have with us the Deputy Chief 

Management Officer, Ms. Beth McGrath, whose full-time job is to 

improve the Department’s management. I know Ms. McGrath has 

testified before this committee in the past, but I believe this is our 

first opportunity to have all of the Under Secretaries, and I welcome all of you here. 

Given the important role that each of you play in serving as the 

Chief Management Officer of your respective Departments, I look 

forward to the chance to discuss the various management challenges you face and your plans for mitigating risk to DOD’s operations while improving efficiency. 

Secretary Conaton—notice how that just rolls off the tongue—I 

know I echo the chairman’s sentiments when I tell you how pleased 

we are to see you again. Welcome home, so to speak. 

This is a timely hearing. Although the GAO [Government Accountability Office] and others have identified a series of persistent 

management risk areas for DOD, the Department faces a looming 

management crisis in light of congressional delay in passing a 

clean wartime supplemental spending measure. 

The Senate passed its version of the appropriations bill in May, 

but the House failed to take up either a compromise-version of the 

bill, or the Senate-passed bill, before the July 4th recess. Instead, 

the House amended the Senate bill by adding extraneous domestic 

spending and returned it to the Senate. Secretary Gates made it 

clear that, if the supplemental was not enacted by July 4th, the 

Department would have to begin to curtail defense operations. 

I know the chairman shares my conviction that the men and 

women in uniform operating in harm’s way in Afghanistan and 

Iraq deserve better. Therefore, it is critical that we hear from each 

of you regarding the impacts this delay will have within your Departments and how you intend to manage the risk to ongoing operations. 

Lastly, it should come as no surprise that we are interested to 

learn more specifics about how the services are implementing Secretary Gates’ call for further efficiencies. While no one would argue 

against reducing waste or needless overhead, it remains unclear 

whether or not the Department can find $100 billion in prudent 

savings over the next 5 years simply from efficiencies. 

In his May 8th speech at the Eisenhower Library, Secretary 

Gates stated, ‘‘The goal is to cut our overhead costs and to transfer 

those savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget.’’ I support his intent to ensure that we do not accept a peace dividend that will hollow out our force structure and 

curtail modernization. 
4 

What gives me pause, however, is that, according to Deputy Sec- retary Lynn, the plan calls for a third of this money, about $33.3 

billion, to come from ‘‘developing efficiencies within the force structure and modernization accounts.’’ So I want to make sure that we 

understand the plan. In order to protect force structure and modernization, we intend to cut force structure and modernization accounts? I hope that you will clarify that for me. 

Likewise, press reports indicate that funding may not go directly 

to these investment accounts, and senior officials have been recently quoted as forecasting gradual drawdown in the investment 

accounts. 

I know our witnesses are unlikely to reveal planned cuts for future fiscal years, but I hope that you will provide greater details 

regarding the process you are using to identify both the puts and 

takes and what measures, besides funding cuts, could generate savings, for example, what steps are you taking to improve your financial management and accountability. 

We look forward to your responses. And again, thank you for 

your time at this critical juncture. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Thank you for your comments. 

Now for the witnesses, and we, again, welcome each of you for 

this very, very important hearing. 

Elizabeth McGrath, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH A. MCGRATH, DEPUTY 

CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, thank you, and good morning. 

Chairman Skelton, Congressman McKeon, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of 

Defense’s efforts to improve its business operations. 

It is a pleasure to appear before you with my military department Chief Management Officer counterparts. We look forward to 

continuing our work with you as we strive for greater efficiency, increased effectiveness, and additional agility within the Department. 

While the Department has always worked to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its business operations, the imperative 

to achieve lasting results in the engagement of senior Department 

leadership have never been greater. 

Secretary Gates and Secretary Lynn have clearly articulated the 

pressing need for reform. Today, I would like to share with you our 

overarching management reform efforts, as well as some recent 

successes. Our approach emphasizes improving our ability to assess 

execution through performance management; to develop mechanisms to ensure leadership accountability; and to make needed 

changes to the way we procure information technology [IT]. 

In each of these areas, we rely heavily on the tools that Congress 

has provided us through the last several National Defense Authorization Acts. I will review with you our efforts in the areas of strategy, governance, process improvement, and information technology. 
5 

The Department has developed an integrated enterprise-wide 

business strategy to guide our transformation efforts. This strategic 

management plan aligns the planning and execution documents 

that exist throughout the enterprise. 

The plan identifies five cross-functional enterprise-wide business 

priorities, each with specific outcomes, goals, measures, and key 

initiatives that are critical for success. They are: to support the allvolunteer force; to support contingency operations; reform the DOD 

acquisition process and support processes; enhance civilian workforce; and strengthen financial management. 

Of particular interest for today’s hearing may be the Department’s efforts to improve financial management and move toward 

audit readiness. We have developed a plan that focuses on improving the quality of the information that we use. By strengthening 

those processes that execute the dollars Congress provides to us, 

we also unite the enterprise around an effort that will benefit everyone, but also requires collaboration and support across the defense enterprise. 

We have also established long-term and near-term goals for audit 

readiness, provided programmed resources in establishing a governance structure that includes the DCMO [Deputy Chief Management Officer]. 

Successful strategies rely on an effective management framework. This area of governance includes the creation of the Chief 

Management Officer, Deputy Chief Management Officer, and military department CMO positions. 

We recognize the committee’s priorities include areas that have 

been designated as high risk by the Government Accountability Office. We share your focus on reducing such risk in working across 

the Department and the executive branch to address these challenges with the shared goals of removing items from that list. 

Personnel security clearances is a good example of where we 

have made significant progress. In 2005, the average time for the 

fastest 90 percent of initial clearances took 265 days. Today, that 

number is below 60. 

Additionally, in 2006, the backlog of pending clearance investigations stood at almost 1,000 cases. Today, that backlog is gone. 

Speed without quality may result in the wrong outcome. Therefore, we have actively engaged GAO to exchange ideas regarding 

quality performance measures for clearance investigations and adjudications. Collectively, we believe the quality measures being developed identify specific quantifiable targets linked to goals. This 

type of engagement is critical to addressing and eliminating highrisk issues. 

As the committee knows, information technology is the key enabler of our business operations in an area with potential for major 

improvements. One of the Deputy’s highest management priorities 

is improving the acquisition and development and fielding of IT 

systems. 

Our current approach to implementing IT takes too long, costs 

too much, and often fails to deliver the performance improvements 

we seek. On average, it takes 81 months in DOD from when an IT 

program is first funded to when it is fielded. We often deliver systems that are outdated before we ever turn them on. 
6 

In contrast, the iPhone took 2 years from concept to delivery. It 

is clear we need a different approach. 

To that end, Secretary Lynn has established an IT acquisition reform task force guided by four principles: speed, incremental development, governance and adaptability. We need to match the acquisition process to the technology development cycle. We must also 

acknowledge the incremental development testing wherever possible in fielding of new capabilities to provide better outcomes in 

IT than trying to deploy a big-bang approach. 

We must carefully examine how our requirements govern acquisition. We must recognize that different IT applications demand 

different levels of oversight and enterprise integration. With these 

principles in mind, we are working to outline a series of acquisition 

tasks that apply high levels of institutional due diligence where it 

is needed and strip away excess requirements where it is not. 

Focusing on business operations at the Department of Defense is 

an area of great immediate interest to our senior leadership, as 

well as an area of serious activity and concerted efforts. We are on 

the way to creating better business processes that would create the 

kind of lasting results our country deserves. My CMO counterparts 

and I look forward to the continued opportunities to work with 

Congress to optimize performance across the Department. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGrath can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

The Honorable Joe Westphal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, UNDER 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member McKeon, thank you, distinguished members of the committee. 

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that my statement be made 

part of the record. And I just want to make a couple of brief points. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each prepared statement will 

be made part of the record. Thank you. 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just want to make a couple of brief points. The first is to bring 

you greetings from John McHugh, Secretary of the Army. I was 

with him this morning, and he really regrets not being invited to 

this hearing. But he is thankful that Erin Conaton is here, and 

that he figures he couldn’t compete against her today. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, you know, I think we 

are all going to be very repetitive in stating to you over and over 

how grateful I think we all are at the great care and support that 

you give our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen, their families 

and our civilian workforces. 

As some of you know, Mr. Chairman, I worked in this great institution many years ago, and we know fully well how challenged you 

are to make so many decisions across everything from social programs to national security. 

But we do know and understand that you know the great sacrifices that our men and women in uniform and their families 

make in support of our national defense and our freedoms and our 
7 

protections and our way of life every single day. And your steadfast 

support is well known and highly respected by all of us. 

And so, I commit to you that we in the Army will do our part 

to ensure that that support that we have from you is not diminished. So we will increase our efforts to generate savings, reduce 

cost, enhance performance, and create efficiencies. 

Our soldiers’ ability to complete the mission depends on it. Their 

families depend on it. The Secretary of Defense and the President 

demand it. And as a Chief Management Officer, this is my focus. 

My two great colleagues to my left here and I are doing something really unprecedented, having been in the Department before. 

This is the first time, I think, that you have the three Under Secretaries, not only now as Chief Management Officers, but in their 

role as Under Secretaries as well, collaborating on a regular basis 

to exchange ideas. We meet regularly to find ways to make joint 

efforts work better and create greater efficiency. 

So your designation of us as Chief Management Officers has actually created a great opportunity for our military departments to 

be more co-joined and work together on a regular basis. 

We are also very closely aligned with OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], and especially through the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Ms. Beth McGrath. Her experience, her leadership, her knowledge of these issues is helping us immensely to get 

ourselves coordinated so that we are aligned not only horizontally, 

but we are aligned vertically within the Department. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on March 1st, the Army submitted a report to the committee on our business transformation. It was an attempt to give you an idea of what we were working on to put together our business transformation plan, which we intend to deliver promptly and on time to you on October 1st of this year. 

So with that, I thank you again for your tireless efforts in support of our armed services and our Army. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Westphal can be found in 

the Appendix on page 60.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Robert Work. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT O. WORK, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF THE NAVY 

Secretary WORK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman McKeon, distinguished members of 

the committee, it really is an honor—I will echo both Joe’s and 

Beth’s sentiments on that—to be with you here today with the 

other Under Secretaries, and with Beth to talk to you about our 

plans to continue improvement within the Department of the Navy. 

I would also like to echo Joe’s thanks to the committee. After 9 

years of war, your support has just been instrumental to allowing 

us to maintain the Marine Corps and the Navy to the high level 

that we have today. So on behalf of Secretary Mabus and I, I would 

like to echo Joe’s thanks. 

And Secretary Mabus and I and the entire Department look forward to future collaboration with you on the committee as we part-
8 

ner to achieve these enduring transformation objectives that you 

have set out for us. 

I spent a lot of time trying to divine the intent of the Chief Management Officer position. And as I see it, the committee and Congress envisions this role to be the leader of transformation across 

the Department enterprise. And I also believe that you thought 

that business operations was a subset of management, and management extends across the entire Department of the Navy and in 

both the Marine Corps and the Navy itself. 

So we are looking beyond the business side of the enterprise, and 

we intend to apply the same type of rigor that I think that you are 

looking for in not only business operations but weapons systems 

and other programs across the Department. 

Secretary Mabus is interested not only in making the trains run 

on time, but on making the trains run to different places. And we 

believe that that was your intent. 

Our goal is to establish, then, a legacy of transformation in the 

Department of the Navy, instill a culture of business innovation 

and ingenuity, and codify the role of the Chief Management Officer 

and the Deputy Chief Management Officer within the Department. 

We also are looking very hard at having the proper government 

form, so our business transformation council is the way we do this. 

That is chaired by myself, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the vice chairman, because we have found, in the 

last year—and this just reinforces a long-known code—that you 

have to get both the Secretary and the service staffs really invested 

into business transformation or you are not going to be able to 

have any lasting change. 

So we have the warfighters and the Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy embedded in this process from the very beginning. We are 

also trying to strengthen our Deputy Chief Management Officer position. Also, we are doing consolidations within the secretariat to 

align us better with the business operations that Beth pointed out 

to you. 

We are really focused on business processes, but we are very, 

very focused on achieving fully auditable financial statements by 

2017. We actually are hopeful we will beat that timeline. Implementing ERP [enterprise resource planning] across the Department, really spending a lot of time on acquisition and contracting 

excellence, following the lines of what Secretary Carter set out a 

week ago, and really trying to improve energy efficiencies across 

the Department. 

So in closing, we very much appreciate the legislation that Congress has enacted, which really allows us to delve deep and to go 

into reengineering of our processes in implementing transformational change. We recognize that this is going to be challenging and difficult, but we are committed to working with you to 

effect this change. 

We definitely do want to foster the business transformation. We 

need to efficiently and effectively support the Navy and the Marine 

Corps and our civilians. And I thank you again very much for your 

continued support, and I look forward to working with all of you 

in the future. 
9 

I would be happy to answer your questions after the completion 

of our statements. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Work can be found in the 

Appendix on page 70.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

The Honorable Erin Conaton, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERIN C. CONATON, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary CONATON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon, 

members of the committee. Given everything that my colleagues 

have already said, I will try to be brief and just echo the high 

points. But let me start by saying it is really nice to be back in this 

room. I am convincing myself this is just markup, you know? I am 

just sitting at the table, just like markup. 

But it is great to see you and all my former staff colleagues in 

the room here. I also, as long as I am in the thanking mode, want 

to thank my colleagues at this table not only for the partnership 

that Secretary Westphal talked about in terms of our ongoing 

interactions, but I am very much the new kid on the block. 

I have only been in the job a couple months, and these folks who 

have been outstanding in terms of not only partnering but lending 

the benefit of their expertise in the Department over the period of 

time that they have been there. So I thank them for that. 

I think I have to start the same way they did, by acknowledging 

the work that this committee has done in numerous National Defense Authorization Acts and in the Weapons System Acquisition 

Reform Act. Your work has had tremendous impact in the Department, and it is hard for me to think of a week going by that I am 

not at a meeting where people are talking about the implementation of WSARA [Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act], what 

the intent of the Congress was. 

So I know you know that your efforts have an impact, but if we 

can reinforce that, I am happy to have the opportunity to do so. 

Like my colleagues, I would say that the Chief Management Officer construct relies on strong leadership from the top. And so, the 

fact that we have Secretaries and chiefs of our respective services 

who are committed not only to making this organizational construct work but also to help further the business transformation 

objectives that we are working on, makes a big deal. 

The other thing I would say is that all of us put mission first. 

So this is about the work that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are out there doing every day, and business transformation 

can’t be separate from that. It has to be very much aligned with 

what we are asking servicemembers and our civilian workforce to 

do on a regular basis. 

And so, as I have been thinking about the Chief Management Officer job, I think, first, what is the mission that we are asking, in 

our case, our airmen to do, and then how do we get processes and 

systems that help support that. 

So I think whether it is with the business transformation plans 

that you all have required or in our own thinking as Chief Management Officers, it is important to align our business objectives with 
10 

what the service or the Department, in Ms. McGrath’s case, is 

doing overall. 

We in the Air Force have a similar construct, I think, to what 

Secretary Work talked about, which is that we have an overall governance structure called the Air Force Council. It is how we make 

our budget decisions every year. It is how we adjudicate policy debates that are occurring inside the service. 

And it is also the group that we are using for governance of overall business transformation and the efficiencies initiative. It is critical that all of the folks who are working, whether it be our Assistant Secretaries or the deputy chiefs of staff on the air staff side, 

are invested in and committed to working these efforts. 

Once we get that done, then I think we can focus on the goals 

on the business side of the house. We obviously have a couple large 

information technology programs that I would be happy to talk 

about if you want to get into that. We too are very focused on the 

efforts led by this committee on getting a clean audit in the fiscal 

year 2017 timeframe and doing everything we can to do that as 

soon as possible. 

And on the efficiency side, we are partners with the rest of my 

colleagues in trying to find a way to—again, mission first—get as 

much money and capability into the force structure modernization 

and readiness sides of the account. And I think that is what is motivating the work that Secretary Gates has put forward, and it is 

certainly motivating the work that Secretary Donnelly and General 

Schwartz are undertaking for the Air Force. 

So with that, I will turn it back to the chairman and just say 

thank you, again, for the opportunity to come home. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Conaton can be found in 

the Appendix on page 79.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. It is great to have you 

back. 

Mr. Work, the spotlight has been on some shipbuilding. On the 

one hand, we have the USS Missouri, Virginia attack submarine 

being commissioned later this month, which, by the way, is in the 

district of Congressman Joe Courtney, ahead of schedule and under 

budget. 

Compare that to the problems that you have been having with 

the littoral combat ship effort, the excessive overruns. Add to that 

the reform legislation that we passed from this committee, and 

then it became law. Will the legislation that we authored be of help 

in making the shipbuilding more like what is going on in Groton, 

Connecticut? And if so, how, Mr. Work? 

Secretary WORK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Mabus set as his number one priority, when he came 

aboard last year in May, in really taking a hard look at the shipbuilding. And that was followed quickly by the WSARA Act, which 

really kind of struck a chord within the Department of the Navy, 

making sure that we get the requirements absolutely right, looking 

for the right type of contracts, making sure that we demand performance throughout the level. 

It is, of course, true, sir, that we have had problems with the 

LCS [littoral combat ship], but I think as the committee knows, as 

a result of the WSARA and also our determination to make sure 
11 

that that program is right, we completely changed the acquisition 

strategy. And although we are not quite complete with the downselect yet, I am quite confident in telling the committee we will 

definitely reach the congressional cost cap regardless of which ship 

is chosen. 

As you said, I think we are having great success in our attack 

submarine program, on our T–AKEs [dry cargo/ammunition ship] 

that are being built at NASSCO [National Steel and Shipbuilding 

Company], and we are having good performance across the yard. 

So right now, we are really focused on really making sure we get 

requirements right. We are doing that on the SSBN–X [ballistic 

missile submarine–future]. And Secretary Mabus and I are committed to making sure that we get the best bang for the buck for 

our shipbuilding dollars. 

The CHAIRMAN. The GAO originally proposed a second Deputy 

Secretary of Defense for Management. Is it reasonable to expect 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense to serve as the Chief Management 

Officer in addition to all of his other duties? 

Ms. McGrath. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, thank you. The construct of the Deputy Chief 

Management Officer working as a day-to-day focus of the financial 

and other management issues, working with the other Under Secretaries across the Department so far has been extremely effective. 

The Deputy Secretary spends quite a bit of his time on 

management- and business-related issues, from financial management to health, information technology, wounded warrior. A lot of 

his time is spent on those topics today. 

So I believe the construct of the Deputy Secretary as the Chief 

Management Officer with someone in the Deputy Chief Management Officer role, currently myself, working across the Department 

from an OSD perspective and also with the Chief Management Officers of the military departments thus far has proven effective. 

The CHAIRMAN. Allegedly, there will be savings identified in the 

effort to have efficiencies across the Department. If that is the case, 

where do those savings go? I for one am not for cutting the defense 

budget. Where do they go, Ms. McGrath? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, as you articulated in your opening statement, 

Secretary Gates has identified a call to look across the Department, 

every aspect of the defense business and everything we do, from 

our support structures to our organizational construct, to see if 

there is a better, more efficient and effective way that we can deliver our capability. 

The Secretary has articulated that the military departments will 

keep the savings that they identify. And again, I think it was mentioned in the opening statements that we are looking to shift dollars from support to force structure and operations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. Are the respective services 

making the necessary investments to meet the 2017 auditing mandate? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Each of the military departments’ service and defense agencies’ components have identified their milestones to 

achieve the 2017 goal of the clean audit opinion. Those are captured in the financial audit improvement report. 
12 

Financial Improvement Audit Readiness, the FIAR plan, is the 

document where each of the milestones for each of the components 

are articulated, marching toward the 2017 goal. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think it was the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Conaway, who brought it to our attention about the lack of auditing within the Department and the panel’s role of putting together 

the second initiative that we passed and is now pending in the Senate. 

How did this ever happen that the Department and its sub-departments were not subject to auditing, Ms. McGrath? 

Ms. MCGRATH. I am not sure that we were given a pass from 

audit. I think the responsibility for—our fiduciary responsibility 

and our stewardship of taxpayer dollars certainly is a responsibility 

identified and acknowledged across the Department. 

I think the challenge in actually delivering an auditable financial 

statement has many factors to it. Some of it is human capitalbased. Other is the fact that our financial systems today—our financial plus our other functional feeder systems are not interoperable, which poses a huge challenge for us. 

And then that it must be a Department-wide function to actually 

achieve auditability. It cannot be viewed as just a comptroller responsibility, given that most of the information comes from other 

functional areas. 

So I think there is a recognition within the Department that we 

understand what we need to do from a departmental perspective, 

that we do have a plan in place with goals and milestones. We 

have appropriate governance that reaches horizontally and 

vertically in the Department. And without those, we would not be 

able to achieve that, and I believe we are positioned to do that 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I alluded to on my opening statement, I remain particularly 

concerned about the steps the Department of Defense is having to 

take to manage its finances in lieu of passage of the 2010 wartime 

supplemental appropriation. Secretary Gates has told us that, if we 

don’t have it enacted by July 4th, stupid things would begin to happen. 

I would like to ask each of the witnesses to address the following: 

what specific steps are you having to take now to avoid running 

out of money? Please describe the overall risk and the impacts 

these steps will have to ongoing operations, routine business, the 

military and civilian workforce, training, other important parts of 

the responsibilities that you have. 

And when specifically will each of your Departments run out of 

money? When will you be unable to provide cash flow? What are 

the additional consequences of your Departments, and the Defense 

Department as a whole, should Congress fail to pass a clean supplemental before the August recess, which starts after next week? 

Please? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. For the Army, the consequences are pretty 

significant. I think the Secretary is right. This is very, very important that, before you leave in recess, we have the supplemental approved. 
13 

We have been fronting some of the resources from our O&M [operation and maintenance] accounts to ensure that all operational 

requirements are kept fully funded, and we continue to do that. We 

expect some reprogramming. We have prepared in anticipation of 

this some potentially reprogramming requests. We hope that they 

are not going to have to be exercised and the supplemental will be 

passed. 

To your question specifically, you know, we will run out of money 

about the middle of August for some of these functions in our O&M 

accounts. And so, we will have to begin to take steps to ensure that 

we, first of all, continue to support fully all the operational requirements. 

I don’t think we are going to have any issues with that, but we 

will have to make some decisions in terms of our O&M functions, 

particularly CONUS [continental United States], that may have 

some impact. And that depends on how quickly you can get back 

and pass a supplemental after that. 

And if we get those reprogramming requests done, that may help 

us to weather that storm through the period of time during recess. 

Secretary WORK. Sir, from the Department of Navy perspective, 

failure to pass a supplemental before the recess would really essentially hamstring the Department’s operations for the remainder of 

this year and significantly disrupt operations within the Department. 

Our analysis is the same as Secretary Westphal’s, that we would 

run out of money for civilians probably around the middle of August and have to start furloughing civilians in large numbers. We 

think we would run out of money to pay active duty members some 

time in the mid-September to late-September timeframe, and that 

is not even accounting for all of the movements in the O&M programs that would have to occur to make sure that we would continue wartime operations. 

From our perspective, then, it would be a very great burden on 

the Department, and the Department of Defense as a whole, and 

would really significantly prevent us from pursuing the job of the 

Department and the nation. 

Secretary CONATON. Mr. McKeon, for the Air Force, it is a very 

similar situation as to what my other two colleagues mentioned. 

Certainly encourage, as quickly as possible, the passage of the supplemental. 

In terms of specific dates, the Air Force runs out of O&M, Operations and Maintenance, funding to do the whole range of operational activities at the end of August, and then has military personnel accounts running out by the third week in September. 

Like my colleagues, we are very hopeful that you all will be able 

to send something to the President prior to the August recess, but 

we are starting to think about what would have to be done in the 

event that that didn’t occur, which would include things like furloughs. We may be able to do some temporary additional reprogramming, but that wouldn’t buy very much time. So, very consistent with what my colleagues have said. 

Mr. MCKEON. I think it was about 2 months ago that we had 

General McChrystal here, and I asked him the same question, and 
14 

he said, if it went into the summer, it would cause problems. But 

he had been assured it would pass before the Memorial Day break. 

Now we missed that. We missed the Fourth of July break. If it 

were passed today, does that money immediately flow, or how soon 

before that money reaches you? If it were passed today by the 

House and today by the Senate, how long would it take for that 

money to actually get into your accounts? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. It would be very quick, and it would be a 

seamless process. We wouldn’t have these effects that we all outlined today. 

Mr. MCKEON. You have already taken some steps, though. 

Secretary WESTPHAL. We have. In the Army, we have moved 

monies from our base into some of our operations to support those 

missions to keep them moving, in theater in particular. So we have 

addressed that issue internally. And we do that always with the 

permission of the Congress. 

Mr. MCKEON. So are you saying that, if we passed it today, you 

would have the money in your accounts next Monday? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. That technicality I don’t really understand, 

but—— 

Mr. MCKEON. Does anyone here understand that? 

Ms. MCGRATH. I think we all have an appreciation for the process, but the specific date, how many days specifically it takes to get 

from passage into the accounts I certainly would be—probably take 

that for the record to find out how many days that would be. 

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

page 94.] 

Ms. MCGRATH. But I think the message is that we believe that, 

if it was passed today, would be in sufficient time such that other 

activities would not have to be executed as the Under Secretaries 

have articulated. 

Mr. MCKEON. Could you get that back to us—— 

Ms. MCGRATH. Yes. 

Mr. MCKEON [continuing]. As quickly as you can? Today I would 

like to know, if it is possible, because my concern is that, among 

some people in the House, there isn’t quite the sense of urgency. 

I have been given different timeframes that, even if we passed 

it today, it would take some time, and I would like to know that. 

Obviously we are not going to pass it today, and we are not going 

to be in session tomorrow, so it will be some time next week at the 

soonest. 

And I for one think that if it is not done, we shouldn’t leave town 

until it is done. So I am hopeful that we will get it done as soon 

as possible next week so that you don’t have to take some of these 

steps. 

I am concerned that some things that are happening—I know we 

are not going to leave the troops in harm’s way without ammunition and without food and without the things that they need to 

carry out their mission, but I am concerned about training or some 

of the other ongoing activities that take place for the troops that 

will be going over there next. And I am very concerned about getting that money there. 

Yes? 
15 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Well, just to add to what you were just saying, for example, in the Army, one of the ways we support, of 

course, or the way we support our ongoing missions is through 

what we call a generating force, which is exactly what you mentioned, it is training and readiness of our Army forces here to go 

forward. 

And of course, all the infrastructure that we have in the Department is to support those missions, in any case. And there are rules, 

personnel rules. As Secretary Conaton mentioned, if there are furloughs, there are rules about advanced notice to employees and 

things of that nature that we have to take into account. 

And we are either passed or dangerously close to those deadlines. 

I am not sure what they are. We will get you that information, as 

well. But all of that causes us a great deal of concern, as you have 

heard from all of us. 

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

page 94.] 

Mr. MCKEON. That is a concern I have. Then, after the supplemental is done, then we get to the point of talking about the defense appropriation bill, the year ends September 30th. It looks to 

me like we are not going to have an appropriation bill passed by 

September 30th, which means then we get to a CR [continuing resolution], hopefully, so that we don’t shut down the government on 

September 30th. 

So if we get a CR, that also is disruptive with ongoing operations, is it not? 

Secretary WORK. Well, sir, we have all lived with continuing resolutions before, so it does cause us to do choices in business that 

we otherwise wouldn’t have to. 

But if the supplemental is not passed, we would be in an emergency situation. I mean, we have already talked about this within 

the Department, where all of the Unders and all of the Secretaries, 

we would all have to get together to try to work our way through 

it. 

So the continuing resolution is something the Department is 

used to handling, and we are able to handle it much better than 

if the supplemental isn’t passed. We would consider that an emergency. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of 

our guests, but particularly Secretary Conaton for joining us today. 

Secretary Westphal, I received a really disturbing e-mail from a 

Mississippi National Guardsman on his second deployment. It is 

from his dad, who is a Vietnam combat veteran, and it mentions 

the lack of ammunition, but, equally importantly, the lack of rollers, that this unit is doing a mine-clearing mission in Afghanistan. 

They do have the MRAPs [mine resistant ambush protected vehicle]. But, unlike when he served in Iraq and had a roller in front 

of that MRAP, he doesn’t have it in Afghanistan. 

Now, and this really is to this point, that I appreciate that you 

are trying to save dollars where you can. But there is an inconsistency here that I don’t understand. 
16 

We apparently have excess rollers in Iraq now because of the 

drawdown. We have the Air Force telling us that they do not need 

additional C–17s, but I am told we can’t get the rollers to Afghanistan because of a lack of airlift. 

Now, either you have enough C–17s to get them there, or you 

don’t. And if you don’t have enough to get them there, obviously 

you don’t have enough C–17s. 

So I certainly hope this isn’t a case where we are trying to save 

a couple of pennies and will unnecessarily lose American lives or 

limbs. And I would very much encourage you to look into this, because it is a matter of life and death. 

Secondly, if you could comment to it, I remember, as we were losing our bases in Panama, going to visit that country on several occasions, our bases there, and seeing—having started off in local 

government and state government and realizing that their budget 

is always tight—seeing a heck of a lot of things there we should 

have brought home—fire trucks, bulldozers, trackhoes [tracked excavator], backhoes—that state surplus agencies would have loved 

to have had. And encouraging a lot of people in the Army then to 

bring those things home, only to be told, well, the shipping costs 

don’t make it worthwhile, and being particularly angry when ‘‘60 

Minutes,’’ or someone like them, ran a special showing that those 

bulldozers, in some instances, ended up in Havana instead of some 

down in Mississippi or some other state. 

I visited Balad just before Christmas last year, and the colonel 

there told me about—that he had an amnesty for people to turn in 

equipment. And on the amnesty day, he had a 2-mile line of equipment that people had turned in that was not on the books, that 

had been paid for by the American taxpayer, that some clever unit 

commander had figured out a way to get it there because he felt 

like his unit needed it. And I commend those clever unit commanders for getting the things they needed. 

What I don’t see is an equally clever effort to get those things 

home. Just this week in the Transportation Committee, most of the 

carriers that have brought the equipment to Iraq testified before 

the committee that they are bringing some of that equipment out. 

Most of the carriers—no, all of the carriers testified that their 

ships are leaving Kuwait anywhere at 40 to 60 percent of capacity, 

which means that those ships are leaving Kuwait with either anywhere from 40 to 60 percent excess capacity to be bringing these 

things home. 

Given that, you know, money is tight, that the taxpayers paid for 

these things, what are you doing to incentivize unit commanders 

to bring these things home, even if they don’t need it, that some 

other governmental entity may need it, or that a state or local government may need it? Because, again, we got burned when we left 

Panama. We got burned when we left Roosevelt Roads. How many 

times does the Department of Defense have to keep making the 

same mistakes? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Well, actually, the two issues you raised, 

you know, specific points like that have been made by other members and by our own folks. I believe it was in late July that I was 

going to go to theater, go to Kuwait and then Iraq, and look specifi-
17 

cally at the drawdown and at the movement of equipment both 

back to CONUS and into Afghanistan. 

Now decided to do that in September to wait till after we are 

supposed to be down to the 50,000 level. I discussed this with General Odierno and General Webster, the ARCENT [United States 

Army Central] commander. I have asked the Vice Chief of Staff, 

Pete Chiarelli, to go with me because we are doing a whole bunch 

of work together, the Vice and I, on the management, on the acquisition side, and on the contracting side. So we are going to team 

up to go there and take a hard look at all these things—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Westphal, before the chairman gavels us, could 

you find the time to stop by and see me on those two items? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. I will do that. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Bartlett? Who is next? 

Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for taking time to be here with us today. 

The title of this hearing, the chairman correctly said, was managing a budget in a time of tight budgets. 

And Secretary Work, one of the things that I think every one of 

you would agree with is the key to that is consistency, which probably has at least two components. One is a careful selection of our 

priorities initially, and the second thing is the ability that we have 

to predict circumstances that could or would change those priorities 

down the road. 

Now, we have a number of different major opportunities to both 

set those priorities and look at circumstances that could change 

them. One of the big ones is BRAC [base closure and realignment 

commission], where we just bring everybody together and we say, 

‘‘What are our priorities,’’ and we look at that. The other one, of 

course, is the QDR [quadrennial defense review]. 

And I am particularly concerned, because in the last BRAC we 

had this huge laydown we had looking at priorities and where we 

were, in BRAC of 2005, and also in the QDR of 2006. There wasn’t 

a blip on the screen about homeporting a carrier in Mayport, Florida. 

My good friend from Mississippi mentioned saving a couple of 

pennies. This isn’t a couple of pennies. This is almost a billion dollars. 

Can you tell me today, what were—and I know the priorities 

haven’t changed because I have a memorandum from the President 

on June 10th where he says, for decades, the federal government 

has managed more real estate than necessary to effectively support 

its programs and missions, and he says we need to take immediate 

steps to better use the remaining real estate assets that we have. 

Can you tell me what were the circumstances that changed between BRAC 2005 and the QDR in 2006 and the QDR in 2010 

which would lead the Navy to want to homeport a carrier in 

Mayport in the QDR in 2010 when it didn’t raise that at all in 

BRAC 2005 or 2006? And then, why was it that we didn’t have the 

capabilities of predicting that change in BRAC in 2005 and the 

QDR in 2006? 
18 

Secretary WORK. Well, thank you, sir. 

As you know, this has been an issue that the Department of the 

Navy has been examining for quite some time. Essentially, we believe in efficiencies. We believe in establishing priorities, and we 

also believe in using our real estate wisely. 

As you know, Mayport has long been a carrier port. 

Mr. FORBES. Yes. And Mr. Work, again, just because I have got 

a limited amount of time, I want you to have all the time you need, 

but I just want the change in circumstances between BRAC 2005, 

the QDR in 2006, and the QDR in 2010. 

Secretary WORK. All right, sir. 

BRAC 2005 really was focused on closing properties, and in this 

instance, we are maintaining the property at Mayport, the base, 

which is going to house a lot of our surface combatants, and we 

want to make it a carrier home port for a nuclear carrier. 

So the movement from BRAC to the QDR, which looked at the 

strategic rationale on doing that—— 

Mr. FORBES. But didn’t you have that same strategic rationale in 

the QDR in 2006? 

Secretary WORK. Sir, I would have to go back and see exactly 

what the 2006—— 

Mr. FORBES. Is there a difference in rationale we have on any 

QDR? Don’t—we always looking at the same basic criteria in our 

QDRs? 

Secretary WORK. Yes and no, sir. We have the basic priorities 

set, but we look at our posture, both in the United States and globally—— 

Mr. FORBES. Can you do this for me? Would you just get back 

to me in writing on the exact changes that happened between 

BRAC 2005, the QDR in 2006, and that QDR in 2010 and why we 

couldn’t have predicted those and raised them in the BRAC 2005 

and 2006? 

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

page 95.] 

Mr. FORBES. And I have got one other question that you can either answer now and get back to me. Chairman asked, ‘‘Will the 

Department comply with the law?’’ 

Can you give us a comfort level that we will have the law complied with when, a year ago, we had in the statute a requirement 

for a shipbuilding plan and an aviation plan that be sent to us by 

the Department? Not only was the statute not complied with, but 

when we had a congressional inquiry that was unanimously agreed 

upon by this committee, there was not even an explanation of why 

that wasn’t complied with. 

How do we have comfort that you are going to comply with the 

law down the road if we didn’t get a compliance with that statute? 

Secretary WORK. Well, sir, I know I can speak with Secretary 

Mabus. Both he and I will comply with every law that we can. We 

also respond to guidance from the Secretary of Defense. And in the 

case of last year, the Secretary of Defense, I think quite rightfully 

said, because of the difficulties we were having in shipbuilding, 

that we would move that up and have the Deputy Secretary sign 

it out. 
19 

Mr. FORBES. My time is up. The only thing I would say is, I hope 

that we don’t come back on the audits and say that, because of the 

difficulties we have in complying with the audits, we are not going 

to do them. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Just wanted to make an introductory comment. I appreciate the 

leadership of both Mr. Skelton and Mr. McKeon on the issue of the 

supplemental. I guess our most junior member here is Mr. Critz, 

but from the most senior to the most junior member, we agree with 

you. We need to get this supplemental passed sooner rather than 

later. And I think your candor this morning helps that. 

I am always struck by these kinds of hearings in which the goal 

is to help American taxpayers save hundreds of billions of dollars. 

It always strikes me like a junior high sex education class. It 

should be really exciting, but it turns out it is not. 

But Secretary Conaton, I think I will direct my questions to you 

since we have Little Rock Air Force Base in my district. Help me 

understand—and I have read through the statements and all, and 

we can get bogged down in kind of the jargon of business transformation, those kinds of things. But let me give you a couple examples and just how you put them in the context of what you are 

trying to do. 

We have a military construction project that is about finished at 

the Little Rock Air Force Base. It is outside the perimeter. It is an 

education center where Arkansas State University offers classes, 

and some of the institutions that offer classes around the country 

offer classes there for both military personnel and civilian personnel from the community. 

Several years ago, the city of Jacksonville passed a millage on themselves, raised $5 million to donate to the military to help in 

the construction of the facility. But the only way we were able to 

get that done was to do it as an earmark in the defense bill because it was like the Air Force wasn’t agile enough to figure out 

a way to accept $5 million of local dollars. So my question is, why 

don’t we have that kind of agility? 

Another issue is on the—and this is where Congress gets involved. Have we given you the kind of flexibility you need in the 

terms of the retirement of old planes? I think we are doing okay 

with E model C–130s. I am not so sure we are doing so well with 

C–5s and some of the others. 

And finally, any kind of update you can give on the aviation modernization program with regard to C–130s. But use those examples 

and explain how that fits into what you all are trying to do. 

Secretary CONATON. Thank you, Dr. Snyder. I am not familiar 

with the specifics in this instance with Little Rock, but let me 

speak more generally to agility. 

I guess where I would start is—and I knew this going into the 

job, but it is remarkable how large these organizations are and how 

diffuse responsibilities are. But to that end, I think, as we have 

started to think about Secretary Gates’s mandate on efficiencies, 
20 

one of the things we have done, and I suspect my colleagues have 

done something similar, is to engage not only our major command 

commanders, so folks who are not in Washington, who are out in 

command and with responsibility for our numbered air forces, to 

get their perspective and to get their views of how we can do things 

better. 

Because I think there is often a Washington perspective, and 

those who are elsewhere in the country and who have a more operational day-to-day focus we have to take those views on. So from 

my perspective, increasing agility is one piece of the larger perspective that we have got on doing our work better and, in the process, 

freeing up resources that can be put toward modernization and 

force structure. 

On the issue of retirement of aircraft, certainly appreciate the 

support of the Congress in trying to ensure that, whether it is C– 

130s or whether it is our larger strategic airlift aircraft, that we 

can get the most modern planes to our units. And in many cases, 

that involves trying to retire some of the oldest fleets on the book 

to put savings into our more modern aircraft. 

I think on the C–130 side that we are in good shape in terms 

of authorization. I know there is some language in this committee’s 

bill that deal with some of the specific issues around National 

Guard C–130s, and we will certainly work with the committee on 

that. 

I think, as we go into next year, we may need to be in dialogue 

with this committee about the Title 10 restrictions on the size of 

the strategic airlift force structure dealing with C–5 and C–17 modernization. But I think that is an issue for 2012, and we would be 

happy to work with you all on that. 

Dr. SNYDER. I was on a live media show this morning back home, 

and they called us to ask about this hearing today. And one of the 

questions was, ‘‘What kind of message does this send to troops in 

the field that we are trying to,’’ in their words, ‘‘cut defense budget?’’ My own view is—well, I will direct that to you, Secretary 

Work. How do you respond to that question? 

Secretary WORK. Sir, I have been the victim of many a cut drill, 

just a budget cut drill, and this is fundamentally different. We are 

trying to find efficiencies to actually help the marine and the soldier in the field, and to help the airmen and the sailors. 

The guidance has been very clear. Secretary Gates has said we 

get to keep the money. And therefore, I think there is widespread 

enthusiasm to go after these types of efficiencies to help our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. 

So I think I can speak for my colleagues, because we meet so 

often, as Secretary Westphal and Secretary Conaton said. We do 

not in any way think this is a cut drill, and we think this is going 

to directly benefit our young service men and women. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. Welcome, or welcome back. I am 

getting nostalgic here for a minute in perhaps an unpleasant way, 

and I was thinking of Dr. Snyder’s comments and question about 

agility. 
21 

And if I go back to 1988 when I had hair and was much younger 

and was still in uniform, I reported to Marine headquarters and 

found out that there was a discussion going on in the acquisition 

world in the Marine Corps, the famous ACMC [Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps] committee, about how we were 

going to buy computers. 

And while they were trying to decide how to buy computers, 

there were marines in the Marine headquarters in every base 

across the nation who were going out and using O&M funds and 

buying computers and operating systems and software however 

they saw fit. And then those got old, and they bought new ones 

with O&M while the ACMC committee was still trying to figure out 

how to buy computers. 

Now, that was over 20 years ago. New marines have signed up, 

gone on active duty, served 20 years, retired, and I hear from Secretary McGrath that it is taken 81 months, 7 years to bring on IT 

systems. 

I am just a little depressed, but it does tell me that we still don’t 

have the agility that Dr. Snyder was talking about. And it seems 

to me that you Chief Management Officers have got to figure out 

how to get agile for the services and for the Department. 

And I don’t have a question because I simply wouldn’t have 

enough time for you to try to answer—well you can’t answer, but 

please, let us look at the agility. 

I do have a question, and it is connected to another nostalgic 

kind of flashback, this time going back to post-Vietnam when we 

ran out of money. Department ran out of money. Services ran out 

of money, and we parked them. I was flying helicopters, except we 

couldn’t fly them. We put them on the flight line. We couldn’t even 

go out and turn them. We certainly couldn’t fly them because we 

were out of flight hour program. We were out of O&M, or O&MN 

[Operation and Maintenance, Navy]. We couldn’t fly. 

And today if that were to happen, if we don’t have the supplemental that Mr. McKeon was talking about, would prevent us from 

training if you have to park or anchor or dock the ships, and if you 

have to park the planes. And I find that pretty scary. 

But what I find terrifying, and I want to just make sure I understood this, is I thought I heard each of you, or at least two of you 

say that your O&M accounts were being affected. You were shifting 

O&M money, and that tells me that we might be in that situation 

where, once again, we have to park them. 

But what I found truly shocking was that I thought I heard you 

say that you were going to not be able to pay in the manpower accounts the men and women that we are asking to sail and fly and 

drive and fight, aren’t even going to get paid. And if that were so, 

how do you make a distinction—because one of our assumptions 

has been, ‘‘Well, the troops in theater are going to have what they 

need, and we will let the troops at home and their families suffer 

to make sure that those that are in harm’s way have everything 

they need.’’ 

But it sounds to me like we might not even be able to pay those 

troops in harm’s way unless you somehow split the manpower account and say, ‘‘Well, we are going to pay those soldiers in Afghanistan but we are not going to pay the soldiers at Ft. Campbell.’’ 
22 

So my question is, are we really looking at not paying not only 

civilians, which is horrifying enough, but not paying the men and 

women in uniform that are flying, sailing, fighting? And I guess I 

don’t know if it is Department-wide or varies by service, so please 

give us an answer. Are they going to get paid or not? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. They will get paid. I will speak for the 

Army. 

What we are concerned about is many of our civilian workforce 

in some of these O&M accounts. That is our chief concern. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. So for the Army, the soldiers get paid, but civilians may be furloughed and not paid. 

Secretary Work, what about the Navy? 

Secretary WORK. Sir, as you have said, we have sometimes dealt 

with having to shift O&M monies at the end of a fiscal year. But 

quite frankly, the Department was expecting the supplemental to 

be before the Fourth of July. There was really no serious thinking 

that it would go beyond the summer recess. 

And so our analysis, which isn’t complete, as I said, we would 

shift into an emergency mode if the supplemental was not passed. 

As Secretary Westphal said, the first thing that would happen is 

we would have to probably furlough civilians without pay. And in 

mid-to-late September, there is a chance that we would run out of 

money to pay active duty personnel. 

Mr. KLINE. The sailors in uniform would not get paid. 

Secretary WORK. There is—— 

Mr. KLINE. Secretary Conaton, how about the Air Force? 

Secretary CONATON. Mr. Kline, it is very similar to what Secretary Work said. If we still did not have money the third week of 

September, that is when the military manpower accounts would be 

affected. 

Mr. KLINE. So the pilot, the bomber, the attack pilot in Afghanistan would be asked to fly those missions and would not be paid. 

Secretary CONATON. If we go beyond the third week in September. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Chairman, these are all the reasons why I am 

confident the supplemental will be quickly enacted. 

I am well aware of the fact that there is a broad consensus in 

the United States that we want to have every dollar necessary to 

defend our country. There is an understanding that there are 

asymmetric threats and different qualitative threats than we faced 

in 1998. 

But here is the way—and this is not meant to be a rhetorical 

question—here is the way many of our constituents would ask the 

question about management and budget in the Department of Defense. 

If you exclude spending for foreign operations, if you exclude 

supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan as special needs and go 

back to the base defense budget, the base defense budget in the fiscal year in which we are presently living is 47 percent higher than 

it was in 1998. Again, that counts none of the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental. 
23 

Our end strength is eight-tenths of 1 percent higher. The number 

of ships we have is 15 percent lower than it was in 1998. The number of planes we have is 11 percent fewer than 1998. 

And I do not mean this to be combative or rhetorical, but the logical question a taxpayer would ask is this: If we are spending nearly 50 percent more than we did exclusive of special operations overseas, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have essentially the same number of people in uniform, we have 15 percent fewer ships and 11 

percent fewer planes, why does it cost 50 percent more? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Well, you are absolutely right. You know, 

I left the Pentagon in 2001 where the Army budget was about 70— 

the base budget was about 76, $78 billion. That base budget has 

more than doubled. 

So there has been a lot of growth. There has been growth in 

structure. There has been growth in personnel. There has been 

growth in a whole host of activities that we weren’t engaged on to 

the extent that we are engaged in now, in the intelligence community, for example. 

And it is exactly, I think, this growth that Secretary Gates wants 

to get to. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I, frankly, asked my question because I am very 

sympathetic to Secretary Gates’ premise, which is that there is an 

important distinction between our ability to vigorously defend our 

country and the overhead costs associated with that vigorous ability. 

I think the job for this committee, for the Department, for the 

public, is where to draw that line. And I want to caution us against 

using superficial ways to draw that line. 

Mr. Conaway and I were just discussing before the hearing, it 

might be tempting to say, ‘‘Well, we have more accountants than 

we did in 1998.’’ We may or may not, but just say, hypothetically, 

we do. So, therefore, that is overhead that we don’t need. 

Well, if those accountants are helping to better manage, get better quality out of technology programs, that is a superficial and inaccurate measure. So I raise my question to really make this point. 

I think the Secretary’s premise is exactly right. I think that we 

have too much in the way of logistical support to execute our mission. I don’t think we have too much mission. I don’t think we overspend on the mission. I think we should be vigorous in pursuing 

it in every respect. 

But a hard question the Department has to ask, the Congress 

has to ask, the country has to answer, is how do we focus on this 

logistical overhead and do a better job. I mean, I think that the 

rhetorical answer to the question I just asked is that we have had 

excessive growth in the overhead categories in these 12 years. And 

whether it is the way we buy technology or the way that we provide housing or the way that we move goods and services around 

the world, we have to do a better job at assessing what that is. 

Anybody else care to comment on that? 

Ms. MCGRATH. So I would actually like to agree, the statements 

that you just made. The Defense Department is a corporation. I 

think the construct of the Chief Management Officer and having us 

look across the Defense Department as a business enterprise is different from—see, each of the military departments looks—and this 
24 

is true for every component—tends to naturally look very locally to 

solve an immediate problem. I think the example of the computer 

solutions, right, that, you know, everybody buys locally. 

I think the construct of a Chief Management Officer really forces 

the Department to look corporately at what we do, how we do it, 

is it tied to the strategy, the overarching mission of the Department, and really analyze the execution piece. And I think that is 

one of the most powerful things that the Chief Management Officer 

legislation has enabled us to do, and I think we are taking full advantage of that. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TAYLOR [presiding]. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Franks, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here. 

Ms. McGrath, my first question has to do with the PowerPoint 

presentation that accompanied the Under Secretary of Defense, 

Ashton Carter’s memorandum. You are probably familiar with it. 

It was titled, ‘‘Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending.’’ 

And I thought it was pretty interesting. I actually agree with a 

lot of it. He used ‘‘leveraging real competition’’ as his first initiative 

for greater efficiency, and I certainly think that makes all the 

sense in the world. And it was to support a continuous competitive 

environment. 

You probably know where I am going here. Given that language 

and the fact that the F–35 is the largest weapons system acquisition program in the Department of Defense, how can the Administration, with a straight face, support the termination of the F–35 

alternate engine, given that that is just clearly providing a continuous competitive environment consistent with the debate in Under 

Secretary Carter’s memorandum? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, I would like to say that I agree with Secretary Carter’s approach to trying to achieve better, I will call it, 

holistic acquisition. And there are a lot of different attributes you 

can use to achieve that, one being competition. 

I am not familiar with all of the specifics on the issue that you 

raise, and I will be happy to come back to you with any specific 

answers that I can. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, let me do this. Let me let anyone else on the 

panel have a shot at that question. This is, again, the largest defense-related acquisitions for the Department. 

And this is clearly one of those things where we are underscoring 

a continuous competitive environment, which is mandated. It is not 

suggested, it is mandated in Mr. Carter, or Under Secretary 

Carter’s memorandum. And how do we synchronize those two 

things? How do we make them fit together? 

And Mr. Westphal or anyone else that would like to take a shot 

at it? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Well, luckily for me, I don’t have to deal 

with that on the Army side. But I will tell you this: we face that 

similar issue across all our portfolios for our weapons systems. 
25 

And what the Vice Chief and I—Vice Chief of Staff for the Army 

have done, at the direction of Secretary McHugh, is to stand up a 

holistic review to validate all our requirements across all portfolios 

of our systems. We need to go back and say, ‘‘Do we need this 

today?’’ 

We may have needed it 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 3 years ago, 

but are we using it? Is it of value? Are we spending more money? 

Do we have duplication and redundancy in those systems? 

So we have taken the approach that, in order to manage this better—and this gets to a lot of the questions you are posing—that we 

have to go back to the requirements piece. We have to validate 

those requirements across a series of portfolios of systems that we 

have and ensure that that makes sense today. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I am sure it doesn’t shock any of you that this 

Republican is talking about competition, but I—go ahead. 

Secretary CONATON. Mr. Franks, I will jump in. And as both the 

Air Force and the Navy and Marine Corps are involved in the Joint 

Strike Fighter program, I will let Secretary Work jump in as needed. 

I think what you say about competition across the board is very 

important. I think where Secretary Gates and the two service Secretaries came down on the question of the alternate engine was a 

judgment call and a balance, looking at the cost of the program in 

the near-term, the benefit that may accrue over time, and the benefits of competition. 

As you know, some former programs, fighter programs, have had 

an alternate engine. Some have not. And I think in the judgment 

of the Secretary of Defense, the up-front cost over the next couple 

years of completing that program did not, on balance—was not outweighed by the benefits on the other side. 

And definitely understand the committee has strong feelings on 

this subject. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

I am going to try to squeeze one more in, Mr. Chairman. In the 

last 2 years, many of the programs, particularly many missile defense programs that I believe are actually vital to our national security, have been cut substantially, or even zeroed out. And many 

of our technological programs require time to realize those successes. 

Even though the technology shows great promise and has demonstrated its knowledge points—for instance, the airborne laser I 

think is a good example—what are the services doing to make sure 

that we don’t incentivize the termination of programs that could ultimately prove vital to our national security? And I am going to 

throw that out to anyone, as well. 

Secretary WORK. Well, sir, from the Department of the Navy’s 

perspective, the way this works is, within the Department, we have 

a very structured way to go about the different requirements: a 

deputy advisory working group, which reports to the Secretary, 

who holds small and large groups with all the combatant commanders, and that is where the requirements are really set. 

As far as ballistic missile defense goes, we think it is actually a 

very good news story. I will let Secretary Westphal speak to 
26 

THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] and PAC–3 [Patriot Advanced Capability–3 Missile]. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Franks? You actually expired. What I am going 

to ask is that each of the witnesses submit that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 94.] 

Mr. FRANKS. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Marshall, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questioning has to do with the F–35 alternate engine, as 

well. And since it is pretty clear that nobody here is prepared to 

testify too much on that subject, I am just going to make some observations. 

I think most on the committee agree that this is not a close call. 

This is an exercise of very poor judgment by the Secretary and the 

two service Secretaries. It is such poor judgment that we can’t even 

figure out really where it is coming from. It is arguably defensible, 

but here we are going to spend $110 billion over a 20- to 30-year 

period of time, and we are essentially saying we are going to solesource that contract. 

We will buy thousands of these engines. This is not a small buy. 

It is not for a brief period of time. And the idea behind the competition is that it is ongoing. 

Now, Secretary Gates has recently said that he believes—his notion of competition is ‘‘winner takes all.’’ I think he needs to have 

a little bit broader notion of competition with regard to these longterm projects like this one. We want competition throughout the 

duration of the project. 

I talked to a retired Navy commander, marine, flew fighter jets, 

and he described the problems that they were having with the F– 

16 when there was only one engine, and then the benefits that they 

experienced once there was a competing engine. 

I don’t know that this is actually how it was structured, but he 

believes that the way the competition was structured—and it was 

annual competition here for better performance, better reliability, 

better responsiveness—every single year, the two competing companies were vying with one another to see who was going to get 

60 percent of the buy in the following year. 

And it went back and forth, back and forth between the two companies, the effect of which, at least according to this retired commander, was a remarkable improvement in the number of F–16s 

that could actually fly, their performance, their reliability, et 

cetera. GAO, looking at the F–16, if I recall correctly, it was either 

21 percent or 34 percent savings over the life of the program as a 

result of competition. 

The Pentagon’s own figures acknowledge that the short-term 

costs that you described the Pentagon as not being interested in incurring right now—because we have got tough budget, you know, 

nobody disputes that at the moment—those short-term costs will be 

repaid, almost certainly, and it doesn’t take into account the likelihood that there will be huge savings as a result of the competition 

that I described that went on where the F–16 is concerned. 
27 

So I don’t have a parochial interest in this at all. You know, 

when I first started getting involved in this, I didn’t know who was 

building the engines. But we make a huge mistake by sole-sourcing 

a 20- or 30-year, $110 billion program. 

And I hope that that message gets back to the two Secretaries 

and the Secretary of Defense, all of whom I respect enormously. I 

think they are doing a great job for the country. But their judgment is really flawed on this one, and I don’t know where it comes 

from. It is so off-base. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Chair thanks the gentleman for yielding back. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Witnesses, thank you for being here this morning. 

I don’t discount for 1 second the difficulty in achieving 

auditability or business management systems transformation, all 

those things. It is spectacularly complex issue across all your agencies. In a 2-hour hearing, you just simply cannot do justice to that. 

But I am concerned that, given the revolving door that is your 

jobs, that 6 years from now we will have someone sitting in Ms. 

McGrath’s position talking about yes, the Deputy Chief Management Officer system is working, it is working fine, auditability and 

business management systems transfer, those words roll off your 

tongue very well, business enterprise architecture, enterprise transition plans, enterprise resource planning, Business Transformation Agency. 

All of that sounds wonderful, and to the uninitiated, it sounds 

like we are making progress. But I believe it creates fog. And we 

hide in the fog the lack of progress that we are making. There is 

a long litany of FIARs [Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plans] or Financial Improvement—whatever that thing is— 

from 1990 to today. And each time we have a change in leadership, 

we have a new plan, and we don’t execute the plan fully to the 

end—— 

So it is not really a question, but it is an observation that this 

is hard, and I recognize how hard it is, but it is important, as well. 

It is no different in the business arena in which a pointy end of 

the sword in business doesn’t like the back office guys, and there 

is always that tension between resources and, you know, the mission and those things. 

But we can’t, I don’t believe, do the mission properly for the taxpayer of this country without being able to tell them that we spend 

all this money correctly. We may spend every nickel perfectly, but 

we can’t prove it to anybody. 

GAO has a litany of high-risk arena areas that the DOD has 

never had one come off their list. It just gets longer. And so all of 

us on this side are committed to doing what it takes to get you the 

resources and have you keep those resources as you go forward. 

I am concerned that, as this efficiency model that Secretary 

Gates has talked about, if you looked at that chart, and it looks to 

me like it is an across-the-board cut. Everybody gets $28 billion, 

and you figure out where it comes from even though your indi-
28 

vidual budgets may be different, your individual needs in the next 

10 years may be different. 

And it doesn’t appear to be, at least on the surface, rational as 

to how we came to the goal, the $101 billion, over that timeframe, 

which I think is about 3-plus percent of total spending within the 

Department over the next 5 years. 

But I worry that you will inordinately punish or take advantage 

of the resources that ought to be used to attain auditability, and 

these management systems transfer because those don’t have a lot 

of champions in the system, but spending money somewhere else 

in O&M do have champions in the system. Long statement, 3 

minute, 4 minutes’ worth. 

Can you talk a little bit about cross-pollinization between particularly the three service branches? Because each of you has an 

auditability goal, and I am hoping that the Marine Corps is still 

on track to get their goal accomplished. 

The goal of that first audit is laudable and is important, but the 

better goal is auditability over—going forward. We can all make 

Herculean efforts one time to get something done, but if you can’t 

replicate that because the systems didn’t get developed along the 

way, then we really haven’t achieved much beyond just that—pat 

ourselves on the back for that first audit. 

So do you have some sort of a cross-pollinization system among 

yourselves? Because you are going to be doing the same back office 

functions across your three Departments. 

Ms. MCGRATH. So if I could just make a couple of comments, and 

then to the extent my counterparts want to add, the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, Under Secretary Hale, hosts or convenes a FIAR, Financial Improvement Audit Readiness, governance 

board where we all participate. We are all members of the governance board. And in fact, I co-chair with him because we are taking 

a look across the defense enterprise, not just in the financial space, 

understanding the systemic changes we need to make to ensure 

auditability. 

So it isn’t—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, let me ask you this. You get to that point, 

and you have got to make a decision. The Army wants one system, 

the Navy-Marine Corps wants a system, the Air Force wants a— 

who makes the hard call to say, ‘‘This is the system that we are 

going to go to, we are going to go common across all three,’’ and 

force it on them? Is there a system? Is anybody in the Department 

of Defense have that authority to do that? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The common piece are the standards. So if each 

of the military departments today in the services are pursuing different financial solutions that, at the end of the day, will enable 

auditability across the enterprise because we are using a common 

set of standards. It is the standards that will drive the auditability. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Well, thank you for what you are doing. 

I know it is hard, but it is important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. 

Gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
29 

Your first question, Mr. Chairman, regarding the commissioning 

coming up a week from Saturday, the USS Missouri, again focused 

on a successful program in the Navy, which again I think, just to 

reiterate the point that you made, this ship, this submarine, was 

built with 10 million man-hours. The first in its class from the Virginia class, the USS Virginia, was built with 14 million man-hours, 

in other words, a 4-million man-hour reduction. 

The first submarine was built. It took 87 months. This one will 

take 60 months. And as we go into the next block of submarines 

that are in the block 3 contract, which the Navy executed in December of 2008, we are shooting for 55 months in terms of the construction. 

And what I would say is that we are not cutting corners. In fact, 

I think the capability of the Missouri surpasses the first in its class 

so that—obviously, you know, we have got a program where we 

have figured out a way to do it more efficiently, in fact improve 

quality. And it was done because we innovated in the yard, because 

we created a culture of cost containment and cost savings. And it 

really, I think, is a model, which particularly in a shipbuilding account that is going to be stressed over the next 10 years or so, that 

I think we all should really pay heed to. 

And again, I think Mr. Andrews and Mr. Conaway’s reform bills, 

the acquisition reform bills which, again, are about trying to statutorily create a system where design and research is done up front 

rather than on top of production, which is where I think we got 

into trouble with the LCS program. 

And I guess, you know, Mr. Work, I mean, we have spent a lot 

of time this year already talking about the SSBN, which clearly, 

looking out on the horizon, is going to put a lot of stress on the 

shipbuilding budget. And I guess my question to you is, is the Navy 

prepared to look at lessons learned from the Virginia program, the 

success which we clearly are seeing in real savings and quality, 

and applying it to that program? Which again is going to be a challenge for this committee for many years to come. 

Secretary WORK. Yes, sir, we are. The Virginia is actually the 

model we are using on the SSBN–X. It is very important. Secretary 

Mabus himself is following the development of the requirements for 

that boat extremely carefully and is working directly with the Chief 

of Naval Operations and Secretary Stackley, our Assistant Secretary of the Navy for RDA, research, development and acquisition, 

to really get those requirements right so we don’t overprice the 

boat. 

We understand the requirement to put the R&D [research and 

development] in and getting our engineering drawings to a high degree of fidelity before we start construction. That is exactly our 

plan. We hope to be ready for the first boat in fiscal year 2019. So 

we are using the Virginia as the model for that program. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. And I think, you know, some of the 

questions which have taken place this morning about not sacrificing our defense needs in the mission of trying to create efficiency, I mean, this clearly, I think, is the ultimate challenge, because the need for an Ohio replacement has been articulated in the 

QDR, the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the nuclear posture review. 
30 

So, I mean, obviously the need is there, and your budget shows 

a commitment to satisfy that need. But clearly, we have got to use 

every tool possible to try and create the efficiency so that we get 

that cost down to a manageable level. And I would certainly encourage you to keep going down that path. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, members of the panel. Thank you for joining us 

today, and thank you so much for your service. 

Secretary Work, I want to go to you, and I want to expand upon 

Secretary Gates’ efficiency initiative that he announced on May 8th 

at the Eisenhower Library. 

It seems like to me under that—and I want to get your assessment of that—it seems like to me that, under that efficiency initiative, that that is going to require an objective analysis of all decisionmaking surrounding expenditures. Am I correct in assuming 

that that is what will happen out of this process? 

Secretary WORK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. So under that, would you say that it is safe 

to assume, then, that there are going to be significant differences 

or changes in how Departments make decisions on expenditures? 

Secretary WORK. I am not so certain it would be different, sir, 

in that Secretary Mabus has set up a procedure to get decisions to 

his level, the Commandant’s level and the CNO’s level so that 

those three leaders make decisions that are right for their Department. So I don’t think that the efficiency drill will change that, but 

it will just really tighten down when we look at every single decision on the final calculations we make. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So you would say, then, that we would be applying 

a pretty strict model of objective decisionmaking within deciding on 

the expenditures? 

Secretary WORK. I believe that is Secretary Mabus’s intent in 

every decision. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay, very good. 

Let me go back a little bit, then, and go to some testimony before 

this committee of both the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. When asked about decisionmaking with the home-porting there in Mayport, when the CNO 

was asked, ‘‘Tell us about the objective analysis that was done, the 

risk assessment that was done behind that decisionmaking,’’ the 

CNO said specifically hadn’t been done. This was a seat-of-thepants judgment they were going to make about strategic dispersal. 

Asked the same question of Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen 

said the same thing, hasn’t been an objective analysis done. This 

is a decision that we are making based on our best judgment, or 

again, seat-of-the-pants decisionmaking. 

I go back to a quote by Secretary Gates. Secretary Gates said 

specifically, ‘‘We need to decide dispassionately about these sorts of 

efforts.’’ 

Within that realm, do you believe, then, that the decision about 

home-porting a carrier in Mayport should require an objective analysis before that decision is complete, since none has been done, 

since there hasn’t been a risk analysis? Do you believe that, under 
31 

this efficiency initiative, then, that we need to go back and do an 

objective decisionmaking, or go through an objective decisionmaking process on this homeporting decision? 

Secretary WORK. Sir, I don’t believe we do. There is a balance between strategic requirements as well as efficiencies. In this case, 

the Department—and as affirmed by the QDR—that the strategic 

rationale for the homeporting decision is a good one. 

And this reminds me somewhat—before the DDG–1000 

[Zumwalt-class destroyer] program was truncated, the Department 

of the Navy wanted to single up into one yard for efficiency’s sake, 

and we made the case that we would save about $300 million per 

boat, or per ship. And it was the Congress that intervened and 

said, ‘‘Look, you cannot take the risk of singling up into a single 

yard because what would happen if that yard was hit by a catastrophic event?’’ And the wisdom of the Congress was proven a 

year later in Katrina, when the yard down on the Gulf Coast was 

knocked out for a while. 

There was no objective risk analysis would give you a number on 

why you would do that. It is a strategic judgment of leadership 

that we basically say this is a good call and would trump a mere 

efficiency argument. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well then, where would the line be drawn between when you make a strategic decision without objective analysis and when you make an objective analysis, which in this case 

you can easily quantify the risks that you are trying to mitigate? 

So can you let me know where that line is? Is that a line that, 

through this efficiency initiative, that we are just going to kind of 

meander with? 

Secretary WORK. No, sir. I think the process is, on a quadrennial 

basis, do that in the Quadrennial Defense Review, so we actually 

teed that up. At the request of the committee, teed that up to the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that our strategic judgment was 

sound, and they actually supported us. 

So every 4 years we have that, and then every year we have a 

means by which to bring up strategic concerns to the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary. And it is, in my view, a very effective 

way. I have been quite pleased over the last year to see it in action. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I would like to get a copy, too, of the response to 

Congressman Forbes’ question about how those scenarios then 

changed. Obviously there must be some quantifiable change that is 

there between the QDR, the BRAC, and then the 2010 QDR. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

We have two votes. We will return as quickly as we can and resume the inquiry. And so, please have patience with us. We shall 

return. We are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. The hearing will resume. 

Mr. Nye, gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. NYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Work, I had the pleasure of attending recently a breakfast where you were the guest speaker, and you laid out and described for us the challenges that you are facing right now in terms 

of Secretary Gates’ charge to look carefully at all your spending ac-
32 

counts and find ways to save some money, particularly looking in 

the overhead arena. 

And I offered to provide some ideas for ways that I thought we 

could do that, and that is part of our ongoing communication with 

you and Secretary Mabus. 

But I wanted to note, you were describing what Secretary Gates 

said in May, essentially said military spending on things large and 

small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. And I think 

that is a reasonable statement, given the fiscal environment that 

we are in right now. 

In fact, Secretary Mabus recently said, quoting him, ‘‘The expected level of resources over the near- to mid-term will not sustain 

every program and every program objective, warranting a willingness to consider trade-offs in even our most deeply held priorities. 

And there are no sacred cows. Everything is on the table.’’ 

Do you agree with Secretary Mabus in that assessment? 

Secretary WORK. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. NYE. Okay. What I wanted to ask was, given that constrained environment, and given the new charge that you have 

been provided by Secretary Gates, even subsequent to the QDR 

being released, and considering the fact that the proposed redundant nuclear carrier homeport in Mayport carries a price tag of approaching a billion dollars estimated, that four equivalent facilities 

exist in the country, including another one on the East Coast, and 

that, theoretically at least, those funds could be used for other priorities that are on our list, getting the 313 ships, fixing all of our 

maintenance backlogs at the facilities and of the ships that we 

have in the fleet, strike fighter shortfall, all those things that are 

on that list, including every other priority? 

What I wanted to ask is, would you agree that those are the 

kinds of trade-offs that you have to consider? 

Secretary WORK. Yes, sir. In fact, we are in the process of considering them for this budget submission, which I think you know is 

due up to OSD on the 30th of July. 

As we looked at Mayport, really it is we believe the costs are far 

closer to about $589 million instead of 6 billion, and it is really 

stretched out over a long period of time. Between fiscal year 2011 

and fiscal year 2015, it is a grand total of $239 million. 

So this is a cost that we believe is very manageable and does not 

in any way, shape or form take away from any of the other higher 

priority goals in the Department. We actually think it fits well 

within the guidance we have been given on the QDR, and don’t believe it will, in any way, shape or form, cause a problem in any of 

the other things you mentioned. 

Mr. NYE. Well, we can agree or disagree on cost, and oftentimes 

we do. And this committee has actually ask for, in this year’s 

NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], some further studies 

into what all might be on the table that would lead to a good estimation of what that cost might be at the end of the day. 

But I think the bottom line of what I am getting at here is, we 

know there is a cost involved, and it is significant. We know that 

we are in a very tight resource-constrained environment and that 

we have got to make some tough choices and some tough trade-offs. 
33 

And that is the charge that you are left with. That is the charge 

that I am left with in terms of representing a district, but also taxpayer dollars and trying to ensure the folks that fund us that we 

are using that money as efficiently and appropriately as possible 

when making some of those tough trade-offs. 

I just want to note that recently Northrop Grumman announced 

that it is closing its Avondale shipyard due to excess infrastructure. 

In fact, they noted that, since the Cold War, the size of our fleet 

has shrunk significantly, and they just can’t afford to keep open an 

extra facility. 

I know there are a lot of folks who would like to see that facility 

remain open. But again, that is a tough choice they had to make 

about facilities and what we are able to afford, going forward. 

I just say that to highlight the environment that we are in, and 

I have made no secret of my position on this issue. I strongly believe that whatever the final cost, whether it is a billion or something in that region, over time, we can use that money on things 

that are more urgent and more pressing for our Navy. 

So I just want to close by urging you again, in the strongest way 

I can, to, as you said, consider those possible trade-offs, you know, 

take a look at that project again. And going forward, carefully decide whether or not that is really the best possible use of our scarce 

Navy dollars. 

But I thank you all for your service. I understand what you have 

been asked to do is you have been asked to make some very tough, 

difficult choices. And we want to work with you in that process. 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Before I call on Mrs. Davis, Mr. Work, recently I asked the proposed price tag on a replacement vessel for the Ohio-class submarine. Has the Navy done any studies on whether a replacement, 

such as the Virginia-class submarine, can perform the same duties 

with obviously an alteration in the missiles and the ship somewhat? 

Secretary WORK. Yes, sir, we have. Secretary Mabus, when he 

came aboard last year, and I were first given the briefing on how 

much this boat could potentially cost, this became one of his focus 

items from day 1. 

For the last year, the AOA, the Analysis of Alternatives, for the 

submarines has occurred. The judgment is that, because we have 

elected to go with the D–5 missile, that using the Virginia is not 

the right way to go, that it is a much better and more efficient 

thing to exploit our existing infrastructure on a 42- or 43-foot diameter hull. 

Once that decision was made, Secretary Mabus has asked every 

single requirement, what is the basis for that requirement, and 

what is the thing that is driving the cost in the boat. I don’t have 

a final answer for you, Mr. Chairman, but this is at Secretary 

Mabus’s level, and I can assure you that we will have an affordable 

boat that we can afford in the 20s. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is interesting, based upon your testimony today, the missile is driving the boat. Have you asked engineers to redesign a missile that might fit on a Virginia-class submarine? This isn’t brain surgery. Have you done that? 
34 

Secretary WORK. Sir, I will have to come back and see if we have 

done an actual costing, but at the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

level, it really was can we afford to design a whole new missile 

mount, and the decision was to stick with the D–5 through about 

2040. And that will sustain our solid rocket motor base industry. 

It will take advantage of all of the investments that we have had 

up to this point. And we believe that is the most inexpensive and 

the right way to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we may be of some help to you on this, and 

help you with a decision, Mr. Work, because it appears the replacement of Ohio-class submarine is just phenomenal and might well 

eat into your attempt to reach the 313 ships that we want for the 

United States Navy. 

I think you ought to ask the engineers about a missile that might 

fit in a smaller submarine rather than the multi-billion dollars you 

might have to sink into a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine. We are talking about efficiencies. 

Secretary WORK. Sir, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you 

for being here and for staying, and a special welcome to Secretary 

Conaton. Good to have you here. Thank you. 

I understand that the Department and the individual services 

are looking very, very hard to cut whatever programs are possible, 

and clearly understood, and I think that we should be doing that. 

I also understand that we are looking for some efficiencies, and 

hopefully some of those might even go into quality of life programs 

for our military personnel and their families. 

But I am concerned that we may be cutting, or even eliminating, 

some programs that are extremely valuable, and I wanted to talk 

for just a moment about the My CAA [military spouse career advancement] program, the career accounts for our military spouses, 

career advancement accounts. 

That program has been wildly popular, as you know. And I wanted to ask, particularly Ms. McGrath, if you could help me understand better the process for weighing programs like that which, 

when compared to other programs, are relatively small dollar 

amounts, and yet we have many far larger ticket programs out 

there that gain a lot more attention. 

But this one in particular I think is important to many. So what 

is it that we are really specifically looking at here? It is been scaled 

back, and may, in fact, not have nearly the impact that it could 

have had with a relatively small—larger dollar amount. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Yes, ma’am. We have been talking this morning 

about obtaining efficiencies across the Department of Defense. We 

are looking at—and I think it is been mentioned by everybody 

here—we are looking at everything we do, how we do it, and are 

we optimizing our performance, the way we currently execute 

today. So major programs, organizational structures, are there better ways to execute. 

And then, when the decisions are made, it is through what I will 

call an analytical process where all of the submissions are brought 

together and every aspect is looked at, both from efficiency, effectiveness, quality of life, things like Wounded Warrior certainly 
35 

would be maintained. We are not looking to degrade, you know, 

quality of life, but I would say that we are looking at every aspect 

of what we do when these decisions are made. 

And so, it is not just about, you know, trying to save a dollar or 

move things exactly from, you know, support to infrastructure 

without the input of quality and quality of life for our 

servicemembers and their families. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Does the impact in the popularity, in many ways, of 

a program—I have had spouses tell me, of all the things they have 

been looking at over the years, all the programs that are offered, 

this one resonated more than anything else. And I would submit 

that I think it is worth a second look in that program. And I appreciate your response. 

We are going to nudge on that one, because it clearly can make 

a difference down the line. And I think by so narrowing the program and what has happened in the last directive, we are going to 

be missing out on a lot of the kinds of opportunities that many of 

our families might be entering into, which is going to turn around 

and help the services in the long run. And I don’t think this is the 

time to lose out on those opportunities. 

I also wanted to just raise one other issue, if I may, within the 

time that I have, and that is for you, Secretary Work. If you could 

just speak for a moment, because Admiral Roughead had said that 

predictable ship procurement allows the industry to stabilize its 

workforce and retain the critical skills necessary to national security. And Admiral Mullen also has noted earlier. 

And in light of that, when we look at the MLPs, the Mobile 

Landing Platforms, being spread out over a period of 5 years 

versus 3 years, which does not maximize the workforce, how do you 

look at those programs and try and make those decisions? Because 

I think we certainly have a strong example or two of where pushing up, you know, the opportunity to move within a 3-year period 

would make a huge difference in terms of maintaining the kind of 

people that we need to be involved in those programs. 

Secretary WORK. Yes, ma’am. Secretary Mabus is committed to 

maintaining 10 ships per year across the FYDP [future years defense program], 50 ships per year, and within the balance of the 

resources that we can put to new ship construction. And we have 

to make these choices every day. 

I mean, sometimes we do have to go to every other year procurement, but in this case we work directly with NASSCO, for example, 

to work out with them on how they could achieve favorable rates 

using existing legislation. And we will continue to work with the 

industrial base in every case to try to work through in the most 

efficient and effective way, given the limitation of resources and 

the priorities that we are trying to balance across the Department. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I know they are difficult questions and 

issues, but I think, in the long run, the taxpayer will be saving if 

we can figure out a better way to do that. 

And I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Nye, for my remaining time. 

Mr. NYE. I want to thank Mrs. Davis for her interest in the My 

CAA program and just follow up by saying I also think the program has provided some tremendous value to our military spouses. 
36 

And earlier this year, I was contacted by a number of spouses 

who complained that the program was changed without a lot of notification to them. And I want to urge you, in your review of this 

program, to please do as much outreach with the military spouses 

as possible to hear their views about it before you make changes. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Does any other member wish to ask a question? Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for staying around so long. You timed it 

very well. 

Ms. Conaton, I am extremely happy to see you here again in your 

current position, and I want to thank you for all the service you 

gave to us, both when you were in charge of the Minority council 

and then Majority council. I wish you best in this new endeavor, 

as well. 

I am also most familiar, I suppose, with the Air Force bases, and 

I realize that we have a lot of infrastructure needs in all the military, but especially the Air Force right now, and especially with the 

MILCON [military construction] processes we have. 

One of the idea this committee has long promoted for years is the 

concept of enhanced-use leasing, which tries to leverage private 

sector dollars along with military spending to try and utilize our 

under-utilized properties that may belong to the DOD for the benefit of both the private sector as well as for military spending. 

I know in my area, Falcon Hill project, which is extremely important, we are looking at maybe $500 million worth of revenue that 

can come to the Air Force over 30 years for needed infrastructure 

development. 

So I guess a couple of questions on that line. What is the Air 

Force position, going forward, about promoting and fostering enhanced use leases as a tool to help bridge the gap between the lack 

of MILCON resources and the need that is out there? 

Secretary CONATON. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and appreciate the 

opportunity to continue what has been a dialogue with you and 

other members of your delegation on this issue. 

I think enhanced-use leases [EUL] are a very important tool as 

we look at how to best invest our MILCON dollars. So I would 

agree with the premise of your question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does the Air Force have a process, or a system in 

place, to help review potential problems with EULs or to recommend to Congress any legislative fixes or authorities that may 

be needed to promote them? 

Secretary CONATON. Sir, I would like to get back to you, I think, 

with a more precise answer for the record about any additional 

needs that we might have there. I guess all I would say in a general sense is that I think the dialogue between these committees 

and the services in between individual delegations and the services 

is critically important on this. And I will get you a more detailed 

answer for the record. 

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

page 95.] 
37 

Mr. BISHOP. That would be fair, and I think also better for me, 

as well as the Department or the Air Force, in this case, with a 

more detailed answer later on to that question. 

I am making the assumption that you have not experienced any 

institutional resistance from the Department of Defense in fostering an EUL? 

Secretary CONATON. Sir, not that I am aware of. As you know, 

there are a number of enhanced use leases that are very complex 

and complicated in their specifics. And so, the Air Force staff has 

been working to talk through those issues that might be of concern 

to OSD, recognizing that some of these instances are more complicated than others. 

Mr. BISHOP. In every effort where we start something that is a 

little bit innovative, or new or different, there are sometimes institutional concerns or problems that probably can be easily worked 

out if our mindset is that we want this to be successful from the 

outset. 

And I think—I appreciate you saying very clearly that this is one 

of those vehicles that we can use to try and move forward into 

helping some of the infrastructure needs that we have, and I appreciate your positive answers. I look forward to the more complete 

answer. And I look forward to working with you in the future. 

Thank you. 

Secretary CONATON. I do as well, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Ms. McGrath, what progress has been made in addressing the 

items on the GAO’s latest high-risk list for the Department of Defense? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 

address the high-risk areas not as sort of an additional thought. 

That is our everyday thought. They are included in our strategic 

planning document for the business base, which is the strategic 

management plan. They are aligned within those four goals, so we 

take proactive measures to address them each day. 

Each one of the high-risk areas has a plan identified. It has appropriate governance in place. We utilize the Defense Business Systems Management Committee [DBSMC] to review each one of the 

high-risk areas. We meet with the Government Accountability Office frequently on each of the areas in addition to the Office of 

Management and Budget, to ensure that we are keeping our eye 

on the ball. 

We also have identified milestones and measures for each one of 

them, and we track performance quarterly through the DBSMC. So 

I would say I mentioned some specifics on the personnel clearance 

reform. We have made certainly a lot of progress there, the management attention, the plan, the proactive measures, all our tools 

we need to actually make progress on each one of those. And I believe that we are making progress in each one, and I am happy to 

talk about any of them in specific detail or just talk in sort of general terms about where we are with each one. But I am comfortable, and I can clearly state that we are making progress. 

The CHAIRMAN. To each of the Under Secretaries, let me ask 

this: each of you have an adopted, it appears, different manage-
38 

ment structures for business transformation—for instance, I note 

that Lieutenant General Durbin is here—and why are your approaches and staffing levels for this endeavor so very, very different? 

Mr. Westphal. 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, you are right, every service 

has different processes, although some of our processes are, of 

course, the same. 

In the case of the Army, prior to Secretary McHugh and I coming 

on board, the Army had instituted, under the previous Administration, an enterprise task force, an enterprise approach to management. We examined that closely, and with the mandate from Congress to establish an Office of Business Transformation, we made 

the decision to incorporate that management enterprise approach 

within the context of business transformation and apply it holistically across the Army. 

Now, that enterprise approach had a staff that had been created 

to help manage the process under the then Deputy Under Secretary of the Army. I took some of that staff and brought it into 

the—and to create and establish the Office of Business Transformation because they had already been engaged in business 

transformation activities. 

That helped me immensely to be able to then immediately take 

hold of the planning, programming, budget execution piece, which 

we sort of came in in the middle of and really manage the POM 

[program objective memorandum] process, the planning process, 

and establish what I call the Army Management Enterprise, which 

is basically the Secretariat, in lead, with the Army staff in support, 

to put forth what we call the Army Campaign Plan, which is essentially the direction that we at headquarters give to the Army holistically across the board. 

So it allows me to integrate planning, business transformation, 

the resourcing decisions to bring it to a level of integrated discussion among and across all sectors of the Army, led by the Assistant 

Secretaries with me and through to the Secretary of the Army to 

get decisions done. 

And then, in addition to that, we established something called 

the Army Enterprise Board, which is a four-star board, led by me 

but an advisory board to the Secretary of the Army, of all the fourstars, that is Secretariat and uniform, to basically become a forum 

for discussion of major issues that need to be resolved across the 

Army. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Work. 

Secretary WORK. Sir, the way I would answer this is I think 

there is great strength in the way the Department is handling this 

now. Each of the Unders come with a little bit of different background. Secretary Conaton comes from Congress. Secretary 

Westphal has been in the building before, and Ms. McGrath. 

The way it works now, sir, is that we establish common goals 

across the Department of Defense and the military departments. 

We each have to come up with our business transformation plan 

and our business enterprise architecture. But each of us come at 

it a different way, and I would argue, it is a strength. 
39 

We have meetings at the DBSMC, the Defense Business Systems 

Management Council, chaired by Secretary Lynn, in which we 

come in and say how we would approach a problem, and we have 

discussions on what are best practices. Ms. McGrath meets with 

the Unders quite often, and then the Unders meet themselves, 

along with our financial management and Comptrollers. 

And by setting it up the way we do, where we all have common 

goals and common plans, but we can approach the problem differently, we actually, I think, are better for it, and it makes for a 

very innovative approach to this where we all have a common goal, 

and that is to prepare the best and most efficient business operations for the Department. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Conaton. 

Secretary CONATON. I certainly agree with everything that Secretary Work just said. Just for a brief moment talk about the Air 

Force structure. 

Obviously, like my colleagues, serving as the Chief Management 

Officer, I have a very able Deputy Chief Management Officer, Mr. 

Tillotson, who also is dual-hatted as our director of the Office of 

Business Transformation. The choice in Air Force was to relatively 

leanly staff that office and rather to make use of expertise that exists throughout the functional secretariat and air staff, recognizing 

that transformation has got to occur in the actual activities of those 

parts of the Department rather than mandated from the outside. 

We also have representation, folks in different parts of the country at our major commands who have expertise in Lean Six Sigma 

approaches and have gone through the effort that the Air Force 

has, Air Force SMART Operations for the 21st century, what we 

call AFSO 21, which is our continuous process improvement, which 

will help drive transformation outside of the headquarters level, as 

well as in the headquarters itself. 

But I guess I would come back to things we have talked about, 

which is that leadership really matters in driving transformation. 

And so, the fact that these issues are brought to the Air Force 

Council, which is our governance process, has helped us keep a 

continuous leadership eye on where we need to go with mission and 

transformation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I believe Mr. Bishop has an additional question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I thought that was an important question. I appreciate your answers. Could we have, though, for the 

record if necessary, the staffing levels, the number that we have, 

from each of you on those particular areas? And if you would like 

to do that for the record so you can get the exact number correct, 

that would be okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Along with that, could you give a summary of the 

duties about the leaders? You don’t have to go all the way down 

to the bottom, but at least give a summary of the top few, please. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 93.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady, Ms. Carol Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. 
40 

And thank you all for being here. I wanted to pursue the supplemental and the impact that you believe that it would have. I know 

that we have seen a lot of votes for and against, both Republicans 

and Democrats voting for it and against it over a period of time. 

Has that caused any problems so far? And with the size of the 

budget, where exactly would you cut? I know that you had talked 

about pay, but what other options would there be if you didn’t receive the supplemental? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. I am not sure exactly—well, first of all, 

they would come mostly from our O&M accounts. So, depending up 

if the supplemental is not passed before the recess, we would then 

have to go into those accounts and look at what we can do. 

We have tried to anticipate the possibility that the supplemental 

wouldn’t be passed, and we have submitted, or have ready to submit—I can’t tell you which one of those two it is—some reprogramming to avert any major issues during August. But some time in 

August, we would be having to weigh in how we address a lack of 

funds in some of those accounts. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Any idea about what you would be 

looking at? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. We would be looking at the possibility of 

some furloughs in some of those O&M areas in the Army, and that 

would be across various departments and various agencies of the 

Army. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Has there been any problem to date 

with the fact that there have been, you know, inability to bring this 

all the way through? Have you experienced trouble? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. No. You know, I mean, we watch carefully. 

We monitor and we certainly have a lot of conversations with staff 

and members about—well, about the progress made, and we try to 

anticipate. And so we have been in an anticipatory mood, at least 

in the Army, and I think all of my colleagues would say the same 

thing in their service. 

But it is a very unpredictable process, and at the end of the day, 

we have to just wait until you make those decisions and accept 

whatever the consequences of those are. 

So we are reasonably hopeful that you will have a supplemental 

approved before you leave for recess. We hope that is the case and 

that we then will proceed to make sure that we account for those 

resources the way you want us to. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. 

Anybody else want to answer that? 

Secretary WORK. Well, as you know, ma’am, Secretary Gates sent 

a letter to Speaker Pelosi, as well as all of the chairmen, and basically said this is kind of an unprecedented situation. We haven’t 

been—we know that if the supplemental is not passed, that some 

of our base budget operating accounts would begin to deplete in 

August. 

And although we would keep exempt civilians on duty, as everyone has said, other civilians might have to be furloughed without 

pay. And of course, we would keep our men and women on active 

duty, but at some point in the latter part of September, we would 

run out of money to pay for those. 
41 

So this is quite an extraordinary circumstance. I can speak for 

the Department of the Navy for certain. This is not a circumstance 

that we would like to be faced with. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. Would you have to look at some of the 

contracts, or is that separate? I mean, would you reevaluate some 

of the contractor deals that we have made? 

Secretary CONATON. I think it would depend on what the contract is. To the extent that contracts are issued for work that comes 

out of the operations and maintenance accounts, I think it would 

be affected by the drawdown of those accounts in the middle part 

of August. 

And the only other thing I would add to what my colleagues have 

said on a more general level is the Secretary of Defense has told 

the services, and I think told other parts of the Department, really 

clearly that we should minimize the disruption to the programs 

and to our deployed men and women. 

And we are relying upon Congress, this institution, to provide 

that supplemental, and that we are going to keep moving on that 

path. Obviously we will plan, as we need to, for a worst-case scenario, but I think the direction he has given to the services is to 

trust that the Congress will provide. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I just wanted to make sure that the plan 

would be to protect the men and women who were in uniform. Either way, that is the mission that we all share, and you have reassured me that that will be the top priority. 

Thank you so much, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. 

If there are no further questions, we thank our panelists for your 

testimony, for being with us, for your expertise, and especially for 

your leadership. Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JULY 22, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 22, 2010 

(47) 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JULY 22, 2010 

(93) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SKELTON AND 

MR. BISHOP 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force Business Transformation Structure is comprised of the Office of Business Transformation, and the transformation organizations of the key Headquarters Air Force functional teams. This team comes together 

as the Enterprise Senior Working Group, under the leadership of the Director of 

Business Transformation, to make up the total transformation team. This approach, 

which was built to take advantage of the already existing functional transformation 

teams, allows the Business Transformation Office itself to remain small (a staff of 

41 (19 military and 22 civilian) government positions plus 81 full and part-time contractor personnel), while directing the efforts of a total transformation team of over 

370 personnel. Key positions within the Office of Business Transformation include: 

The Under Secretary of the Air Force serves as the Chief Management Officer 

(CMO). The CMO duties are outlined in Headquarters Air Force Mission Directive 

1–2. By Secretary of the Air Force guidance, the Under Secretary performs duties 

in accordance with Section 904, of the FY08 NDAA, as designated by the Secretary 

to have primary management responsibilities for business operations and to be 

known in the performance of such duties as the Chief Management Officer. This includes directing and overseeing activities of the Deputy Chief Management Office, 

and serving as the co-chair of the Air Force Council which advises the Secretary and 

Chief of Staff on resourcing decisions (and related business transformation initiatives) and efficiencies and related performance management. 

The Director of Business Transformation also serves as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO). The DCMO duties are also outlined in Headquarters Air 

Force Mission Directive 1–2. As directed by the Under Secretary, the DCMO serves 

the Under Secretary of the Air Force in exercising the assigned duties and authorities relating to the management of business operations for the Air Force. The 

DCMO exercises the Under Secretary’s CMO responsibilities for business operations 

by effectively and efficiently organizing the business operations of the Air Force and 

providing information related to Air Force Business Operations to the CMO and 

DCMO of the Department of Defense as is necessary to assist those officials in the 

performance of their duties. The DCMO also represents business transformation interests in the Air Force Corporate Structure by serving as the chair of the Air Force 

Board when discussing issues involving business practice and process-related topics. 

The Deputy Director, Office of Business Transformation coordinates and recommends strategic priorities and performance goals for logistics, personnel, training, 

acquisition, and finance activities Air Force-wide; establishes and deploys a business 

and data architecture to support those operations; synchronizes business process 

changes and system deployments in support of those operations and in compliance 

with the architecture; and synchronizes those business operations with other services and defense agencies to ensure end-to-end performance improvements across 

the Air Force and in support of DoD and joint forces. The Deputy Director provides 

guidance and direction on Air Force policies, plans, and programs related to all aspects of Business Transformation. He directly assists in transforming the budget, 

finance, accounting, and human resource operations of the Air Force in a manner 

consistent with the comprehensive business transformation plan. The Deputy Director also provides guidance and direction pertaining to the elimination or replacement of business systems inconsistent with the architecture and transition plan; 

and is directly responsible for the development of the comprehensive business transformation plan, with measurable performance goals and objectives. 

The Air Force Office of Business Transformation is further divided into two 

branches, each led by an Air Force Colonel (O–6) with the duties of Transformation 

Outreach and Enterprise Transformation. The Air Force Transformation structure 

explicitly includes synchronizing the activities of transformation teams across the 

Air Staff and Major Commands as part of the total effort, rather than creating 

redundancies in the Office of Business Transformation staff itself. These teams oversee the current business processes and systems Air Force-wide, as well as the implementation of new systems, processes, and training. 
94 

a. Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower, Personnel & Services (AF/A1). Focused on 

end-to-end improvement of the ‘‘hire to retire’’ human resource processes, the team 

consists of 50 personnel (9 military, 19 civilians, and 22 contractors). 

b. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller 

(SAF/FM). Focused on improving resource management processes, including establishment of a clean audit capability for the Air Force, the team consists of 107 personnel (28 civilians and 79 contractors). 

c. Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations & Mission Support (AF/A4/7). 

Focused on end-to-end supply chain and maintenance management, and on installation efficiencies, the team consists of 117 personnel (3 military, 56 civilians, and 58 

contractors). 

d. Major Command (MAJCOM) Master Process Owner teams. Focused on providing direct advice and support to MAJCOM commanders to support business 

transformation activities within each of the MAJCOMs, each team consists of 5–10 

personnel. [See page 39.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON 

Ms. MCGRATH. Once the President signs the bill, the Department will work with 

OMB and Treasury to begin flowing funds to the field for execution within a matter 

of Days. The Department needs final Congressional action on the supplemental 

prior to the August recess. While we will react quickly once the supplemental is 

signed into law, this does not change the fact that we cannot make it through the 

August recess without these supplemental funds. [See page 14.] 

Secretary WESTPHAL. Agencies may use furloughs when they no longer have the 

necessary funds to operate. For a furlough 30 days or less, the employee should 

have at least 30 days advance notice. The notice period begins upon the employee’s 

receiving the proposed action. 

A furlough of 30 days or more requires at least a 60 calendar day specific written 

notice of the furlough action; however, the Office of Personnel Management may approve notifications of 30 to 59 days. 

In the event of a lapse in appropriations, the Office of Personnel Management provides that while an employee must ultimately receive a written notice of a furlough 

decision, it is not required that such written notice be given prior to effecting the 

furlough. Issuing a written notice prior to the furlough is preferable, but when it 

is not feasible, then any reasonable notice (telephonic or oral) is permissible. [See 

page 15.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TAYLOR 

Ms. MCGRATH. It is critical that we make the most effective use of our limited 

resources. As the Department makes tough decisions about funding for specific programs, we must prioritize competing requirements and ensure our prioritized and 

validated requirements are satisfied in the most cost effective manner. When a program faces significant technology risk, affordability problems or excessive schedule 

slip, cancellation remains an important tool for the Secretary. It is important to 

note, however, that program cancellation does not necessarily constitute cancellation 

of a particular requirement. In many cases program cancellation allows the Department to take a fresh look at the requirement and determine the best approach to 

equip our warfighters. The Department’s rigorous requirements validation process, 

its Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System, and other high-level 

review and oversight mechanisms ensure these decisions are made in a thoughtful, 

reasoned manner. [See page 26.] 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The Army is conducting a deliberate and thorough portfolio 

review that encompasses our research and development, procurement, and 

sustainment accounts. We are holistically examining, validating, or modifying requirements, ensuring the Army is being a good steward of resources. As we conduct 

our portfolio reviews, we are validating the use and battlefield impacts of redundant 

and duplicative capabilities; performing a critical analysis of areas where manageable risks can be assumed to gain greater efficiencies. This review process not only 

looks at our current campaigns, but is also rigorously evaluating what capabilities 

we need for future warfighting and emerging threats. [See page 26.] 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force (AF) process to terminate a program ensures 

that those vital to national security are retained by calling for multiple layers of 

scrutiny by the Program Executive Officer, the Service Acquisition Executive, USD 

(AT&L), the sponsoring Major Command, the AF Corporate Process, the Secretary 
95 

and Chief of the Air Force, and Office of the Secretary of Defense, prior to recommending termination to Congress. [See page 26.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

Secretary WORK. The Department of Navy (DON) has been reporting to Congress 

on the development of plans to make Naval Station Mayport a potential homeport 

for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier since the late 1990s. As a result of the 2001 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the DON prepared an environmental impact 

statement to review and assess a broad range of options for homeporting additional 

surface ships at Naval Station Mayport. The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) process did not provide for operational homeporting decisions due to the 

near-simultaneous strategic analysis on-going in the 2006 QDR. However, the DON 

premised its 2005 BRAC configuration analysis on a minimum of two ports on each 

coast capable of cold iron berthing a nuclear-powered carrier to allow for dispersal. 

The 2006 QDR provided the strategic direction for the Navy’s 60/40 split of operationally available and sustainable aircraft carriers and submarines between Pacific 

and Atlantic homeports, but did not specify homeport locations. In January 2009, 

the DON issued a record of decision to homeport one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. Although the Department of Defense decided to 

delay the Mayport homeporting decision pending outcome of the 2010 QDR analysis, 

the final 2010 QDR fully supported the Navy’s 2009 decision to homeport one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport. [See page 18.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force does have a process in place to help review 

potential problems with potential Enhanced Use Leases (EULs). 

Prior to commercial solicitation of a potential EUL, the local installation, working 

with Headquarters Air Force seeks to identify and resolve any issues. Thorough upfront due diligence is being done on EUL concepts, in which market demand and 

possible Air Force EUL sites (supply) are evaluated for EUL viability. The objective 

is that all demand factors, development constraints (with appropriate options), and 

EUL benefits are identified and communicated, prior to taking a project to market. 

The Air Force has broadened our use of EULs beyond traditional real estate to renewable energy ventures. Additionally, any future EULs will be reviewed by the 

Strategic Basing Executive Steering Group to ensure maximum benefit to the Air 

Force and the taxpayer. 

If during the EUL review, the Air Force determines that a proposed EUL will require legislative relief, the Air Force submits a legislative proposal through the Department of Defense Legislative Review Process. [See page 36.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 22, 2010 

(99) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. Why has the Department (or the military 

departments) taken no meaningful steps to implement Section 803 and to improve 

its strategic sourcing decisions for contract services? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Due to the timing of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 National Defense 

Authorization Act and budget preparation cycle, the Department was unable to comply with the requirements of Section 803 for the FY 2011 budget submission. DoD 

is currently working to comply with Section 803 in a phased approach beginning 

with the FY 2012 budget submission. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Director of Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation are working closely together to develop and 

execute the Department’s approach for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data 

on contract services required by Section 803. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. How can the Department and the military 

departments exercise appropriate stewardship over its service contractor dollars 

(which have more than doubled, if not tripled, since 2000) if it does not make strategic sourcing decisions through the program and budget process? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Department utilizes the Planning, Programming, Budgeting 

and Execution (PPBE) process to make effective program and budget decisions. The 

PPBE process is a well established and robust oversight mechanism supplemented 

by the many efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics to bring greater transparency and efficiency to the acquisition of services. Phased implementation of Section 803, beginning with the Fiscal Year 2012 

budget submission, will help bring even greater clarity to these issues. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Given the Secretary of Defense’s May 8 speech on defense spending, 

what is each Department’s methodology regarding combining its functions and realigning or reducing resources to achieve efficiencies in overhead, support, and nonmission areas? In lieu of simply re-categorizing functions and funds in a shell game 

of sorts, what staff layers are being removed and what subordinate commands or 

middle echelons are being eliminated to reduce redundancies, overlap and overhead? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Consistent with the Secretary of Defense’s speech on May 8, 2010, 

each of the Defense Agencies, Military Departments and Combatant Commanders 

were provided savings and efficiency goals, but they have been allowed broad discretion on how to reach these goals as they prepare their programming and budget 

submissions for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The Secretary of Defense provided additional 

information, including specific savings initiatives such as the elimination of certain 

Components, in his speech on August 9, 2010. However, at this time, except for the 

specific initiatives identified in his speech, Components have developed their own 

methodology to specifically reduce redundancies, overlap and overhead. Additional 

decisions will be shared with Congress when the President submits the Department 

of Defense budget request for FY 2012. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. What 

are the causes for delays in the civilian authorization process and how can such 

delays be minimized? If this is a problem only for some components, why? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Defense Activities are funded, and positions filled, consistent with 

mission priorities, budget constraints and Congressional direction. This is consistent 

with 10 U.S.C. § 129, which states that ‘‘civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall be managed solely on the basis of and consistent with (1) the workload 

required to carry out the functions and activities of the department and (2) the 
100 

funds made available to the department for such fiscal year.’’ There are a number 

of reasons why Department of Defense (DoD) civilian manpower requirements may 

not be authorized for fill, including funding shortfalls and temporary impediments 

to acquiring DoD civilians such as an apparent lack of qualified candidates, insufficient office space, security clearance requirements, etc. If this is the case, the DoD 

Component may elect to contract for the service on a temporary basis and transition 

to DoD civilian performance once impediments have been satisfactorily addressed. 

These types of delays could be experienced by any DoD Component. Such delays 

could be minimized through enhanced strategic human capital planning, leading to 

better anticipation of overall needs. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. Is it 

the Department’s policy or the policy of the military departments to ‘‘lock’’ the personnel authorization levels until the next budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in 

workload that may occur, even if this results in either ‘‘over-hires’’ or hiring additional contractors to meet workload changes? What challenges does this present in 

terms of efficient management of its workforce, particularly with respect to the imperative to right-size the civilian workforce? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 129(a), Department of Defense (DoD) 

Components are required to manage their civilian workforce ‘‘solely on the basis of 

and consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the functions and activities of the department and (2) the funds made available to the department for such 

fiscal year.’’ It is not DoD policy for the Military Departments to ‘‘lock’’ their databases at the end of the budget process. Each Military Department has taken a different approach to managing their personnel authorization levels and striking a balance between workforce stability and changing workload or priorities to enable effective personnel management. In some cases ‘‘over-hires’’ or service contracts can be 

the best answer to emerging or short-term requirements. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. Why has the Department (or the military 

departments) taken no meaningful steps to implement Section 803 and to improve 

its strategic sourcing decisions for contract services? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The Army has taken preliminary steps to implement Section 

803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. We are reviewing all functions on the service contract inventory, which we are using to track service contract 

execution. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans is using the results 

of this analysis to project contractor full-time equivalents in our manpower documentation systems. These are the necessary precursors to Section 803 implementation, which is essential to ensuring the Secretary of Defense efficiencies actually 

happen as intended. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. How can the Department and the military 

departments exercise appropriate stewardship over its service contractor dollars 

(which have more than doubled, if not tripled, since 2000) if it does not make strategic sourcing decisions through the program and budget process? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The Army has taken preliminary steps to implement Section 

803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. We are reviewing all functions on the service contract inventory, which we are using to track service contract 

execution. The Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans is using 

the results of this analysis to project contractor full-time equivalents in our manpower documentation systems. These are the necessary precursors to Section 803 

implementation, which is essential to ensuring the Secretary of Defense efficiencies 

actually happen as intended. Full implementation of Section 803 will follow receipt 

of final guidance from OSD (Comptroller). 

Mr. ORTIZ. For purposes of the Defense Secretary’s overhead reductions, how do 

the Department and each military department define ‘‘overhead’’? Does it include all 

civilian employees, including those who work in depots, arsenals, and installations? 

Does it include contractors? If not, will reductions in overhead simply lead to more 

contracting out? Without Section 803 being implemented, how can contractors be 

considered for purposes of overhead reductions? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The Department defines overhead as the structures, personnel, and operations coded as infrastructure. The Army has analyzed its struc-
101 

ture, personnel, operations and regards as overhead those Generating Force resources that do not directly contribute to providing combat forces or services (e.g., 

headquarters, information systems). 

The Army considered all civilians based on functions performed and regards as 

overhead those civilians who do not directly contribute to providing combat forces 

or services. 

The Army agrees that implementation of National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2010 Section 803 is needed to ensure that overhead functions performed 

by in-house personnel are not simply outsourced to contractors. Section 803 implementation provides a level of detail that helps ensure planned contractor reductions 

take place as intended and do not grow in unexplained ways. The Army is using 

the contractor inventory review process required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Section 807 to identify in-sourcing mission-critical occupations in acquisition and security, among others, most of which are closely associated with inherently governmental functions. Projections from the Section 807 contractor inventory are a major component required for National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Section 803 implementation. Full implementation of 

Section 803 will follow receipt of final guidance from OSD (Comptroller). 

Mr. ORTIZ. Given the Secretary of Defense’s May 8 speech on defense spending, 

what is each Department’s methodology regarding combining its functions and realigning or reducing resources to achieve efficiencies in overhead, support, and nonmission areas? In lieu of simply re-categorizing functions and funds in a shell game 

of sorts, what staff layers are being removed and what subordinate commands or 

middle echelons are being eliminated to reduce redundancies, overlap and overhead? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The Army has been working for the past several years to 

rebalance our forces and to reform our business practices. We have initiated Capability Portfolio Reviews (CPR), with the initial focus on materiel portfolios, to garner 

efficiencies while simultaneously reducing redundancies. Having completed reviews 

of the materiel portfolios, we are now reviewing specific non-materiel areas, such 

as Workforce Composition, Training, Installations and Information Technology. As 

we complete these additional CPRs, we will gain a comprehensive and thorough picture of our Army’s requirements and priorities. These reviews will allow us to identify efficiencies and reinvest the savings in higher priority warfighting needs and 

modernization efforts that hedge against future threats. The results of these reviews 

will assist us in determining where to make reductions and how to apply those savings towards our forces and modernization programs. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. What 

are the causes for delays in the civilian authorization process and how can such 

delays be minimized? If this is a problem only for some components, why? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. It can take some time to execute the transition from contractor to civilian performance of a function. Once a candidate for in-sourcing is 

identified, mission and workload needs to be analyzed and the new civilian position 

must be classified. Civilian replacements for contractors can be hired in advance of 

an actual authorization being documented. 

However, in the Army, civilian authorizations are locked with each budget submission in a centralized documentation process to ensure dollars are linked to authorizations. We continue to evaluate options on how to address this issue. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. Is it 

the Department’s policy or the policy of the military departments to ‘‘lock’’ the personnel authorization levels until the next budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in 

workload that may occur, even if this results in either ‘‘over-hires’’ or hiring additional contractors to meet workload changes? What challenges does this present in 

terms of efficient management of its workforce, particularly with respect to the imperative to right-size the civilian workforce? 

Secretary WESTPHAL. In the Army, civilian authorizations are locked with each 

budget submission in a centralized documentation process to ensure dollars are 

linked to authorizations. Out of cycle adjustments to requirements (not authorizations) are allowed only in the year of execution. Civilian replacements for contractors can be hired in advance of an actual authorization being documented. This lag 

in documentation results in ‘‘over-hires’’ until the documentation is processed in the 

next budget cycle. Additionally, when new requirements are evaluated based on 

changes in workload and mission, civilian over-hires may result until the docu-
102 

mentation catches up, provided there is available funding. Challenges remain in 

managing the right mix of civilian positions when there is a change in requirements, mission or workload outside of the normal budget cycle. We continue to 

evaluate options on how to address this issue. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. Why has the Department (or the military 

departments) taken no meaningful steps to implement Section 803 and to improve 

its strategic sourcing decisions for contract services? 

Secretary WORK. The Department of the Navy (DON) continues to make strategic 

sourcing decisions throughout the DON to balance the Total Force while ensuring 

that critical ‘‘in-house’’ capabilities are performed by government personnel where 

necessary. The objective is to ensure the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and 

contractor support to perform its functions; rebuild internal capabilities to enhance 

control of the DON’s mission and operations; and reduce workforce costs as appropriate. The DON is also identifying opportunities to in-source functions that can be 

performed more cost effectively by government personnel. DON continues to work 

with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to implement Section 803 and improve 

strategic sourcing decision making. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. How can the Department and the military 

departments exercise appropriate stewardship over its service contractor dollars 

(which have more than doubled, if not tripled, since 2000) if it does not make strategic sourcing decisions through the program and budget process? 

Secretary WORK. Strategic sourcing decisions are being made throughout the Department of the Navy (DON) to balance the Total Force while ensuring that critical 

‘‘in-house’’ capabilities are performed by government personnel where necessary. 

The DON’s goal is to ensure the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contractor 

support to perform its functions; rebuild internal capabilities to enhance control of 

the DON’s mission and operations; and reduce workforce costs as appropriate. Operational risk will be reduced by in-sourcing functions that are closely associated with 

the performance of inherently governmental functions and critical to the readiness 

and workforce management needs of the DON. Additionally, the DON is looking for 

opportunities to in-source functions that can be performed more cost effectively by 

government personnel. 

Mr. ORTIZ. For purposes of the Defense Secretary’s overhead reductions, how do 

the Department and each military department define ‘‘overhead’’? Does it include all 

civilian employees, including those who work in depots, arsenals, and installations? 

Does it include contractors? If not, will reductions in overhead simply lead to more 

contracting out? Without Section 803 being implemented, how can contractors be 

considered for purposes of overhead reductions? 

Secretary WORK. The Department of the Navy is closely working with the Department of Defense staff to ensure all understand a common definition of ‘‘overhead’’ 

and what functions/employees should be included. This will be clearly articulated in 

our FY 2012 President’s Budget submission. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Given the Secretary of Defense’s May 8 speech on defense spending, 

what is each Department’s methodology regarding combining its functions and realigning or reducing resources to achieve efficiencies in overhead, support, and nonmission areas? In lieu of simply re-categorizing functions and funds in a shell game 

of sorts, what staff layers are being removed and what subordinate commands or 

middle echelons are being eliminated to reduce redundancies, overlap and overhead? 

Secretary WORK. The Department of the Navy is closely working with the Department of Defense staff to ensure we have properly combined/realigned functions and 

can achieve efficiencies. This will be clearly articulated in our FY 2012 President’s 

Budget submission. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. What 

are the causes for delays in the civilian authorization process and how can such 

delays be minimized? If this is a problem only for some components, why? 

Secretary WORK. There are a number of reasons why Department of Navy (DoN) 

civilian manpower requirements may not be authorized for fill, including funding 

shortfalls and temporary impediments to acquiring DoN civilians. DoN activities are 

funded, and positions filled, consistent with mission priorities, budget constraints, 
103 

and Congressional direction. This is consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 129, which states 

that the civilian personnel of the DoD shall be managed solely on the basis of and 

consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the function and (2) the funds 

made available to the department for that fiscal year. Delays in filling positions can 

occur for a variety of reasons such as the volume of staffing requests in the queue, 

the time it takes hiring managers to make selections, the lack of sufficient qualified 

candidates available, the level of security clearances required, and similar administrative impediments. These types of delays could be experienced by any of the DoN 

activities. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. Is it 

the Department’s policy or the policy of the military departments to ‘‘lock’’ the personnel authorization levels until the next budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in 

workload that may occur, even if this results in either ‘‘over-hires’’ or hiring additional contractors to meet workload changes? What challenges does this present in 

terms of efficient management of its workforce, particularly with respect to the imperative to right-size the civilian workforce? 

Secretary WORK. Consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 129(a), the DoN is required to manage the civilian workforce solely on the basis of and consistent with (1) the workload 

required to carry out the function for a fiscal year and (2) the funds made available 

to the department for that fiscal year. In addition, 10 U.S.C. 129(d) requires the Department of Defense to ensure that civilians are employed in the numbers necessary 

to carry out the functions within the budget activity for which the funds are provided for that fiscal year. Accordingly, DoN does not ‘‘lock’’ personnel databases at 

the end of the budget process. This flexibility is evidenced in our Departmental experience in the most recent fiscal year. The budget request for FY 2009 projected 

a full time equivalent level of 190K. For various reasons, local activities executed 

to a level of 197K for that year. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. Why has the Department (or the military 

departments) taken no meaningful steps to implement Section 803 and to improve 

its strategic sourcing decisions for contract services? 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force is working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comptroller to develop the appropriate mechanisms to meet 

the requirements of FY10 National Defense Authorization Act Section 803. We are 

complying with Title 10, Sec 2330a and developing an annual inventory of contracts 

for services that we will use as the baseline for our strategic sourcing decisions. Our 

Air Force functional managers and commanders in the field will use this to identify 

where we are using contract services. OSD has established directives, that when 

taken in concert with this inventory, will result in a proper mix of organic military, 

civilian, and contractor resources needed to complete our missions—within Congressional, OSD, and Air Force guidelines. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee believes compliance with Section 803 of the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act will provide the Congress with much greater clarity on procurement of contractor services. The failure 

to comply is a source of great concern. How can the Department and the military 

departments exercise appropriate stewardship over its service contractor dollars 

(which have more than doubled, if not tripled, since 2000) if it does not make strategic sourcing decisions through the program and budget process? 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force built its FY12 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) based on our current and projected service contract expenditures, 

taking into account the programmed in-sourcing conversions needed to complete our 

mission and comply with appropriate Congressional, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Air Force guidelines. The Air Force POM is built meeting the intent of Title 10 Section 235 and we will work with our counterparts in OSD to ensure that we comply with service contract reporting requirements as mandated for 

the President’s Budget submission. 

Mr. ORTIZ. For purposes of the Defense Secretary’s overhead reductions, how do 

the Department and each military department define ‘‘overhead’’? Does it include all 

civilian employees, including those who work in depots, arsenals, and installations? 

Does it include contractors? If not, will reductions in overhead simply lead to more 

contracting out? Without Section 803 being implemented, how can contractors be 

considered for purposes of overhead reductions? 
104 

Secretary CONATON. We use the term ‘‘overhead’’ to refer to those functions that 

are not directly involved in delivery of mission tasks. Maintenance specialists on the 

flight line or a contractor we have engaged to write software code for a system are 

clear examples of activities that are not ‘‘overhead.’’ Administrative specialists at 

major headquarters (e.g. administrative assistants to senior staff) and management 

support staffs within program offices are examples of ‘‘overhead.’’ In this discussion, 

overhead manpower includes military, government civilians, and contractor personnel, so the issue embraces consideration of the entire workforce. We look at total 

manpower and cost associated with the overhead work (military, civilian and contractor) to identify opportunities for efficiencies and to shift resources from overhead 

to direct support of Air Force core functions and work. We are looking to eliminate 

unnecessary or duplicative overhead activities that will allow us to realign the associated resources and personnel (whether government or contract) to readiness and 

force structure priorities. Finally, it is clear that some amount of overhead is necessary to allow the organization to operate; the question is how much is enough. 

The Air Force reviewed the full spectrum of operations, from base-level to headquarters functions, to identify efficiencies and reduce overhead costs. As indicated 

above, this includes total force support (military, civilian, and contractors). As part 

of the Air Force’s plan to meet the Secretary of Defense’s guidance on improving 

Department of Defense operations, the Air Force is identifying headquarters and 

manpower efficiency initiatives to right size organizational structures, optimize the 

civilian workforce, re-purpose military manpower for higher priority needs, and reduce contractor support where appropriate. 

Within our Air Force acquisition programs, we are reviewing contractor overhead 

(i.e., charges associated with weapon systems development other than direct labor 

on the project) to bring those costs to more reasonable levels. We are addressing 

these acquisition-system contract overhead charges in concert with the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and other Services, as well as addressing these charges in program-specific contract negotiations. 

Per our other reply on Section 803, we are working with the Office of Secretary 

of Defense Comptroller on the mechanisms for reporting contractor services. This reporting will help our efforts to baseline contract services and aid us in identifying 

contract services as part of our overall effort to identify efficiencies and reduce overhead costs. 

Our objective is to increase the buying power of our Air Force dollar. Better tracking of our expenditures and costs is a key element of making this effort successful. 

Mr. ORTIZ. Given the Secretary of Defense’s May 8 speech on defense spending, 

what is each Department’s methodology regarding combining its functions and realigning or reducing resources to achieve efficiencies in overhead, support, and nonmission areas? In lieu of simply re-categorizing functions and funds in a shell game 

of sorts, what staff layers are being removed and what subordinate commands or 

middle echelons are being eliminated to reduce redundancies, overlap and overhead? 

Secretary CONATON. We have looked across the Air Force to identify practices and 

mission areas that could and should be streamlined, to include installation support 

activities, general services, strategic sourcing and identification of redundant management at all levels of the organization. We are applying business process re-engineering approaches (such as lean and six sigma) to review these activities to ensure 

we correctly identify the areas to change. For any efficiency area, we are assigning 

a senior Air Force leader, by name, to direct the activity and be accountable for outcomes. We are setting in place audit functions to ensure that we track the movement of resources and personnel from the targeted efficiency areas to the areas of 

new investment: readiness and direct mission support. Progress on the efficiency 

work and the results of audit outcomes will be reviewed quarterly by the Vice Chief 

of Staff and me and we will be accountable to the Secretary and Chief of Staff for 

results. 

Accepting the Secretary of the Defense’s efficiency challenge, the Air Force examined its full spectrum of operations with the goal to preserve combat capability and 

full support to combatant commanders, joint operations and Airmen, while operating more efficiently. The Air Force has identified areas for improved performance 

at less cost. The areas we focused on are those infrastructure and management activities/costs that support Air Force core functions. The recommendations provided 

to the Department of Defense (DoD) are pre-decisional and have not yet been reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense based on the FY12 

Program Budget Review. The Air Force review has included areas covered in the 

public comments made by Secretary Gates in the submission provided to DoD such 

as reducing the number of General Officers and their supporting staffs as well as 

the number of Senior Executive Service (SES) positions. The Air Force looks forward 
105 

to discussing the specific recommendations once approved and submitted as part of 

the FY12 President’s Budget. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. What 

are the causes for delays in the civilian authorization process and how can such 

delays be minimized? If this is a problem only for some components, why? 

Secretary CONATON. When the Air Force determines that work currently being 

performed by contractors ‘‘should be performed by Air Force civilian employees’’ for 

an inherently governmental reason, the Air Force uses the flexibilities granted in 

the Authorization and Appropriation Acts to make corrections as quickly as possible. 

For larger actions that cannot be accommodated within the flexibilities granted in 

the Authorization and Appropriation Acts, the Air Force programs and budgets for 

the workforce change in the next Presidential Budget submission to Congress. The 

prime example of a large action requiring program and budget adjustments via the 

Presidential Budget submission was conversion of the Air Force Expeditionary Center training support contract at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst and Scott AFB 

when we moved from a contractor workforce to Air Force civilian employees based 

on Business Case Analysis showing the Air Force civilian workforce was more economical. Currently, once we are authorized a civilian position and we identify the 

vacancy, depending on the type of job and location it takes an average of 120 days 

or less to complete the hiring action. 

Mr. ORTIZ. The House Armed Services Committee understands that it can take 

as long as two years in some components between the initial identification of a function that should be performed by civilian employees and the documentation for the 

authorizations for the in-house personnel necessary to perform that function. Is it 

the Department’s policy or the policy of the military departments to ‘‘lock’’ the personnel authorization levels until the next budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in 

workload that may occur, even if this results in either ‘‘over-hires’’ or hiring additional contractors to meet workload changes? What challenges does this present in 

terms of efficient management of its workforce, particularly with respect to the imperative to right-size the civilian workforce? 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force does not lock the installation level manpower 

books. We maintain a dynamic manpower document that Commanders can propose 

changes to in real time consistent with available manpower resources in order to 

right size the force consistent with the dynamic mission environment. This allows 

a more effective and efficient use of the Manpower resource consistent with the 

flexibilities provided to the Air Force in the Authorization and Appropriation Acts. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Westphal, as you know in-sourcing has been a topic of interest 

for the Services, this committee, and our constituents back home. Giving credence 

to this concern of ours, we passed amendments to the FY11 NDAA requesting greater scrutiny of in-sourcing jobs within DoD. Do you believe that DoD has the proper 

system in place which ensures that DoD is not summarily replacing jobs based on 

arbitrary goals? Please explain. 

Secretary WESTPHAL. The FY11 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) language specifically requires the Department to comply with statutes regarding insourcing that were enacted since 2008 and that prohibit arbitrary budgetary quotas 

favoring or disfavoring in-sourcing. I believe that the Army has the proper system 

in place to ensure we are not summarily replacing jobs based on arbitrary goals. 

Within the Army, we have taken significant steps (via the Panel for Documenting 

Contractors) to implement the contractor inventory review process required by the 

FY08 NDAA Section 807. This review identifies appropriate functions to in-source, 

focusing on functions that might be inherently governmental or are unauthorized 

personal services. The Army has taken steps to implement the FY10 NDAA Section 

803 to ensure that initiatives to in-source, or increase or decrease contract services 

through the budget process, are appropriately justified. Our decisions are based on 

statutory criteria limiting contract work to bona fide commercial functions, and government performance to bona fide functions that are inherently governmental in nature. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Work, you mentioned in-sourcing in your statement and its importance in the need to promote efficiency and verify mission requirements. What 

methodology and/or standards is the Navy using to make its decisions on the jobs 

it decides to in-source? 
106 

Secretary WORK. The Department of Navy’s (DON) overarching approach for insourcing focuses on shaping the workforce to: 1) strengthen core workforce capabilities and create personnel and career pipelines; 2) improve contract technical requirements and oversight; and 3) balance our entry/journey/senior workforce. This 

calls for a careful analysis of the current capability of our total force along with immediate and future mission requirements. The DON in-sourcing initiative requires 

a review of existing contracted services in order to make appropriate, timely, and 

well-reasoned in-sourcing decisions. In-sourcing must not be approached from the 

standpoint of a one-for-one replacement of the functions currently performed by contractors. Rather, in-sourcing requires a thoughtful assessment of current and future 

mission requirements and the right workforce capabilities to carry out the mission. 

In-sourcing is a tool to shape our workforce. 

Mr. MILLER. Additionally, in your statement you stated ‘‘Our objective is to insource services, not the individuals performing the services.’’ This concerns me because it seems like an admission that part of the in-sourcing effort relates not to 

ensuring cost efficiency to the taxpayer, but rather an effort to grow the size of the 

Federal Government. Is this assessment of mine incorrect? If so, please explain why. 

Secretary WORK. The Department of the Navy (DON) is not in-sourcing for the 

sake of in-sourcing; nor are we in-sourcing to grow the size of the Federal Government. In-sourcing is being used to rebalance the Total Force and restore critical ‘‘inhouse’’ capabilities where necessary. The DON’s goal is to ensure the appropriate 

mix of military, civilian, and contractor support to perform its functions; rebuild internal capabilities to enhance control of the DON’s mission and operations; and reduce workforce costs as appropriate. Thus, we will reduce operational risk by insourcing functions that are closely associated with the performance of inherently 

governmental functions and critical to the readiness and workforce management 

needs of the DON. Additionally, the DON is looking for opportunities to in-source 

functions that can be performed more cost effectively by government personnel. 

Mr. MILLER. In 2009 SecDef Gates announced that 35,000 high skill workers 

would be hired over the next several years, half of which would come from insourcing currently contracted work. A recent Washington Post article (Soloway, 19 

July 2010) noted that about two-thirds of the positions identified to date for insourcing at DoD fall outside of the skills Secretary Gates identified. The article goes 

onto state that this well-intended initiative is ‘‘evolving into a quota-driven numbers 

game.’’ Is this true? If so, how much do we ensure that we are making legitimate 

cost saving in-sourcing decisions? If not, please explain. 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force views in-sourcing as an effective tool for determining the best workforce mix to accomplish our missions. In-sourcing guidance developed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

was issued on May 28, 2009. This guidance outlines a systematic, well-reasoned, 

and strategic approach to ensure in-sourcing decisions are analytically based and 

fiscally informed. If contract workload is found to be inherently governmental, experiencing contract administration problems, providing unauthorized personnel services, or otherwise exempt from contracting under Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1100.22, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix, the function must be 

in-sourced regardless of cost. If the function does not fit one of the above mentioned 

criteria, a cost analysis is required to determine the most cost effective means of 

performing the function. This cost analysis is conducted in accordance with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 09–007, 

issued January 29, 2010. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. McGrath, I noted in your testimony the longstanding goal and 

recent renewed emphasis on streamlining the departments acquisition processes relative to IT investments. I have also noted in your testimony and that of others testifying here today, there are a number of programs aimed at dramatically improving 

efficiencies, yet I remain very concerned that in our zeal to provide oversight, the 

line has been crossed and critical programs that might reduce wasteful inventory 

build ups or dramatically improve efficiencies are being substantially delayed. Specifically what can DoD do to enable these important programs to get fielded sooner 

so the Department can begin realizing these savings? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Department is working to improve the speed of developing 

and fielding IT systems through creation of alternative acquisition approaches for 

IT that include governance structures and oversight procedures appropriately tailored to the unique requirements of IT programs. The Deputy Secretary of Defense 

created an IT task force as part of the Department’s response to Section 804 of the 
107 

Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to address this issue. Given 

the unique nature of IT implementations, we anticipate the new IT acquisition process will differ significantly from the traditional weapons system acquisition process. 

As the IT task force concludes its work, existing laws may need to change to ensure 

success of the new process and we will work with Congress as necessary to ensure 

success. Within the Business Mission Area, a major initiative to rapidly deliver capability and integrate governance is the Business Capability Lifecycle (BCL). BCL 

is a framework tailored to rapidly deliver business IT capabilities within the Department, by consolidating oversight requirements (i.e., funding, requirements and acquisition oversight) into one structure while streamlining documentation requirements. 

Mr. TURNER. Secretary Conaton, you mentioned the role of ECSS in the AF’s 

transformation of its Information Technology and Business Processes in support of 

enterprise goals and outcomes of eLog 21. I support your overall strategy with regard to eLog 21, the transformation of end to end logistics and programs like ECSS 

as well, but I am very concerned about the AF and DoD’s ability to execute or field 

these systems. What are we doing, both at senior levels in the AF and DoD to field 

these systems as quickly as possible to begin realizing the savings goals outlined 

by Secretary Gates? 

Secretary CONATON. Our objective is to field these systems as quickly as possible 

to achieve the needed business benefits and savings. To meet this challenge we have 

undertaken a major restructuring of both the management oversight and structure 

of the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) program. Specifically, since 

June 2009, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force conducts quarterly reviews of this program. In my role as the Chief Management Officer I have taken on greater responsibility to provide more oversight in conjunction with the Chief Information Officer 

and the Service Acquisition Executive. This expanded oversight is intended to keep 

the program flowing, and to instill accountability in the acquisition and functional 

sponsors. To complement this expanded senior level oversight the Air Force also elevated the Program Manager to a General Officer and assigned a dedicated Program 

Executive Officer to ensure a truly streamlined acquisition oversight and reporting 

chain so that issues and roadblocks are raised sooner and dealt with quickly. 

At the program level we have done a number of things to reduce risk, accelerate 

the program, and improve the probability of success. We have restructured the program schedule and contracts to focus on implementing pilots which allow us to field 

them more quickly with less overall risk. Delivering smaller chunks of content more 

rapidly is consistent with best commercial practices. In fact this approach has already proven successful with the fielding in July 2010 of the first pilot at Hanscom 

AFB. We have also implemented improved program metrics, schedule tracking, risk 

management, and internal controls to better align and manage risk. These are consistent with the practices that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has been 

recommending to the Department of Defense (DoD). In addition, we have also increased both the overall size and the skills of the Air Force team managing the program. We have recruited personnel with commercial Enterprise Resources Planning 

experience to improve the competency of the team and conducted a number of independent expert reviews to ensure that we are not repeating the mistakes made on 

other programs both inside and outside the DoD. All of these and other changes 

have been put into place to ensure that we are moving forward as fast as prudently 

possible to field ECSS. All of these improvements will be discussed in more detail 

as we prepare and submit a Section 804 report to Congress later this year. 

Mr. TURNER. Secretary Conaton, you mentioned the role of ECSS in the AF’s 

transformation of its Information Technology and Business processes in support of 

enterprise goals and outcomes of eLog 21. Most believe this transformation is similar to the industry best practices of investment in a single Enterprise Resource 

Planning software. A single IT footprint and associated infrastructure is more cost 

effective and efficient rather than being victimized by outdated and disconnected 

legacy systems which have become expensive and unreliable. I agree with your testimony that the program will indeed aid the AF in reducing wasteful inventory build 

ups, and thus has the potential to save billions. Please describe the potential benefits of ECSS as a fulcrum for eLog 21 and discuss its other merits? 

Secretary CONATON. Once fully implemented, the Expeditionary Combat Support 

System (ECSS) will transform and standardize Air Force logistics and financial 

processes using commercial best practices. It will standardize business processes 

through an integrated software suite, new personnel roles and enterprise visibility 

of resources and assets. It will retire approximately 240 legacy data systems and 

will strengthen financial transparency/accountability. ECSS will provide 100 percent 

asset visibility and accountability by utilizing streamlined inventory management 

processes, prioritized maintenance processes, leveraging capacity and increasing 
108 

equipment availability. ECSS will simplify expeditionary force deployment and operations and radically improve warfighter supply chain support. 

By adopting an enterprise mentality, ECSS enables the Air Force to have greater 

effectiveness via improved supply chain planning and leveraging assets and capability across the total force. Greater visibility in the transportation pipeline will enable the Air Force to maintain 100 percent total asset visibility of supplies and 

equipment to support worldwide mission requirements. ECSS in partnership with 

the Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS) is a vital, 

initial step toward delivering required capability to achieve Chief Financial Officer 

(CFO) Act compliance. Additionally the predictive maintenance capability will help 

the Air Force depots prioritize workload allowing personnel to focus on key maintenance activities and also reduce long lead ordering for material, and improve the 

overall weapon system maintenance throughput. 

Mr. TURNER. The application of technology and education in developing our future 

Air Force leaders has been crucial in ensuring our technological edge against 

attackers, aggressors, and adversaries and future dominance in the air, space, and 

cyberspace—how does the DoD ensure that short-sighted cuts in R&D and education 

don’t have long-term consequences which cripple our future military capabilities and 

compromise our national defense? 

Secretary CONATON. The Air Force will maintain our total dollars invested in 

Science and Technology (S&T) and education programs, including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) programs. Within our programs, we 

will eliminate unnecessary work and overhead to shift more resources into S&T program content and improved delivery of training and education to our Airmen. 

We use our Air Force Corporate Structure and other Air Force organizations—including the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), the Chief Scientist, and his Technology 

Horizons study—to achieve a balanced S&T program that evaluates near-term requirements with long-term investments. We have also established an S&T strategic 

planning division and a special study Tiger Team to define governance and 

prioritization of important technology demonstrations in support of Air Force strategic priorities. We have submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense the Air 

Force FY12 budget, and we look forward to future discussions with members of the 

House Armed Services Committee after the FY12 President’s Budget is submitted. 

Mr. TURNER. The House IMPROVE ACT, (H.R. 5013) which I supported and 

House approved this April may result in savings up to $135B, included the Turner 

Amendment, which was unanimously adopted, and directed that best practices in 

Acquisition processes be institutionalized via education and curriculum. How important is the role of education in reducing costs in Acquisitions programs and what 

are some future initiatives which would help in the financial management of acquisition lifecycles? 

Secretary CONATON. Education and training are vital to reducing costs in acquisition programs as well as revitalizing our acquisition workforce—a key element is 

our Acquisition Improvement Plan (AIP). The AIP builds on lessons learned from 

past shortfalls in our procurement processes; but more importantly, it establishes 

five initiatives—revitalizing our acquisition workforce; improving the requirements 

generation process; instilling budget and financial discipline; improving major systems source selections; and establishing clear lines of authority and accountability 

within acquisition organizations. In completing these initiatives to ensure rigor, reliability, and transparency across the Air Force acquisition enterprise, we realize one 

thing is certain: a highly competent workforce is essential to achieving acquisition 

excellence. Therefore, developing a capable workforce requires finding the right people with the right attitude and then arming them with the education and training 

to ensure they are competent to perform their jobs. One of the areas we are currently focusing on is giving Program Managers the training and tools needed to effectively manage their program’s schedule and baseline. Ultimately, these acquisition professionals will be able to build incremental acquisition strategies that have 

a stronger probability of delivering warfighting systems sooner, on planned schedules and within predicted budgets. 

Because our workforce is so important, we are synchronizing their education and 

training with the most efficient processes, in effective organizational constructs and 

through tailored career paths. Our senior financial management professionals are 

fully engaged in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Business—Cost Estimating 

and Financial Management Functional Integrated Process Team (FIPT); bringing an 

Air Force perspective to these FIPTs which focus on certification standards and associated training curriculum requirements. We are establishing ways to improve the 

delivery and quality of courses and pursuing an opportunity to leverage a distance 

cost estimating master’s degree program. Tiger teams are also in place reviewing 
109 

financial management and acquisition roles, responsibilities, organizational alignments, etc. to enhance acquisition program performance. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN 

Mr. LARSEN. Do you believe that using Item Unique Identification (IUID) technology will help the Department of Defense do a better job managing its supply 

chain, which has been placed on the high-risk list by the Government Accountability 

Office? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Item Unique Identification (IUID) is one piece of the Department’s 

overall effort to achieve improvement in the area of Supply Chain Management. 

IUID can provide a standard approach to Serialized Item Management for the Department’s most critical and sensitive items and use a standard machine-readable 

mark for all IUID-eligible items procured by DoD. 

Mr. LARSEN. Has your office prepared a business case analysis on the benefits of 

IUID for both new and legacy items? If so, what were the key findings of these analyses? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer has not prepared a business case analysis on the benefits of IUID for new and legacy items. 

However, a cost benefit analysis published by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in March 2005 discussed an array of industry 

experiences with item marking technologies and potential sources of savings, but 

did not attempt to determine a precise return on investment due to the lack of data 

on the costs of existing processes. 

Mr. LARSEN. What goals have you set for the Department regarding the use of 

IUID technology, and what steps will you take to achieve those goals? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer has not set 

specific goals for the Department regarding the use of IUID technology. However, 

the Department is driving implementation of IUID technology through our defense 

business system investment management governance framework. As relevant defense business systems move through the Investment Review Board/Defense Business Systems Management Committee process for certification and approval of their 

funding, conditions are levied against them to achieve technology capability with 

IUID. To date, 46 systems have had these conditions levied against them, including 

both Enterprise Resource Planning Systems and other defense business systems. 

Mr. LARSEN. What efforts are being made at the Department of Defense and Defense Contract Management Agency to assist defense suppliers and the Services in 

meeting IUID policy adoption and implementation goals? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Under the leadership of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD has undertaken a wide variety of Web-based 

and face-to-face training efforts, as well as dissemination of informational newsletters, videos and an IUID quality assurance guide. Many of these efforts, developed and administered by a combination of the Defense Acquisition University, Defense Contract Management Agency, and Defense Procurement Acquisition Policy, 

included a broad user base of both DoD employees, DoD suppliers and other representatives from industry. DoD also participates in a standing industry liaison 

group sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association. 

Mr. LARSEN. Does DoD contract writing software automatically include IUID 

clause language on items being procured and meeting IUID policy threshold requirements? 

Ms. MCGRATH. For the Standard Procurement System, the clause is mandatory 

and requires contracting officer override to remove. For other contract writing systems, DoD measures compliance with IUID policy through sampling and review of 

contract language. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KISSELL 

Mr. KISSELL. Question for the Honorable Elizabeth McGrath, Deputy Chief Management Officer Department of Defense, the Honorable Joseph Westfall, Under Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Robert O. Work, Under Secretary of the Navy, 

the Honorable Erin Conaton, Under Secretary of the Air Force: ‘‘During the hearing 

each of the witnesses spoke about their Service’s efforts to adhere to the Secretary’s 

quest to find efficiencies within the Department of Defense and to provide the savings to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Who will decide how the money 

saved with a more efficient process is spent?’’ 

Ms. MCGRATH. Ultimately, Congress will decide how the Department’s savings 

will be applied to the Department of Defense and the Federal Government after the 
110 

President submits the budget request for Fiscal Year 2012. To develop budget request recommendations to the President, each of the Defense Agencies, Military Departments and Field Activities received guidance from the Secretary consistent with 

his speech on May 8th. The Secretary has urged the Components to seek efficiency 

in their headquarters and administrative functions, support activities and other 

overhead and apply those savings to the warfighter. That is, he asked the Components to transfer savings from bureaucratic ‘‘tail’’ to warfighting ‘‘tooth.’’ 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. OWENS 

Mr. OWENS. Earlier this year, Congress passed the IMPROVE Act, a bill to over- haul defense acquisition spending with the hopes of saving upwards of $135 billion 

in taxpayer funding. Do you see this effort as also having a positive effect on the 

Department’s efforts to address DOD specific items on the GAO’s high-risk list, such 

as Weapon Systems Acquisition or Financial Management? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The GAO High Risk Area of Weapon Systems Acquisition highlights that DoD is not receiving expected returns on its investments in weapon systems; programs continue to take longer, cost more and deliver fewer quantities and 

capabilities than originally planned; and processes for identifying warfighter needs, 

allocating resources and developing and procuring weapon systems are fragmented 

and broken. The IMPROVE Act’s sections on the performance of the defense acquisition system and workforce directly address these issues and help to strengthen 

many efforts already underway within the Department. As the Department’s Deputy 

Chief Management Officer, I would highlight the IMPROVE Act’s focus on performance management as extremely important. It is my view that when performance 

measures are appropriate and well defined, progress is made and people can be held 

accountable for results. They will also enable the Department’s acquisition leaders 

to make better informed decisions with more complete information. 

With regard to the GAO High Risk Area of Financial Management, the IMPROVE 

Act introduced new tools into the Department’s toolbox to help incentivize achievement of auditability by 2017. The Department agrees with the intent of the legislation emphasizing that accountability is a key aspect of achieving auditability. Prior 

to the IMPROVE Act the Department had a number of tools to incentivize behavior. 

While it is still too early to say exactly how the Department will utilize these new 

tools, I believe the Department’s current approach of focusing first on improving 

quality, accuracy and reliability of the financial and asset information used every 

day to manage the Department is a good approach that lays the foundation for 

achieving auditability with clear interim goals over the near and mid-term. 

Mr. OWENS. Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made in achieving 

full auditability so far? What barriers remain to achieving this goal, and is it possible the Department could hit its mark in advance of the 2017 deadline? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Achieving auditability is not an easy task for the Department. 

However, as the Deputy Chief Management Officer, I believe the current approach 

put in place by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is a sound one. The 

Department is focusing first on improving the quality, accuracy and reliability of the 

financial and asset information used every day to manage the Department with 

clear near and mid-term goals. This approach lays the foundation for achieving 

auditability in the most cost effective way, while simultaneously improving day-today management of our financial enterprise. The Department also created a strong 

governance framework to manage its audit readiness efforts and dedicated the necessary resources to the effort to achieve success. 

However, achieving auditability is also dependent on a number of factors—such 

as successful implementation of many defense business systems, including Enterprise Resource Planning Systems—that make it unlikely the Department will meet 

its objective in advance of the 2017 deadline. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CRITZ 

Mr. CRITZ. Do all service branches and the Department currently have the necessary financial and personnel resources to perform the analysis to identify the $7 

billion in savings called for in FY12 by Sec. Gates? Will any of the work to identify 

these savings need to be performed by contractors? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Defense Agencies and Military Departments have the necessary financial and personnel resources to develop their planning, programming 

and budgeting efforts for submission of the President’s budget request for Fiscal 

Year 2012. These submissions will reflect the savings called for by the Secretary. 

While inherently governmental work is performed by government employees, con-
111 

tractor involvement in the planning, programming and budgeting process varies by 

Component. 

Mr. CRITZ. What is the plan for the services to identify savings within their 

branches? Will it be a top-down approach with the comptrollers or Chief Management Officers (CMO) identifying areas to cut back? Or, will it be a bottom-up approach with each agency and unit tasked with finding savings? If it is a bottomup approach, how will the CMO’s ensure cooperation throughout the service? 

Ms. MCGRATH. The Secretary of Defense provided savings and efficiency goals to 

each of the Defense Agencies, Military Departments and Combatant Commanders, 

but he allowed them broad discretion on how to reach these goals. The Secretary 

particularly urged Components to seek efficiency in their headquarters and administrative functions, support activities and other overhead and apply those savings to 

the warfighter. That is, he asked Components to transfer savings from bureaucratic 

‘‘tail’’ to warfighting ‘‘tooth.’’ Apart from the Secretary’s broad guidance, Components developed their own methodology to achieve these goals. Component efforts 

to meet the Secretary’s goals and follow his guidance will be scrutinized as part of 

the annual Department of Defense budget build, i.e. the program review for President’s Budget 2012. 

Æ