department of defense appropriations for 2017 hearings committee on appropriations

481 Pages·2016·3.34 MB·English

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2017
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota
KEN CALVERT, California STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma TIM RYAN, Ohio
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas C.A.DUTCHRUPPERSBERGER,Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
ROB BLAIR, WALTER HEARNE, BROOKE BOYER, BG WRIGHT,
ADRIENNE RAMSAY, MEGAN MILAM, COLLIN LEE, CORNELL TEAGUE,
ALLISON DETERS, and MATTHEW BOWER
Staff Assistants
SHERRY L. YOUNG, Administrative Aide
PART 1
Page
FY 2017 Department of Defense Budget Overview ................................... 1
FY 2017 U.S. Navy/Marine Corps Budget Overview ................................ 113
FY 2017 U.S. Air Force Budget Overview .................................................... 235
FY 2017 U.S. Army Budget Overview ........................................................... 307
FY 2017 National Guard and Reserve .......................................................... 373
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22–432 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE´ E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C.A.DUTCHRUPPERSBERGER,Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director
(II)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2017
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET
OVERVIEW
WITNESSES
HON. ASHTON B. CARTER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR., USMC, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
HON. MIKE McCORD, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN FRELINGHUYSEN
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Good morning. The committee will come to
order. I thank all the members for being here, especially the big
chairman, Mr. Rogers.
I am pleased to welcome the 25th Secretary of Defense, Ashton
Carter. This is Dr. Carter’s second appearance before the sub-
committee as Secretary, although we know him well from his many
years of service to our Nation.
We also welcome General Joe Dunford, a great marine, Chair-
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Dr. Michael McCord, Comp-
troller of the Department.
Mr. Secretary, Prime Minister Winston Churchill observed 70
years ago, and I quote: ‘‘From what I have seen of our Russian
friends and allies during the war, I am convinced that there is
nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for
which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military
weakness.’’
Churchill was referring to the post-war leadership in Moscow,
but the same can be said today. I fear that, as I examine this ad-
ministration’s budget request, they have to be breathing a sigh of
relief. One year ago, in this same room, we were told by the Chair-
man of the Joint Chiefs that last year’s budget request represented
the lower ragged edge of resources the Department needs to carry
out its strategy. The budget request before us today is almost ex-
actly the same amount as last year’s, and yet this administration
now claims to provide robust funding for your Department.
Mr. Secretary, lower ragged edge or robust funding? The security
environment used by the Department to justify a shrinking Army
and Marine Corps, a smaller Navy, an older Air Force does not
exist. In fact, we face more serious threats, from more sources,
than at any time since World War II. Russia occupies Crimea and
continues to menace Ukraine, its neighbors, and our NATO part-
(1)
2
ners. China is building whole islands in the South China Sea and
militarizing them, yet this administration suggests cutting an al-
ready inadequate shipbuilding budget. Many of our gains in Af-
ghanistan have been reversed, while the Taliban and now ISIS
await our departure, and Iraq is barely better.
Iran’s global terrorist network just received a massive trans-
fusion of money and continues to challenge our interests and our
allies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and across the Middle East. Syria is
a living hell on earth, devolving even further by the day with Rus-
sian and Iranian sponsorship, and we seem to be deconflicting our
operations with both countries, hardly our allies.
ISIS has a major franchise in Libya, its base of operations in
North Africa, 160 miles of Mediterranean coastline. Terrorism is
like a cancer across the world, and this budget does not do enough
to hold its spread.
Moreover, many of us on this committee are concerned that this
budget mortgages future military capabilities to pay for today’s ur-
gent requirements.
Mr. Secretary, our Commander in Chief proclaimed in his State
of the Union address we spend more on our military than the next
eight nations combined, as if dollars and cents are the only yard-
stick by which we measure the effectiveness of our Armed Forces
and the strength of our global leadership. Our adversaries measure
our strength based on our military capability and our national will,
and currently those adversaries and some of our allies question
both. Members of our subcommittee hear this repeatedly from for-
eign leaders as we travel abroad and we meet them here at home,
as they watch our foes continually test us without consequence.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to bring to your attention a concern
that many share about the activities of the National Security Coun-
cil. It has come to our attention repeatedly that the rules of en-
gagement for our Special Forces and rules of engagement for our
conventional forces are being micromanaged right out of the White
House. I am sure you would agree that battlefield decisions should
be left to military professionals.
In closing, I can assure you that a bipartisan majority in Con-
gress stands ready to provide our Commander in Chief with the re-
sources that our military needs to meet challenges from Russia and
China, and defeat the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other lethal ter-
rorist groups, with or without the strategy that the law requires.
In fact, the 2016 NDAA required the administration to provide a
strategy to counter violent extremists in Syria by last week. We are
still waiting.
Now, having said that, I would like to turn the microphone over
to my ranking member, Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
OPENING REMARKS OF MR. VISCLOSKY
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding the hearing today.
And Secretary Carter, General Dunford, and Secretary McCord,
welcome to the hearing. I thank each of you for your commitment
to service.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my continued concern regarding
the self-inflicted uncertainty created by the Budget Control Act of
3
2011. Admittedly, I used much of my time at the fiscal year 2016
hearing for the same purpose, and although much has changed in
the last twelve months, including the enactment of the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2015 that mitigated the BCA caps for two years, it
is hard to argue that the Department of Defense or any Federal
agency is now appreciably better positioned to plan or budget for
the future.
It pains me to think about how much less efficient the Depart-
ment of Defense has been over the last six fiscal years, as it has
been forced to carry out our national defense strategy in an in-
creasingly unstable security environment that you have described,
while navigating the unpredictability of sequestration, of govern-
ment shutdown, vacillating budget caps, continuing resolutions,
and appropriations, through no fault of the full committee, that ar-
rive well into the next fiscal year. Even the least clairvoyant
among us can foresee the problems looming in fiscal year 2018.
The BCA was sold as a deficit-reduction tool, yet the Congres-
sional Budget Office projected that from 2016 to 2025, the cumu-
lative deficit will be $1.5 trillion more than the office projected in
August of 2015.
The prolonged inability of Congress and the administration to
find a consensus needed to replace it and its faux austerity policies
that truly address long-term drivers of our budget deficits, growth
in mandatory spending, and the lack of revenue is an abject failure.
On a positive note, despite the ongoing efforts in Congress to re-
negotiate the agreement of fiscal year 2017, I am guardedly opti-
mistic that the BBA will provide some predictability in this year’s
appropriations process. We have a number, and I hope that this
subcommittee under the chairman’s leadership will be allowed to
make the difficult and deliberate decisions needed to prioritize the
resources available to strengthen our defense and minimize the
risk of our Nation and those in uniform.
Secretary Carter, you have stated that this budget is a major in-
flection point for the Department and takes the long view. Further,
you have indicated this request favors innovation and readiness
posture over force structure. I was pleased to hear both those senti-
ments. But based on the outcomes of the last handful of budget re-
quests, I am skeptical, again, of any strategy, plan, or program
that is reliant on relief from the BCA caps in future years. I cer-
tainly understand the motivation behind DOD’s decision to assume
more funding in the outyears. However, I am worried that that as-
sumption may not come to fruition.
I assure you that I am committed to working with my colleagues
to find a lasting solution to our fiscal situation, which, again, ne-
cessitates addressing both revenue and mandatory spending.
In conclusion, I would simply also observe that I appreciate that
the much-anticipated plan for the closing of Guantanamo Bay de-
tention facility was transmitted to Congress earlier this week. I
hope that the plan is considered on its merit rather than to be re-
flexively rejected.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for holding the hear-
ing.
Gentlemen, I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
4
Chairman Rogers.
OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN ROGERS
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General Dunford, Secretary McCord, thank you
for being here. Thank you, more importantly, for your years of
service to your country. We appreciate that very much, and we
thank you for being here this morning for what is the first hearing
of this subcommittee for fiscal 2017. We have 21 hearings across
the committee this week. You are one of which, but we think very,
very important one of which.
For the fifth year in a row this subcommittee has been able to
pass a defense appropriations bill out of the House. I am confident
we can do the same this year. We know our troops and their fami-
lies are depending on it. Our only hope is that when we pass a bill
through this committee and on the floor of the House and send it
to the Senate, that they act, which they have refused to do for the
last several years. Consequently, we get into an omnibus negotia-
tion by necessity to keep from closing down the government. But
it is time the Senate acted on a bill. It is amazing.
Under your leadership, the men and women who serve in the
U.S. military answer the call time and again to leave their loved
ones, put themselves in harm’s way, execute challenging missions
abroad. We are mindful that our responsibility to support our allies
in need and respond to threats from our enemies imposes signifi-
cant demands on our troops. This committee appreciates their dedi-
cation and willingness to serve, and your leadership, amidst the
unprecedented challenges facing our Nation this day.
The global security environment continues to grow increasingly
complex and unpredictable, and the mounting threats we discussed
this time last year are still with us, and in some cases have in-
creased. Two years after the Russian annexation of Crimea, Rus-
sian aggression remains a threat to sovereign states in the region
and a considerable influence, of course, across the Middle East.
The Islamic State maintains its hold on population centers,
where it terrorizes innocent lives and has created an unlivable situ-
ation for countless Syrians, Iraqis, now even Libyans. We have
seen this conflict force the migration of millions of people, precipi-
tating an unprecedented humanitarian crisis across the Middle
East and Europe.
Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea continue to rattle their sabers,
while China exerts military strength in the Pacific.
Today, we will discuss with you many of these threats and how
your budget request addresses our ability to defeat them. However,
we continue to hear rhetoric from the administration that appears
to minimize or just flat out misunderstand the reality and the mag-
nitude of the threat that we face from violent extremism. Just this
week, the President announced his intention to close the Guanta-
namo Bay detention facility. At a time when the threat of terrorist
activity at home and abroad shows no signs of abating, the Presi-
dent is advocating for the transfer of known terrorists out of
United States custody to countries where we cannot control their
ability to return to the battlefield. For detainees that he believes
5
pose a continuing threat, he asks the American people to allow
them to be detained on American soil, in their own backyard.
As the President made the case that these prisoners will be sub-
ject to strong security measures while in the custody of other na-
tions, a former Guantanamo prisoner was arrested in North Africa
on terror charges. The Director of National Intelligence tells us
that 30 percent of the prisoners released from the facility have re-
engaged in terrorism, yet the President continues to argue that re-
leasing these prisoners will make us safer. That is twisted logic.
Once again, I am perplexed by the administration’s decision to
continue to prioritize this misguided campaign promise despite
clear direction from this Congress, not to mention the implications
for national security.
With Active Duty end strength set to decline further until 2017,
the conversation we will have today about responding to increas-
ingly complex threats across multiple regions, against enemies with
very different missions and capacities, becomes an even more com-
plicated matter.
The challenges you face are well documented. The demands they
place on our troops and our military leadership are great. I look
forward to discussing how this committee can best equip you to
lead in these uncertain times and respond to threats to American
security around the world.
This committee remains confident in your ability to lead and pro-
tect our troops and to ensure the safety of Americans at home and
abroad. You have our full support, and we deeply appreciate your
service and your commitment to our Nation and our service men
and women across the world.
Thank you.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, indeed, you have our full support, and the remarkable men
and women you represent, whether it is civilians or it is military,
are the best of America. And we are so proud of all volunteers
doing some remarkable things.
Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. Thank you for being with us.
Secretary CARTER. Thank you very much——
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your statement will be put in the record
and so forth.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY CARTER
Secretary CARTER. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Visclosky, thank you.
And all of you, thanks for what you said about the troops. That
means it all. That is what I wake up for every morning. I am sure
that is true of the chairman as well. They are the best of America,
and we are very proud to be associated with them, and I am very
pleased to hear you say the same things. It is good for them to hear
that too. So thank you. Thank you all very much.
And thanks for hosting me today, and in general for your stead-
fast support to the men and women of the Department of Defense,
military and civilian alike, who serve and defend our country all
over the world.
6
I am pleased to be here with Chairman Dunford to discuss Presi-
dent Obama’s 2017 defense budget, which marks, as was indicated,
a major inflection point for this Department. I am also pleased to
be discussing the budget first before this committee, which has
been a leader in securing the resources the Department needs.
In this budget, we are taking the long view. We have to, because
even as we fight today’s fights, we must also be prepared for what
might come 10, 20, 30 years down the road.
Last fall’s budget deal gave us much needed and much appre-
ciated stability. I want to thank you, all of you, your colleagues, for
coming together to pass that agreement.
The Bipartisan Budget Act set the size of our budget, which is
why our budget submission and my testimony focused on its shape,
changing that shape in fundamental but carefully considered ways
to adjust to a new strategic era and seize opportunities for the fu-
ture.
Let me describe the strategic assessment that drove our budget
decisions. First of all, it is evident that America is still today the
world’s foremost leader, partner, and underwriter of stability and
security in every region across the globe, as we have been since the
end of World War II. I was in Brussels the week before last meet-
ing with NATO defense ministers, as well as defense ministers of
the counter-ISIL military coalition, and I can tell you they all ap-
preciate the leadership from the Department of Defense of Amer-
ica.
As we continue to fulfill this enduring role, it is also evident that
we are entering a new strategic era. Today’s security environment
is dramatically different from the last 25 years, requiring new ways
of investing, new ways of operating.
Five evolving strategic challenges—namely Russia, which has al-
ready been mentioned, appropriately so, China, North Korea, Iran,
and terrorism, five—are now driving DOD’s planning and budg-
eting as reflected in this budget.
I want to focus first on our ongoing fight against terrorism and
especially ISIL, which we must and will deal a lasting defeat, most
immediately in its parent tumor in Iraq and Syria, but also where
it is metastasizing elsewhere in the world. We are doing that in Af-
rica. We are also doing it in Afghanistan, where we continue to
stand with the Afghan Government and people to counter Al Qaeda
and now ISIL, while at the same time, all the while, we protect our
homeland.
As we are accelerating our overall counter-ISIL campaign, we are
backing it up with increased funding in 2017 in our request, re-
questing $7.5 billion, which is 50 percent more than last year.
Just this week, following the progress we have made in Iraq by
retaking Ramadi, we have also made operationally significant
strides in our campaign to dismantle ISIL in Syria. There, capable
and motivated local forces, supported by the U.S. and our global co-
alition, have reclaimed territory surrounding the eastern Syrian
town of Shadadi, which is a critical ISIL base for command and
control, logistics, training, and oil revenues.
More importantly, by encircling and taking this town, we are
seeking to sever the last major northern artery between Raqqa and
Mosul, and ultimately dissect the parent tumor into two parts, one
7
in Iraq and the other in Syria. This is just the most recent example
of how we are effectively enabling and partnering with local forces
to help deal ISIL a lasting defeat.
Next, two of the other four challenges reflect a recognition of, a
return to in some ways, great power competition. One challenge is
in Europe, where we are taking a strong and balanced approach to
deter Russian aggression. We haven’t had to devote a significant
portion of our defense investment to this possibility for a quarter
century, but now we do.
The other challenge is in the Asia Pacific, where China is rising,
which is fine, but behaving aggressively, which is not. There, we
are continuing our rebalance in terms of weight of effort to main-
tain the regional stability we have underwritten for the past 70
years, allowing so many nations to rise and prosper in this, the sin-
gle most consequential region for America’s future.
Meanwhile, two other longstanding challenges pose threats in
specific regions. North Korea is one. That is why our forces on the
Korean Peninsula remain ready, as they say, to fight tonight.
The other is Iran, because while the nuclear accord is a good deal
for preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, we must still
deter Iranian aggression and counter Iran’s malign influence
against our friends and allies in the region, especially Israel, to
whom we maintain an unwavering and unbreakable commitment.
DOD must and will address all five of these challenges as part
of its mission to defend our country. Doing so requires new invest-
ments on our part, new postures in some regions, and also some
new and enhanced capabilities. For example, in confronting these
five challenges, we know we will have to deal with them across all
domains, and not just the usual air, land, and sea, but also particu-
larly the areas of cyber, electronic warfare, and space, where our
reliance on technology has given us great strengths and great op-
portunities, but also led to vulnerabilities that adversaries can seek
to exploit.
Key to our approach is being able to deter our most advanced
competitors. We must have and be seen to have the ability to en-
sure that anyone who starts a conflict with us will regret doing so.
To be clear, the U.S. military would fight very differently than
we have in Iraq and Afghanistan or in the rest of the world’s recent
memory. We will and must be prepared for a high end enemy, what
we call full spectrum. In our budget, our capabilities, our readiness,
and our actions, we must demonstrate to potential foes that if they
start a war, we have the capability to win, because a force meant
to deter conflict must show that it can dominate a conflict.
In this context, Russia and China are our most stressing com-
petitors, as they have both developed and continue to advance mili-
tary systems, including anti-access systems, that seek to threaten
our advantages in specific areas. We saw it last week in the South
China Sea. We see it in Crimea and Syria as well. In some cases,
they are developing weapons and ways of war that seek to achieve
their objectives rapidly, before they think we can respond.
Now, we don’t desire conflict with either country. And while I
need to say that they pose some similar challenges militarily, they
are very different nations, very different situations, and our pref-
erence is to work together with important nations. But we also can-
8
not blind ourselves to their apparent goals and actions. Because of
this, DOD has elevated their importance in our planning and our
budgeting.
In my written testimony, I have detailed how our budget makes
critical investments to help us better address these five evolving
challenges. We are strengthening our deterrence posture in Europe
by investing $3.4 billion for our European Reassurance Initiative,
quadruple what we requested last year. We are prioritizing train-
ing and readiness for our ground forces and reinvigorating the
readiness and modernization of our fighter aircraft fleet. We are in-
vesting in innovative capabilities like swarming 3D-printed micro-
drones, the Long Range Strike Bomber, and the arsenal plane, as
well as advanced munitions, like the maritime strike Tomahawk,
the long range antiship missile, and the newly antiship capable
SM–6 missile, in which we are investing nearly $3 billion to maxi-
mize production over the next 5 years.
We are emphasizing lethality in our Navy, with new weapons
and high end ships, and by extending our commanding lead in un-
dersea warfare, with new investments in unmanned undersea vehi-
cles, for example, more submarines with the versatile Virginia Pay-
load Module that triples their strike capacity from 12 Tomahawks
to 40 Tomahawks.
And we are doing more in cyber, electronic warfare, and in space,
investing in these three domains a combined total of $34 billion in
2017 to, among other things, help build our Cyber Mission Force,
develop next generation electronic jammers, and prepare for the
possibility of a conflict that extends into space.
In short, DOD will continue to ensure our dominance in all do-
mains.
As we do this, our budget also seizes opportunities for the future.
That is a responsibility I have to my successors, to ensure the mili-
tary and the Defense Department they inherit is just as strong,
just as fine, if not more so, than the one I have the privilege of
leading today.
That is why we are making increased investments in science and
technology and building new bridges to the amazing American in-
novative system to stay ahead of future threats. It is why we are
also innovating operationally, making our contingency plans and
operations more flexible and dynamic in every region.
It is why we are building what I have called the force of the fu-
ture, because as good as our technology is, it is nothing compared
to our people. And in the future, we need to continue to recruit and
retain the very best talent from future generations.
That is also why we are opening all combat positions to women,
as well as doing more to support military families, to improve re-
tention, and also to expand our access to 100 percent of America’s
population for our All-Volunteer Force.
And because we owe it to America’s taxpayers to spend our de-
fense dollars as wisely and responsibly as possible, we are also
pushing for needed reforms across the DOD enterprise, from con-
tinuously improving acquisitions, to further reducing overhead, to
proposing new changes to the Goldwater-Nichols Act that defines
much of our institutional organization.